• Report: #1000601

Complaint Review: Goldman Vicenti

  • Submitted: Mon, January 21, 2013
  • Updated: Sun, February 17, 2013

  • Reported By: Anonymous — Other United Kingdom
Goldman Vicenti
2 Cariocca Business Park Manchester, Select State/Province United States of America

Goldman Vicenti Ian Burrow This Company Will Rip You Off Manchester, Other

*Consumer Comment: Ian Burrow Admits to 'Gutting' House

*Consumer Comment: Ian Burrow Running Three Debt Collection Agencies

*Consumer Comment: Ian Burrow's Third ICSTIS Fine For Promoting Prostitution

*Consumer Comment: Ian Burrow's Second ICSTIS Fine for Promoting Prostitution

*Consumer Comment: Advice from Goldman Vicenti

*Consumer Comment: Ian Burrows of Goldman Vicenti is a rip off merchant

*Consumer Suggestion: Court Orders Closure of Goldman Vicenti

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Reply

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Goldman Vicenti is a Debt Collection Agency owned and run by a certain Ian Burrow. Ian Burrow is not a person you would want to do business with. Ian Burrow does not like to pay his own debts but he now he runs a business collecting other peoples debts.

Ian Burrow was fined on several occasions by ICSTIS for promoting prostitution in the UK. The fines totalled over 100,000; fines he never paid.

Ian Burrow ran a phone business called Mercury Telecom. Its customers lost their money and their phone lines when the company went bust. Ian Burrow was forced by OFCOM and the ombudsman to compensate customers, which he failed to do.

Ian Burrow was once arrested for attempting to blackmail a security company for 100,000 after getting hold of a computer that contained the security details for the famous footballer David Beckham.

Ian Burrows house was repossessed by the courts but Ian Burrow did not like the repossession order so he spent a whole week trashing the 750,000 house he was so fond of, removing floors, ceilings, cutting through roof trusses etc. The house was virtually worthless once the mortgage company took possession.

Ian Burrow is not averse to legal action. He owes many solicitors tens of thousands of pounds for the frivolous lawsuits he has pursued.

Ian Burrow does not even pay for leased premises he occupies. He obtains free rent for 1-2 years and simply moves on to new rent-free premises once the free period has expired.

Do business with Goldman Vicenti and Ian Burrow at your own peril.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/21/2013 12:11 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Goldman-Vicenti/Manchester-Select-StateProvince-M40-8BB/Goldman-Vicenti-Ian-Burrow-This-Company-Will-Rip-You-Off-Manchester-Other-1000601. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Goldman Vicenti

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 7Consumer 1Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

Ian Burrow Admits to 'Gutting' House

AUTHOR: - ()

Despite his denials on RipOff Report, Ian Burrow now admits to personal experience of 'gutting' a house prior to repossession...

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=75362&start=10#p316448

 

Ian Burrow's former colleague, Jason Holmes, even videoed the aftermath, after helping to Ian Burrow to gut his former home at 36 Huddersfield Road, Ingbirchworth, Penistone, S36 7GF...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HasAhNoJrRQ&list=UU6s_c6WzgBimyoGFGRk6t8g

 

The person you can see in the video is Ian Burrow himself!!!

 

 

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

Ian Burrow Running Three Debt Collection Agencies

AUTHOR: Malcolm - ()

Despite the closure of Goldman Vicenti Ltd by the High Court, Ian Burrow still has three debt collection agencies, two of which were set up after Goldman Vicenti was wound up in January 2013...

http://blog.safe-collections.com/another-cowboy-debt-collection-company-liquidated/

Ian Burrow was also involved in two other debt collection agencies with ex-Detective Sergeant Christopher Taylor. These two companies, Baker and Bond Ltd and Baker and Bond (UK) Ltd were also closed down by the Hight Court in January 2013...

http://ash-process-servers.co.uk/2013/03/debt-collection-firms-liquidated-after-probes-reveal-unacceptable-practices/

Ian Burrow ran Baker and Bond Ltd and Baker and Bond (UK) Ltd for ex-Detective Sergeant Christopher Taylor. Taylor, in turn, ran his own debt collection agency called First Debt Recvery Ltd, which received many complaints for upfront fees and failing to pass on collected debts to clients. Taylor is now serving a three and a half year prison sentence for money laundering the proceeds of fraudulent businesses run by a Toni Muldoon through the bank account of First Debt Recovery...

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Ex-Detective-Sergeant-Christopher-Taylor/Wakefield-Select-StateProvince-WF1-3BP/Ex-Detective-Sergeant-Christopher-Taylor-First-Debt-Recovery-Ltd-Advance-Fee-Fraud-Money-1043169

On 13 March, 2013 Ian Burrow served me with a pre-action letter from his solicitors, ES Legal. On 18 March I contacted ES Legal providing them with information about Ian Burrow. Within 35 minutes, I received an e-mail from ES Legal saying they no longer represented Ian Burrow, though they claimed this had nothing to do with me...

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/ES-Legal/internet/ES-Legal-Simon-Fagan-Trading-as-a-Solcitors-Practice-but-Unknown-to-Solicitos-Regulation-A-1044188

ES Legal subsequently wrote me another pre-action letter. This was not on behalf of Ian Burrow but on behalf of ES Legal and three solicitors who work there: Simon Fagan, Edward Judge and Colin Downie. In the bundle that accompanied that letter was a draft of that letter that addressed me as DEAR SH*T FOR BRAINS.

You can read more about ES Legal and its solicitors here...

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/ES-Legal/internet/ES-Legal-Simon-Fagan-Trading-as-a-Solcitors-Practice-but-Unknown-to-Solicitos-Regulation-A-1044188

Yesterday, 31 July 2013, I was visited by two Police Officers following a complaint made by Ian Burrow about the RipOff reports. Those officers were happy that no offence was being committed by me in publishing these reports.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

Ian Burrow's Third ICSTIS Fine For Promoting Prostitution

AUTHOR: Malcolm G - (United Kingdom)

ASSOCIATED INDIVIDUALS

The associated individual provisions in the Code of Practice enable ICSTIS, in cases where serious breaches of the Code have taken place, to formally name an individual and bar him or her from running or being associated with a company which operates premium rate services for a defined period.

Following serious wilful breaches of the Code, ICSTIS has recently named Huddersfield-based Ian Burrow, who operated as UK National and Powerful Phonetics Ltd, as an associated individual.

Despite UK National having been fined 5,000 and barred from operating adult entertainment services for one year in June 2000, Mr Burrow did not pay the fine and continued to operate services of an adult nature as a director of Powerful Phonetics Ltd, in total disregard of the adjudication. As a result, in June 2001 the service provider was fined 25,000 for non-payment of the earlier fine and 75,000 in respect of the most recent breaches


POWERFUL PHONETICS LTD
SUMMARY OF Final Adjudication
BACKGROUND

This matter concerned the service provider, Ian Burrow t/a UK National, who, under a previous adjudication dated 22 June 2000, had been fined 5,000 and barred from operating adult entertainment services for a period of one year. The fine was not paid and so a letter was sent by the Secretariat to the network operator, Telewest Communications plc, advising them that a breach of paragraph 5.7.2f of the eighth edition of the ICSTIS Code of Practice (non-payment of a fine) had been upheld and that access should be barred to all numbers allocated to Ian Burrow t/a UK National until the fine was paid.

The emergency procedure was invoked on 1 March 2001 when the Secretariat discovered that Ian Burrow t/a UK National and Powerful Phonetics Ltd, of which Mr Ian Burrow is a director, were operating adult entertainment services and adult pay-for-product services, the latter without prior permission. The service provider, via his solicitor Mr Williams of Williams Solicitors, requested an oral hearing and one was arranged for 14 June.

A fax was received by Mr John Trotter, of Bates Wells and Braithwaite representing the Secretariat, on 12 June from Mr Williams stating that Mr Burrow had been advised by counsel to resolve a dispute with Telewest Communications plc before dealing with the oral hearing. However, no documents were supplied to verify this. Neither Mr Burrow or his legal representative attended the oral hearing. As no sufficient reason had been given for the regulatory process not to proceed, the hearing proceeded.

Mr Trotter referred the Hearing Panel to the breaches which had been raised against the service provider by the Secretariat and, in the service provider's absence, presented the Hearing Panel with the service provider's responses contained in their correspondence.

THE ALLEGED BREACHES

Paragraph 5.7.2, eighth edition

It appeared that adult entertainment services were still being operated by UK National contrary to the one-year bar on access imposed in the adjudication of 22 June 2000.

Paragraph 2.3.1, eighth edition

Powerful Phonetics Ltd were operating adult pay-for-product services, charged at 1.00 per minute and with a total call cost in excess of 5.00, without obtaining prior permission.

Paragraph 3.8, eighth editionThe service claimed that the product on offer, a video, would be 'free' to callers despite calls lasting approximately 17 minutes at a cost of approximately 17.00.

Paragraph 2.7, eighth edition

Powerful Phonetics Ltd had knowingly engaged or permitted the involvement of Mr Burrow as an associated individual subject to a recommendation under paragraph 5.7.2 made at the hearing of 22 June 2000.

With regard to the alleged breaches of paragraphs 5.7.2, 2.3.1 and 3.8, Mr Trotter presented the Hearing Panel with documentary evidence, including letters from Powerful Phonetics Ltd and its legal representative, which accepted that they had been operating premium rate services despite the previous bar imposed on Ian Burrow t/a UK National. The Hearing Panel was also provided with a transcript of the pay-for-product service which showed that the service cost more than 5.00 in total and used the word 'free'.

With regard to paragraph 2.7, Mr Trotter maintained that there was no dispute. Mr Trotter reasoned that Mr Burrow, as the person having conduct of matters within UK National and Powerful Phonetics Ltd, could not have had a more direct or greater knowledge of his situation as one against whom a previous recommendation under paragraph 5.7.2 had been made and that he should be named as an 'associated individual' as defined in paragraph 1.4.5 of the Code.

Mr Trotter concluded that it was clear from Mr Burrow's own letter of 22 March 2001 to Simon Read of Telewest Communications Plc that he had continued to operate adult entertainment and pay-for-product services of an adult nature despite the earlier adjudication of 22 June 2000. As Mr Burrow t/a UK National had plainly disregarded this adjudication, Mr Trotter asked for sanctions to be imposed accordingly.

THE DECISION

Having considered all of the evidence, the Hearing Panel upheld breaches of paragraphs 5.7.2, 2.3.1, 3.8, 2.7 and 5.2.3 of the eighth edition of the ICSTIS Code of Practice, and found that these amounted to serious breaches. As a result, the Hearing Panel imposed a fine of 75,000 in respect of these breaches, together with a further fine of 25,000 in respect of non-payment of the previous fine of 5,000 imposed on 22 June 2000.

In addition, the Hearing Panel barred the service provider from operating any adult entertainment or adult pay-for-product services for a period of two years and was minded to name Mr Burrow as an associated individual knowingly involved in a serious breach of the Code. On this latter point, the Hearing Panel stated that, if Mr Burrow wished, it was prepared to sit on 8 August 2001 to hear any representations he might wish to make.

The Hearing Panel also requested that all networks be informed of the existence of the bar on access from June 2000 and of the decision to impose a further two-year bar on access from 22 June 2001.

Hearing Panel: Sir John Bailey

Joe Simpson

Mary Symes

14 June 2001


POWERFUL PHONETICS LTD

SUMMARY OF 'ASSOCIATED INDIVIDUAL' Adjudication

BACKGROUND

At an earlier oral hearing on 22 June 2001, breaches of paragraphs 5.7.2, 2.3.1, 3.8, 2.7 and 5.2.3 of the eighth edition of the ICSTIS Code of Practice were upheld against the service provider. The Hearing Panel imposed a fine of 75,000 on the service provider, together with a further fine of 25,000 in respect of non-payment of an earlier fine of 5,000 imposed on 22 June 2000.

The Hearing Panel also barred the service provider from operating any adult entertainment or adult pay-for-product services for a period of two years and was minded to name Mr Ian Burrow, a director of Powerful Phonetics Ltd, as an associated individual knowingly involved in a serious breach of the Code. On this latter point, the Hearing Panel stated that, if Mr Burrow wished, it was prepared to sit on 8 August 2001 to hear any representations he might wish to make. The Hearing Panel also requested that all networks be informed of the existence of a bar on access from June 2000 and of the decision to impose a further two-year bar on access from 22 June 2001.

THE HEARING

On 7 August, Bates Wells and Braithwaite, representing the Secretariat, received a fax from Mr Williams of Williams Solicitors, representing Mr Burrow, stating that neither he nor his client would be attending the following day's hearing. No request to postpone or adjourn the hearing was made. However, Mr Williams had attached a statement prepared by Mr Burrow for consideration by the Hearing Panel in his absence. This was duly circulated to members of the Hearing Panel.

Mr Robert Oakley appeared on behalf of Bates Wells and Braithwaite and presented the case against Mr Burrow. As Mr Burrow had declared in his statement that he would abide by what the Hearing Panel thought was 'right in the matter', the oral hearing proceeded. Arguments were presented to support Mr Burrow being named as an associated individual as well as the defence offered in his statement.

Mr Oakley reasoned that Mr Burrow, originally trading as UK National, was aware that, in June 2000, he had been barred from operating adult entertainment services for a period of one year and fined 5,000. Despite this, he had continued to operate services of an adult nature as a director of Powerful Phonetics Ltd. It was evident that Mr Burrow had shown total disregard for the adjudication and should therefore be named as an associated individual under paragraph 5.7.2e of the eighth edition of the ICSTIS Code of Practice. Mr Oakley also explained that the definition of an associated individual, as set out in paragraph 1.4.5 of the Code, was applicable directly to Mr Burrow. Mr Oakley maintained that Mr Burrow's statement offered no new relevant evidence and failed to offer any satisfactory reasons as to why a decision to name him as an associated individual should not be made.

THE DECISION

Having considered all of the evidence, the Hearing Panel adjudicated that, in addition to the sanctions imposed on 22 June 2001, Mr Ian Burrow should be named as an associated individual according to paragraph 1.4.5 of the eighth edition of the ICSTIS Code of Practice for a period of two years to 23 June 2003.

Hearing Panel: Sir John Bailey

Joe Simpson

Mary Symes

8 August 2001 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Comment

Ian Burrow's Second ICSTIS Fine for Promoting Prostitution

AUTHOR: Malcolm G - (United Kingdom)

Mr Ian Burrow, trading as UK National

The case against Mr Ian Burrow, trading as UK National, was originally brought before ICSTIS in December 1998 following a complaint about an adult recorded service which appeared to facilitate prostitution and was promoted in a non-top shelf publication. As a result, the Committee imposed a fine of 2,000 on Mr Burrow.

Further complaints were received by ICSTIS in August 1999 and these led the Committee to impose a fine of 5,000 on Mr Burrow. The services in both cases were essentially the same and appeared simply to have migrated to a different number range, despite Mr Burrow having assured ICSTIS that they had, in fact, been terminated.

The Committee decided that it was minded to name Mr Burrow as an associated individual under paragraph 5.7.2(e) and an oral hearing took place on 22 June 2000. The Committee imposed one fine of 5,000 on Mr Burrow and barred him from operating adult entertainment services for a period of a year. The associated individual clause was not upheld.
 
IAN BURROW/UK NATIONAL

Final Adjudication   

This matter concerned a service which invited callers to ring various premium rate telephone numbers. Callers would listen to a sexually explicit recorded message, during which various sexual services were offered, and were then given an alternative telephone number to ring to enable them to arrange a "personal appointment". The service appeared to be promoting or facilitating prostitution, contrary to paragraph 3.2.3 of the Eighth Edition of the ICSTIS Code of Practice. In light of the Panel's decision to bar the numbers for one year, to impose a fine of 5,000, and to indicate that it was minded to name Mr Burrow pursuant to paragraph 5.7.2 (e) of the Code, an oral hearing was arranged and held on 22 June 2000.

The service provider, trading as UK National, was established and run by Mr Ian Burrow, who effectively operated the service as a sole trader. Mr Burrow was present at the hearing and was represented by Mr Williams of Williams Solicitors. We heard direct oral evidence from Mr Burrow, who also supplied documentary evidence in the form of signed declarations. Mr Burrow also submitted a "warning" page from his website. In addition, we considered evidence from Mr Suhail Bhat on behalf of the Secretariat. The Secretariat was represented by Mr Trotter of Bates Wells & Braithwaite.

The circumstances surrounding the oral hearing were as follows.

In November 1998 the Secretariat received a complaint about a recorded adult entertainment service which was advertised in a non-top shelf magazine with no pricing information. Following investigation of the service it transpired that the service was owned by Mr Burrow, under the name UK National. On 4th November 1998 the Secretariat sent Mr Burrow a letter setting out breaches of the ICSTIS Code. It was accepted by the Secretariat that Mr Burrow had addressed two of the breaches (in relation to pricing information and contact details). However the Secretariat considered that the most significant breach of the Code was that of paragraph 3.2.3, which provides that service providers must use all reasonable endeavours to ensure the services and promotional material are not used to promote or facilitate prostitution. We noted that, although in general parlance the word "prostitution" might be taken to mean full sexual intercourse, the legal definition of prostitution does not require full intercourse to have taken place and that masturbation in the course of a massage would suffice. In any event, Mr Burrow's services appeared to offer full intercourse.

The Secretariat provided transcripts of some of the recorded messages. One of the telephone numbers connected the caller to a message recorded by a lady who introduced herself as "Jade". She then offered various sexually explicit services. At the end of the call she provided a contact number so that the caller could arrange a personal appointment.

Mr Burrow made representations, the case was considered by the Committee and on 9 December 1998 a fine of 2,000 was imposed.

The evidence before us indicated that prior to Mr Burrow being notified about the breaches, the Code requirements in relation to the promotion and facilitation of prostitution had been brought to his attention: Mr Burrow had applied for permission to run a live premium rate service. The application described the proposed service as one which would place callers with escort agencies. When the Secretariat enquired how Mr Burrow would ensure that the service did not promote or facilitate prostitution, the application was withdrawn. At the hearing, Mr Burrow explained that the application had been withdrawn because he had learned that operating by using recorded messages would be more cost-efficient than operating a live service.

Mr Burrow, and others acting on his behalf, made representations to the Secretariat regarding the breaches, which culminated in a letter dated 11 August 1999 from Williams Solicitors, to the Secretariat. Williams informed the Secretariat that Mr Burrow had "ceased all messages and advertising". However, shortly after receiving this letter the Secretariat investigated a website on the Internet after receiving a complaint about it. The site was one established and run by Mr Burrow. The Secretariat provided us with printouts of various pages from the website. The printouts contained material of a sexually explicit nature which invited callers to ring a premium rate telephone number. The Secretariat discovered that when callers rang the number they were offered services of a sexual nature and at the end of the call were given an alternative telephone number which they could ring to arrange a personal appointment.

We noted that despite Williams' letter indicating that Mr Burrow had ceased all messages and advertising, rather than withdrawing his services, Mr Burrow had simply moved the services so that they were accessed through a different format via an 0181 number. However, the service was essentially the same and appeared to be offering or facilitating prostitution through premium rate numbers, as well as breaching six other provisions of the Code. The Secretariat provided transcripts of some of the telephone numbers. One of the recordings, by a woman who introduced herself as "Jade", was virtually identical to the "Jade" recording made nearly one year previously. Accordingly, on 19 August 1999, a further seven apparent breaches of the Code were notified to Mr Burrow.

Although ICSTIS extended the time limit for Mr Burrow to make representations, no defence to the breaches was provided, and a fine of 5,000 was imposed. Given the circumstances and the severity of the breaches, the Committee considered that Mr Burrow should be barred under paragraph 5.7.2 (e) from operating adult entertainment services. Mr Burrow subsequently requested an oral hearing. That hearing was arranged but subsequently adjourned until 22 June 2000.

Mr Burrow accepted that his services appeared to promote or facilitate prostitution but submitted that he had used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that they did not, and had therefore not breached the Code. We accepted that if Mr Burrow had used all reasonable endeavours to ensure the service did not facilitate or promote prostitution, he would not have breached paragraph 3.2.3 of the Code. In this regard, Mr Burrow, through his solicitor, provided evidence in the form of declarations, which Mr Burrow submitted were dictated to him by a representative of the network operator, Torch, signed by the "escorts" and dated August 1998. These declarations confirmed that the escorts would not be engaged in prostitution. The declarations appeared to have been signed in 1998, although no addresses or contact details had been given. We also noted that despite numerous written representations between Mr Burrow and third parties acting on his behalf and the Secretariat over the course of the previous months, the existence of these declarations was not brought to the Secretariat's attention until the day of the hearing.

Mr Burrow submitted that he had received advice from a barrister engaged by the Premium Rate Association, who had advised him that his services were not in breach of paragraph 3.2.3 the Code. Mr Burrow also explained that he had taken advice from network operators, including Torch and the legal department at Telewest. Torch and Telewest also checked the advertising material and listened to the recorded messages. Torch, Telewest, the Premium Rate Association and the barrister engaged by the Premium Rate Association all advised Mr Burrow that his services were not breaching paragraph 3.2.3 of the Code. Mr Burrow further submitted that he had had promotional material approved by the Secretariat. Mr Burrow went on to explain that, since he was new to the industry, he had taken advice from those he considered to be the most appropriate bodies to ask, had obtained signed declarations, had received legal advice, had used all reasonable endeavours and had therefore not breached the Code.

We noted that despite the first breaches of the Code having been raised several months previously, Mr Burrow had not raised any of these matters before. We also noted that Mr Burrow could not identify who at the Secretariat had provided copy advice for the promotional material or when that was done. We also noted that the Secretariat's policy is to make such advice in writing. Mr Burrow provided no written confirmation of any advice and the Secretariat was unaware of any such advice having been given. We further noted that Mr Burrow had not submitted any written evidence from anyone at Torch, Telewest, or the Premium Rate Association. A barrister's opinion was not supplied, nor had any of these parties been called as witnesses.Mr Burrow further submitted that his website had a "warning" page which explained that the material was of a sexually explicit nature and was for adults only. He further informed us that his website had been deleted and shut down two months prior to the hearing in any event. He provided printouts of the first page you see when you visit Mr Burrow's website. The document did indeed indicate that the content of the website was strictly for adults and would be of an explicit nature. However, despite Mr Burrow's assurances, the page appeared to have been printed out only two days previously, indicating that in fact the site was still fully operational. Mr Burrow also confirmed to the Panel that he was still receiving revenue cheques from the website.

Finally, Mr Burrow submitted that if the breaches were upheld, the fine was excessive in relation to his income and a ban was unreasonable.There is absolutely no question that prostitution has been promoted or facilitated through the services provided by Mr Burrow. He recognised this fact himself. In the light of the actual content of the services we give no credence to the statements signed by those who placed messages on the service. No direct evidence has been provided to us in respect of advice to Mr Burrow other than from Mr Burrow himself. Given that the content is so plain we have great difficulty in believing that network operators, let alone a barrister, would give advice that the service was not likely to promote or facilitate prostitution. Indeed we do not accept that clear, fully informed, confident advice to that effect can have been given.

Mr Trotter submitted to us that when the content absolutely without doubt does promote or facilitate prostitution and that is obvious, then there is no reasonable endeavour that can be taken which can ensure that paragraph 3.2.3 will not be breached other than changing the message. We agree with that.

We carefully considered the submissions made by Mr Burrow and his solicitor, the documentary evidence supplied by both Mr Burrow and the Secretariat, and oral evidence from the Secretariat. The Panel concluded that Mr Burrow was well aware of the Code requirements in relation to the promotion or facilitation of prostitution, and that despite the matter being brought to his attention on more than one occasion, Mr Burrow had chosen to continue to operate the services anyway. The Panel further concluded that Mr Burrow had not used reasonable endeavours to ensure no further breaches occurred. Taking all matters into account, the Panel's decision is:

(i) that the service provider, Mr Burrow, should be barred from operating adult entertainment services for a period of one year;

(ii) in light of the submissions made by Mr Burrow regarding his financial position, the Panel considered that the overall outstanding fines totalling 7,000 should be reduced to 5,000. 

Committee: Sir John Bailey

Baroness Gould

Joe Simpson

22 June 2000
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Consumer Comment

Advice from Goldman Vicenti

AUTHOR: Malcolm Girling - (United Kingdom)

Goldman Vicenti had some very good advice on its website about pursuing directors personally for the debts of a company subject to a Winding-Up order. So, you may wish to pursue Ian Burrow (the only director of Goldman Vicenti) for any debts owed to you by Goldman Vicenti. by following that advice.

Here is the Google cache of that advice from the now defunct Goldman Vicenti website...

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:y9SLA3CDfoMJ:www.goldmanvicenti.co.uk/debt-recovery-services/insolvency-management/+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk


I know that the advice given on Goldman Vicenti's website is excellent advice as that advice was copied verbatim from the website of a well-established insolvency firm, Daniels Silverman...

http://www.danielssilverman.co.uk/services.php?sid=1
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment

Ian Burrows of Goldman Vicenti is a rip off merchant

AUTHOR: SusanaDL - (United States of America)

Ian burrows recovered a debt for my company succesfully, he then spent weeks telling me a member of his staff had stolen the recovered funds and that they were performing an internal audit nd would then pay me my money back. Less than 3 days later they were insolvent, so this man Ian Burrows stole my money in full knowledge of what he was doing and had no shame in lying to me.

I will be reporting him to the Metropolitan Police for Fraud, and will be including the e mails from his staff. I also have e mails from Ian Burrows himself proving this fraud. This man is a disgrace and a thief and should be prosecuted and I will do everything I can to ensure that this is investigated fully by the Police.







Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Suggestion

Court Orders Closure of Goldman Vicenti

AUTHOR: Malcolm Girling - (United Kingdom)

Goldman Vicenti was closed down by order of the High Court on 24 January, 2013. According to the Official Receiver, a petition was made to the High Court by the Secretary of State to wind-up Goldman Vicenti following an investigation by the Companies Investigation Branch. Here are the details of the winding-up order gleaned from the London Gazette...


Date: 1 February 2013 Issue Number: 60408 Page number: 1989

Publication Date: Friday, 1 February 2013

Notice Code: 2452

Winding-Up Orders

GOLDMAN VICENTI LIMITED

(Company Number 07818410)

Address of Registered Office: SUITE 72, CARIOCCA BUSINESS PARK, 2 SAWLEY ROAD, MANCHESTER, M40 8BB .

In the Manchester District Registry     No 2057 of 2013

Date of Filing Petition: 16 January 2013.

Date of Winding-up Order: 24 January 2013.

Official Receiver: K Beasley 2nd Floor, 3 Piccadilly Place, London Road, MANCHESTER,M1 3BN, telephone: 0161 234 8531, email: Piu.North@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk

Liquidator
24 January 2013.

(1754770)

Mr. Ian Burrow still owns a company called Goldman Vicenti Recovery Ltd. I would suggest that anyone chased for debts by Ian Burrow or Goldman Vicenti Recovery Ltd report that fact to the Official Receiver:

K Beasley 2nd Floor, 3 Piccadilly Place, London Road, MANCHESTER,M1 3BN, telephone: 0161 234 8531, email: Piu.North@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#8 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Reply

AUTHOR: Ian Burrow - (United Kingdom)

This "report" was posted by a sad individual called Malcolm Girling from Humberside area.  He has nothing better to do that stalk people.  He has stalked me for 4 years before.

His allegations are simply nonsense and yet again I will have to report him to the Police.

I would urge the owners of this site to remove his defamatory posts without delay or I will be forced to apply for an injunction to force the removal of same.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
X