Woman Sues Dating Agency After They Fail to Find Her a Rich Husband

Woman Sues Dating Agency After They Fail to Find Her a Rich Husband

I do think that some dating sites (or agencies) are guilty of what this woman claims – she said before she paid up to join, the dating agency showed her photos of eligible men that she was interested in, but once she paid them money, they didn’t match her up with those men.

Back when a friend talked me into joining dating sites, I joined one and paid for a few months. During that time, I was sent about one match per month. The minute my membership expired, the site stopped sending me matches.

This went on for a few years until I just deleted my profile on there. I think they had plenty of matches for me but didn’t want to set me up with them until and unless I paid up membership fees again.

(Link): Woman Sues Dating Agency After They Fail to Find Her a Rich Husband

June 2018

A woman is suing an ‘exclusive’ dating agency for damages after she failed to find a rich husband to have a child with.

Tereza Burki, 46, went to Seventy Thirty Ltd in a hunt for ‘possibly the man of my dreams, the father of my child’, she told The High Court.

But the divorced mum-of-three claims she was let down by the agency, which she says enticed her with extravagant marketing claims about how many ‘wealthy, eligible, available men’ it had on its books.

The management consultant is now suing the agency for return of the £12,600 membership fee she paid and additional damages for ‘distress, upset, disappointment and frustration.

The Knightsbridge-based agency – which claims on its website to be the ‘ultimate network of influential and exceptional single people’ – is is counter-suing for £75,000, claiming libel over scathing reviews she published online.

They said that out of 9,000 clients they had on their books, 70 of them fit Miss Burki’s criteria. Each of these had a ‘high net worth’ and she was offered six matches, all who were in the same age bracket and were open to having children.

Miss Burki was looking for a high-earning international jet-setter, and says she joined the agency after being shown profiles of men she liked in 2014. But she claims she not put in touch with a single one of those and whose profiles had been shown to her before she paid the membership fee.

Her barrister, Jonathan Edwards told Judge Richard Parkes QC: ‘You shouldn’t promise people who are in a fragile state of mind, in their mid-40s, the man of their dreams.

‘You are entrusting a service you believe is professional, who will take care of your interests and have your best interests at heart.’

Miss Burki, who lives in a street in Chelsea where flats go for over £3 million, said she had paid thousands to join and did not want to be matched to men who had not paid a penny.

She said that men who didn’t pay were less likely to be committed to finding a partner and might not be as well-off as they claimed.

She had expected an ‘in-depth analysis of characters, a whole scientific approach’ to finding her a soulmate.

Backing her claim, another former female member, who cannot be named, said: ‘My issue with some of the profiles was they weren’t available. These people weren’t engaged in wanting to meet somebody.’

Mr Edwards said Miss Burki had been particularly interested in one particular man she had been shown before her membership became live. ‘Miss Burki believes that she was sent those details to persuade her to pay up the rest of the money,’ he said.

…But, representing the company, barrister Lisa Lacob said the database had always contained a ‘substantial number’ of men who were suitable for Miss Burki’s requirements.

The company had at least 1,000 people who would have been actively seeking matches at the time, but their data base had 9,000 members.

The company claims that Miss Burki’s reviews on Google and Yelp, referring to Seventy Thirty as a ‘scam’ and ‘fraudulent’, were a ‘malicious’ attempt  to ruin the business.

They had caused at least three prospective clients not to join up – costing the company at least £43,000 in membership fees, said Miss Lacob. Miss Burki denies defamation and malicious falsehood, saying her words reflected her honestly held views of the service she received.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s