Dev Match Ltd., James McConnell, and the Refund That Never Came

TL;DR: A year ago today, I paid a UK‑registered company called Dev Match Ltd. £570 for a secondhand iPad. It never arrived. Instead, I received months of increasingly duplicitous and elaborate excuses from its director, James Kieran McConnell (formerly James Wharton according to Companies House filings), before he blocked all contact and took the company website offline. I have since won a County Court Judgment against Dev Match Ltd., which remains unpaid. I have since heard from others who have lost a total of over £40,000 in the same pattern, to the same person. This is my full record.

Here is an article I never expected to write. For the sake of staying on the right side of the law, I can't outright say 'I was scammed by James Kieran McConnell from Dev Match Ltd. via LinkedIn'. What I can say with confidence is that I very strongly believe that I was defrauded in a transaction involving James Kieran McConnell of Dev Match Ltd. via LinkedIn. Based on direct testimonies I have personally received and public accounts now visible online, I also firmly believe that he has repeated this same pattern with many other people, and continues to do so, too.

What follows is a documented account of how a straightforward purchase from a company called Dev Match Ltd. ‑ a used iPad for my daughter ‑ turned into months of delays, hundreds of messages, hours of self‑indulgent monologues from James on the phone and via voice notes, repeated promises, excuses, shifting company names, a vanishing online presence, a supposed merger and rebrand, his eventual disappearance from all communication, and ultimately a County Court Judgment against its director, James Kieran McConnell, which remains unpaid to this day.

I paid. The goods never arrived. It has now been a full year since that payment, and the promised refund remains outstanding. Instead, over many months, I received a continuous stream of excuses ranging from banking AI failures and KYC compliance checks to system migrations, personal crises and 'fund delays beyond their control'. Every claim, date and commitment in this article is drawn from verifiable evidence: invoices, Companies House records, LinkedIn logs, WhatsApp transcripts, emails and the final CCJ.

Before publishing this article, I sent McConnell a full copy and invited his comments or corrections, using all the communication channels he had previously used to contact me, including email, phone, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and the contact forms on the new websites he has since published. He has not responded.

I share this experience with you today in the hopes that perhaps others may not fall for similar ploys in the future. I thought I was reasonably savvy online (I have, after all, been building it myself for the past twenty‑three years). And yet, here we are.

An Introduction and a Disclaimer

Today I'm talking specifically about Dev Match Ltd., registered in the United Kingdom under company number 13474747, previously using a correspondence address at 71‑75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London. In February 2026, the registered office and officer service address were changed at Companies House to a residential address in Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire ‑ a property from which McConnell had been evicted a year earlier due to non‑payment of rent. I'm also discussing the actions and representations of the company's director, James Kieran McConnell, as documented through my direct communications with him.

During my interactions with McConnell, the company name appeared in multiple different forms: 'Dev Match', 'DevMatch', 'Dev‑Match', and at times 'Dev Match PCB', although it's unclear what 'PCB' is supposed to stand for. These variants were used in email signatures, LinkedIn outreach, WhatsApp business profiles and payment instructions.

For clarity and record:

• There are other businesses operating under similar names, in the UK and internationally. This article does not refer to them.
• What follows concerns only Dev Match Ltd. (13474747) and the conduct of James Kieran McConnell, as evidenced in records I hold. Communication with McConnell took place via:

  • iMessage/SMS

    via 07857 872434.

  • WhatsApp

    via 07857 872434, as a verified business profile.

  • LinkedIn

    messages via a profile using the name 'Katie Wilkin', now either deleted or inaccessible, with some messages the account originally sent me now flagged by LinkedIn as potentially harmful content.

  • Phone calls

    lasting up to an hour at a time, during which he expanded on banking issues, 'system migrations,' and personal circumstances. He also used the forwarding number 0333 358 2228 for this.

  • Email

    via @dev‑match.co.uk addresses, including james@dev‑match.co.uk, plus sender identities which, based on the pattern of communication, appeared to be aliases used to give the impression of a staffed operation: ali@dev‑match.co.uk (signed as 'Alison Pebs' or 'Ali Pebs') and incomms@dev‑match.co.uk (signed as 'Martin Knowles'), alongside other @dev‑match.co.uk notification and communications addresses.
• Evidence retained includes: iMessage and SMS messages (over 150 spanning more than six months), full WhatsApp chat exports (over 200 messages spanning several months), emails (more than 30), LinkedIn conversation logs, the original invoice (KDL‑SRP‑001) and payment receipt, audio call summaries based on call follow‑up texts, Companies House records, testimony from his former landlord, the operator of the business centre he claimed to operate Dev Match from, and others, and a County Court Judgment issued against Dev Match Ltd. after McConnell failed to respond to either me or the courts.

The Purchase

Everything began with what appeared to be a perfectly innocent surplus hardware offer via LinkedIn, from someone I already had in my connections: 'Katie Wilkin'. 'She' had added me as a connection in April of 2018 (nearly seven years earlier), although I did not know her personally and had never spoken with her in person.

Her message claimed that the company she worked for (Dev Match Ltd.) had recently relocated offices and was clearing unused equipment ‑ MacBooks, GPUs, iPads, desks, monitors ‑ usual tech startup detritus. It read like the kind of internal hardware clear‑out that happens when a company restructures or pivots; something I am familiar with from personal experience.

Because 'Katie' had been connected with me for so long, this wasn't a cold approach. That familiarity, combined with the apparent legitimacy of Dev Match Ltd. as a VAT‑registered UK company, with the listings on the company's website (dev‑match.co.uk), made the proposition seem entirely credible.

We discussed the iPad specifically: a 12.9" M1 iPad Pro, 512GB, Wi‑Fi model, along with the Apple Pencil and a sketchboard‑style stand. This seemed like a good opportunity to replace my own ageing iPad, and the additional stand and pen would turn it into a great tool for my young daughter's growing artistic side.

After a few back‑and‑forth messages, she confirmed that I could 'have the lot for £570 and we'll pay for delivery'. It's important to note that this is roughly how much they were being sold for as refurbished at CeX at the time, so it wasn't a 'too good to be true' scenario.

As I walked down the hill to fetch my youngest daughter from nursery less than an hour later, the phone rang, and I was introduced to James for the first time. A very talkative but well‑spoken and charming man, this was my first experience of James, and it was a sign of things to come. He kept me on the phone much longer than was necessary, talking quickly and over‑sharing about his company, how a contractor had bought all of this 'treasure' on the company credit card and then left, so it had all been sitting in their office for many months.

I had to cut him off for the sake of collecting my daughter, and the invoice we had agreed arrived in my inbox a few moments later, this time from the company's Financial Controller, a lady called 'Alison Pebs', with the Dev Match email address ali@dev‑match.co.uk.

'Alison Pebs' would later appear frequently in James's explanations, supposedly handling courier labels, chasing the banking department, and managing refunds. At the time, I believed I was communicating with an actual financial controller, because the email signatures, tone and operational language were consistent with what one might expect from a small tech business. Only later, after the company vanished and the correspondence was reviewed chronologically, did it become clear that her role, alongside the persona presented as 'Katie', served as part of an internal narrative designed to make Dev Match appear staffed and legitimate.

There was nothing about this invoice that set off any red flags. It was formatted correctly, used correct VAT terminology, referenced a real registered company with valid filings visible on Companies House, and came from a company email domain matching the trading name. It looked like a routine B2B equipment purchase. Nothing more.

I made the payment. £570 was taken from my business account and deposited directly into a Dev Match Ltd. business bank account via ANNA Monday. I received a 'PAID' confirmation shortly after. At this point, I genuinely believed the next thing I would receive would be a tracking number. This was the last point in this story where it resembled anything approaching a normal transaction.

It is worth noting that two months later, whilst I was still waiting for any update on the iPad I had already paid for, 'Katie' sent me almost the exact same surplus hardware pitch again, as if the previous transaction had never happened. I'll return to that later on.

The First Delays: Still Polite, Still Plausible

At first, nothing felt out of place.

After I paid the invoice, I received a polite confirmation and a friendly 'We will get that packaged up for you' message. I didn't chase because there was no reason to. In any normal small company setup, a minor delay wouldn't even register as suspicious.

The tone of the communication at this point was still casual but cooperative, apologetic but confident; just professional enough to feel legitimate, bue informal enough to feel personal.

The first reason given (around a week after my purchase) for the delay was, in isolation, completely reasonable: the iPad was at their Reading office, and needed to be factory reset before shipping. After they did manage to get a member of staff to the office, it came to light that because it had been sitting uncharged for so long, it would not take a charge and needed a trip to Apple (which also needed to be orchestrated) to reset it. He even included supposed screenshots from Slack to affirm this, making it feel, at the time, like he was being transparent and operating inside a real company workflow.

This didn't seem at all suspicious to me. I have owned an M1 MacBook which experienced a similar issue, and it's a well‑documented problem with this particular chip if left to fully discharge. It was just specific enough to feel authentic, and not the kind of vague excuse you'd expect from someone stalling.

He was very apologetic, calling to apologise and explain in minute detail. It just seemed like a normal tech‑bro, slightly‑messy‑operation vibe; it was funny, we made jokes. I accepted what he was saying at face value and understood that there would be a brief delay in my iPad shipping.

Those Slack screenshots felt convincing: an employee updating a colleague, a device behaving strangely, and an everyday office annoyance. Only with hindsight, and in light of later events, does it become clear that the most plausible explanation is that these were not genuine internal conversations at all. Instead, they appear to have been constructed exchanges designed to give the impression of a staffed and operational company, when in reality the activity I was seeing came from a single individual.

The craziest thing about that stage is that, looking back at these interactions, I can see myself apologising to him for the inconvenience of having to chase him about his delay in sending me the iPad I had bought. It is a classic inversion tactic: the customer (me) starts to absorb the emotional burden.

The Upsell: Expanding the Funnel Before Delivering Anything

Before the iPad had even been shipped ‑ whilst it was, according to him, still uncharged and waiting for someone at Apple to reset it ‑ James messaged again. It wasn't about the delay this time; it was about him attempting to sell me more things.

He asked if I had friends or colleagues who might also want to jump in on 'a combined shipment discount', talking about bundles, proxy fulfilment, and reducing internal admin time. To me, it read more like lead generation than order fulfilment.

This, in retrospect, is significant. Before he had fulfilled the first transaction, he was already trying to widen the scope. I didn't realise it at the time, but that push to get more people involved before delivering a single item is a pattern that will repeat itself throughout this story.

I am very lucky I didn't agree, and that didn't pull anyone I knew into this with me. I did not yet recognise this for what it was: an attempt to draw more people in despite having delivered nothing at all.

A Second Sales Pitch: As If the First Transaction Never Happened

On 21 March 2025, I received another near‑identical sales message, this time once again from the 'Katie Wilkin' LinkedIn profile.

This was almost word‑for‑word the same script that 'she' had used back in January when initiating the first sale. I believe that this suggests one of two possibilities:

• Assuming that 'Katie' is actually an alternative account for James (which I strongly believe to be the case), he was manually running the same LinkedIn pitch sequence again to multiple people without tracking who had already paid.
• Or this was an automated outreach campaign still running in the background, continuing to solicit new 'customers' even while existing ones were still waiting for goods or refunds.

This later became one of the strongest indicators that 'Katie' was not an independent employee but another one of James's personas. The reuse of the same script, the identical phrasing, and the timing ‑ arriving while James was simultaneously sending me long operational updates ‑ make it extremely unlikely that this was a separate staff member operating autonomously.

In either scenario, this reinforces the same pattern: lead generation continued even as fulfilment collapses. At the time, I thought it was a funny mistake, still believing that 'Katie' was a real person.

Where the Tone Begins to Shift

Up to this point, there was no outright breach of trust. We're about a month past the date he had promised to deliver, but there have been delays, apologies, and that unexpected upsell pitch. There's nothing yet that would justify accusing anyone of wrongdoing, just a slightly chaotic business that hadn't yet shipped my order.

However, looking back now with the benefit of hindsight, this is the moment where things begin to tilt. A subtle tonal shift happens in the messages. I'm left to chase each time, and the updates become more rambling, the explanations more detailed than necessary, filling paragraphs with technical‑sounding internal chatter about Slack threads, contractors, AI compliance checks, staff movements, and 'things outside their control'.

I became averse to speaking to him on the phone because every call was at least a forty‑minute monologue where he would talk about anything and everything: his personal woes, staffing issues, problems with his bank and payment providers. I found myself losing hours to his rambling, self‑indulgent calls and messages, hours taken directly from my family, time we will never get back.

At the time, I read it as over‑communication. In reality, it was misdirection through excessive detail. This is a pattern I now recognise quite clearly:

1. Give a believable operational excuse.
2. Add a layer of unnecessary internal detail to sound authentic.
3. Apologise warmly.
4. Reset expectations with a new date: 'tomorrow', 'by Friday', 'as soon as the courier slot opens'.
5. Repeat.

I didn't see that loop forming at the time. I was still in 'reasonable customer mode' and trying to be understanding. It is surreal reading those messages back. At the time, I still believed I was dealing with a small team inside a real company.

A Chronology of Excuses and Deferred Promises

From this point onward, everything becomes date‑bound. What had started as a simple purchase had already dragged on for more than a month, turning into a cycle; a predictable rhythm of promise, delay, reassurance, new date, repeated over and over.

What follows is a forensic reconstruction of that cycle, using timestamped messages exactly as I received them. I am no longer describing events; I am presenting the record.

Part 1: The Initial Purchase & Early Delays

1. 31 January 2025: The 'AI‑Powered' Payment

   
   Invoice issued from ali@dev‑match.co.uk (signed as 'Alison Pebs ‑ Financial Controller'). Immediately after I pay the £570 invoice, James claims the payment hasn't processed correctly because their banking system is 'powered by an AI and it can be a tad temperamental'. He claims that the 'bot' didn't know what to do with the transaction. The invoice status is eventually marked 'PAID' in their invoicing system.

2. 04 February 2025: Office Chaos and a Payroll Abyss

   
   James apologises for a lack of updates, claiming he arrived to 'utter chaos' involving contractor payroll being stuck in a 'Barclays abyss'. He promises that 'Alison' is heading to the office the next morning to ship the iPad.

3. 06 February 2025: The Power Button Problem

   
   Instead of shipping, James claims that 'Alison' is at the office but doesn't know how to turn the iPad on. He sends a screenshot of a text conversation where she seemingly confuses the power button, creating a scene of 'anti‑Apple' incompetence to explain the delay.

4. 07 February 2025: AppleCare, Charging, and the Reset Plan

   
   James claims that the iPad has been 'sat unused in its box' too long and needs a 'good charge'. He proposes that they will switch the AppleCare to my email address and then perform a 'factory reset/update' before shipping.

5. 07 February 2025 (PM): The Trip to London That Never Happened

   
   Later the same day, James admits that the iPad isn't holding a charge. He claims he is trying to 'convince someone to take it into London to get it to power up', or get it looked at by Apple.

6. 14 February 2025: Battery on Its 'Last Legs'
   

   James claims the battery is 'on its last legs' and is looking for a charger amidst 'short notice site cover', delaying the update again.

7. 17 February 2025: Upselling Before Delivery

   
   Despite not delivering my iPad, James attempts to sell further items to me and my connections with the offer of a discount, having not yet delivered the item I've already purchased. I decline.

8. 27 February 2025: 'Next on List'

   
   Having heard nothing for ten days, I chase again. James claims they are in a session until 4 PM, but that I 'shall be next on list [sic]' to get the item sorted and shipped.

9. 03 March 2025: The Futurebuild Expo Excuse

   
   James excuses his further silence by claiming the team is at the 'Futurebuild expo' for the week. He blames a colleague, 'Dan', for failing to add the shipment to his to‑do list.

10. 04 March 2025: Refund, Mentioned Casually for the First Time

    
    James admits that the delay is 'a thorn in our side' and offers to head down on Friday to send it. For the first time, he casually offers a 'refund + a token of apology' if preferred. At this point, I still believe that this iPad might exist, so I suggest we revisit the refund option if they are unable to ship in the coming days.

By this stage well over a month had passed since my initial payment. The conversation shifted from 'when will it ship?' to 'where is my money?', but the cycle of delays remained exactly the same.

Part 2: Refund Theatre & Banking Systems

1. 11 March 2025: 'We Should Have Hit the Refund Button'

   
   James claims 'man down since Thursday' (staff shortage). He admits they should have 'pushed the refund button... some time ago' and promises to process a refund 'this afternoon'. He does not.

2. 17 March 2025: The Missing Payment Run

   
   When I chase the missing refund a week later, James claims I was included in 'last week's payment run' and that the date should be on a remittance confirmation I never received. He blames 'time‑strain induced incompetence' on his part.

3. 20 March 2025: The Remittance That Never Arrived

   
   James sends a screenshot of a 'Remittance Advice' email dated 19 March, ostensibly proving that the £570 refund and £75 compensation have been sent via BACS. I never received this supposed email, but this now buys him weeks of 'clearing time'.

4. 04 April 2025: 'Sloth at the DMV'
   

   

   When the funds don't arrive, James blames his clearing house (PayUK), comparing them to the 'Sloth at the DMV from the Disney film'. Perhaps he had been watching Zootopia at the time. In hindsight, this was a joke designed to disarm me. By turning a financial failure on his part into a shared cultural meme, he forced me into the position of a 'friendly peer' chuckling along with him, rather than an angry customer demanding my money back.

5. 10 April 2025: The Amazon Replacement Diversion

   
   James claims that because the refund is stuck, they have purchased a 'reasonably priced like‑for‑like' iPad from 'Amazon Biz open‑box' to send to me instead. He promises it has a 12‑month warranty. Much like the original iPad purchased, this is never shipped and never gets mentioned again.

6. 14 April 2025: Groundhog Day Banking

   
   James blames 'MFA' (Multi‑Factor Authentication) issues for processing delays. He jokes that the banking team is 'proposing a rewatch of Groundhog Day'.

7. 16 April 2025: The Drive‑By Promise

   
   James claims his partner is driving by Princes Risborough and will 'grab the M1 Pro + Bits' personally. He promises that by 1 PM the next day, either the refund or the iPad will be on its way.

8. 17 April 2025: Make the iPad Great Again

   
   

   

   James sends an AI‑generated image of an iPad with a red MAGA hat perched on top of it, reading 'MAKE THE iPAD GREAT AGAIN'. At this stage, professional norms had evaporated entirely. I was chasing a significant sum of money that he owed me, and James was replying with memes. It felt less like a business dispute and more like I was being trolled.

9. 22 April 2025: A Chocolate Hangover

   
   After the Easter weekend, James apologises for the silence, referencing a 'chocolate hangover', and promises I will be 'first on our list' within the next couple of hours.

10. 25 April 2025: The VAT Gaslight

    
    Out of the blue, and ignoring his promise three days earlier, James suddenly asks if I received a VAT receipt for my original purchase. He claims the delay is because I didn't pay VAT, causing '70,000,000 AML/KYC flags'. When I prove I did pay VAT, he blames a 'mismatched invoice' error in his system.

11. 

12. 25 April 2025 (PM): The M3 iPad Distraction
    

    Later the same day (and after I chase from the morning's VAT conversation), James claims 'It's time to sort this' and sends screenshots of Trustnet performance charts, distracting from the issue. He offers to buy me a brand new M3 iPad Air from Amazon, then claims he 'misunderstood' the specs and goes silent again.

13. 28 April 2025: Vouchers, Gift Cards, and Compliance Humans

    
    James claims to attempt a new workaround: using a company 'incentives account' (PerfectGift) to send me a prepaid Mastercard or Apple Vouchers. He later claims 'actual human' compliance staff have flagged this attempt, so it will not work.

14. 28 April 2025 (PM): Legal Action as a Favour

    
    Following the failure of the vouchers, and in a moment of bizarre candour, James messages me to ask 'A genuine and slightly outlandish question: would they sort their shit out if your company either threatened us with, or presented us with court papers?' He framed my potential lawsuit not as a threat to him, but as a favour, as a tool he could use to unblock his own internal bureaucracy.

15. 29 April 2025: Letter Before Action Acknowledged

    
    Acting on his suggestion, I issue a formal 'Letter Before Action'. James immediately acknowledges it, acting as if the legal pressure I was applying to him was a helpful development in forcing his internal teams to act, rather than a warning.

16. 03 May 2025: Enter 'Martin'

    
    James introduces 'Martin', the 'Lead for all of their UK SME Ops', who has supposedly flown in from the US and is suffering from jet lag. He tries to arrange a call between Martin and me; I refuse.

17. 06 May 2025: The SAR That Went Nowhere

    
    Attempting to force transparency, I submitted a formal Subject Access Request (SAR) under UK GDPR to obtain the 'internal notes' and 'AI analysis' that James keeps citing as the source of the delays. James acknowledges receipt within five minutes, messaging: 'Please accept this as acknowledgement... with which we shall comply'. As with the refund, the statutory 30‑day deadline passes with no data ever being released. I have since reported this breach to the ICO.

18. 12 May 2025: Incident Report Promised

    
    James claims they are compiling an incident report on the company's failings around this sale. He claims that he wants to process an 'increased compensatory gesture'.

19. 15 May 2025: Detachment Day Scheduled

    
    James claims they have a confirmed date for 'detachment' from their Managed Fund's platform (whom they blame for every failure to issue a refund to date) on Friday, 30^th May, which will allow them to regain control of their funds and process the long‑awaited refund the same day.

20. 16 May 2025: The 'Martin Knowles' Settlement

    
    Following my refusal to speak to 'Martin' on the phone, I received a formal email from incomms@dev‑match.co.uk, signed by 'Martin Knowles, UK SME Operations Lead'. The email formally confirmed that the 'scheduled migration' would complete on Friday, 30 May. Crucially, it inflated the promise to buy my silence: offering a 'compensatory payment of £1500.00' alongside the £570 refund. This was another tactic: a formal‑looking legal document promising a large payout, but setting the date exactly two weeks in the future.
    

    

The 'confirmed' date of Friday 30^th May passed without payment or notification. When communication finally resumed nearly two weeks later, James's formal emails had been abandoned in favour of WhatsApp, and the narrative had reset once again.

Part 3: A Portal, Compliance, and Collapse

1. 11 June 2025: Move to WhatsApp

   
   James shifts communication to WhatsApp (a verified business profile) and posts a scripted update about 'platform migration'. I am assured that my refund will be processed soon and that there is nothing I can do but wait.

2. 19 June 2025: GoCardless and the Payment Queue

   
   James claims the system migration is complete and that outgoing payments are 'successfully queued' via GoCardless.

3. 24 June 2025: 'Compliance Has Been Passed'

   
   James posts an update stating 'Compliance has been passed', and they are awaiting an ETA for funds to hit the UK Faster Payments stream.

4. 27 June 2025: The Portal & Queue Screenshots
   

   

   James claims that the backlog of payments is being processed. He promises a 'temporary portal link' to track my queue position. Later, he sends a screenshot showing 'Batch 6/14' processing and blames 'DMARC and DKIM' for emails not arriving.

5. 30 June 2025: Maintenance Weekend

   
   James claims weekend maintenance delayed the run. He sends a new screenshot of a payment queue showing position '94/143'.

6. June 2025: Evicted From His Rental Home

   
   I now understand that around this time, McConnell was evicted from his rented property in Princes Risborough. His former landlord later stated that this followed a prolonged period of unpaid rent and significant property damage, and that their new tenants have since faced ongoing disruption from bailiffs and post connected to McConnell's debts. This detail matters because it aligns with the same pattern seen elsewhere in this timeline: prolonged assurances, shifting explanations, and consequences landing on other people once accountability disappears.

7. 01 July 2025: 'Stretched to the Absolute Limit'

   
   After still not receiving the promised refund, I gently chase again. James lashes back, claiming that they are 'stretched to the absolute limit' and cannot keep checking the portal. He insists payments are 'in the queue' and will arrive when they arrive.

8. 02 July 2025: Blaming Airwallex

   
   James explicitly blames their old provider, Airwallex, for the 'endless problems' and claims the current queue is moving 'painfully slowly'.

9. 04 July 2025: The Friday Miracle

   
   James sends a message exclaiming, 'It worked!?' and sends a GIF celebrating the arrival of a login link. He acts as if we had achieved a shared victory, celebrating with me. The link ostensibly allows me to track my payment, but the data never loads. In reality, he had just sent me a broken link to a fake portal (which I now know he also sent to a number of other people) to buy himself another weekend of peace.

10. 08 July 2025: 'Shift + F5'

    
    No further updates from James until I point out that the portal is stuck at 81% and has been for several days. James asks me to 'try a quick Shift + F5' (force refresh) and sends a photograph supposedly from the same system. This does not at all reflect what I'm able to view via 'my' portal login.

11. 

12. 10 July 2025: The SIC Code Excuse

    
    James claims payments are failing specifically because of the 'SIC Nature of Business code (Hardware Sales)'. He also claims an 'unpleasant contractor' is abusing his colleague, Ali.

13. 11 July 2025: Drafts with Revolut

    
    James claims all 'stragglers' (failed payments) have been duplicated as drafts in a Revolut account to be sent manually.

14. 11 July 2025 (PM): Mockery, Threats and The Dare

    
    James jokes about 'time travelling back to the 90s' to pay me in cash. When I fail to find this funny, he mocks his own 'AI' excuse by replying: '{{Insufficient tokens. Please add credit to your iPad account}}'. As the conversation deteriorates, he dares me to take legal action, messaging: 'Or escalate as you see fit... Regardless, the above stands'. He warns me that his tolerance is 'close to zero' and threatens to block me immediately if I continue to push.

15. 14 July 2025: 'Processed This Afternoon'

    
    James claims that the remaining 'straggler' payments will be 'processed this afternoon' outside of the queuing system. This does not happen.

16. 15 July 2025: Hospital Photos and Personal Hardship
    

    When I chase the missed payment from the day before, James claims he is 'out of office'. He sends a photo of a hospital hallway/drip, implying a medical emergency is the cause of the delay. He also appears to have used similar claims elsewhere; his former landlord later stated that had McConnell told them years earlier that he was dying from a rare brain illness, with months left to live.

17. 17 July 2025: The Ultimatum
    

    James becomes aggressive, telling me to 'Keep your opinions to yourself'. He attempts to shut down my complaints by presenting legal action as a binary choice, messaging: 'Either accept where we are... Or Proceed with action'. Moments later, he doubles down: 'Your options are above. Pick one'. He demands that I 'Pick a location, time, and day' for him to come to my home and deliver cash in person. We agree on the following Thursday at 10 AM. He doesn't show up.

    

18. 25 July 2025: A Play for Sympathy

    
    When he doesn't show up I mention that my daughter had missed an important hospital appointment because he had failed on yet another of his promises, James counters with a graphic medical story of his own: 'Just keep stapling different things to different parts of my skull and hope the brainstem repairs itself'. This was a manipulation masterclass; he 'out‑suffered' me by painting himself as the greater victim. He made my refund request look petty by comparison.

19. 25 July 2025: The Final 'Glitch'

    
    In the same conversation, he posts a generic update claiming 'Merchant Services' are live again and that payments should clear by Monday. This is the last I hear from James.

20. 15 August 2025: Silence

    
    I messaged a few times further, asking for updates. There is no response. He doesn't pick up his phone , nor reply to emails addressed to him or his other various personas.

All Channels Go Dark

The final 'channel update' from Dev Match I received on Friday 25^th July claimed that all their issues with Revolut had been resolved, including an apparent screenshot from a conversation with Revolut's customer services, and that all outstanding payments should be made shortly.

As expected, no refund arrives.

Immediately after this, Dev Match and McConnell disappear completely from communication. Within days:

• The Dev Match website goes offline.
• Emails to *@dev‑match.co.uk addresses begin bouncing or go unanswered.
• The WhatsApp Business profile stops responding; messages no longer deliver, the blue ticks vanish, and it becomes clear that my number has been blocked.
• The 0333 358 2228 company number and James's mobile number (07857 872434) are both permanently busy, and calls to the mobile return a non‑connection message, consistent with the handset blocking incoming calls from my number.
• No further responses appear on LinkedIn; both McConnell's and the official Dev Match accounts disappear.
• The 'Katie Wilkin' profile also vanishes, with her earlier messages re‑labelled by LinkedIn as harmful content.

Dev Match Ltd. effectively ceases to exist in any active online capacity. However, despite this complete blackout, Companies House simultaneously registers a fresh filing of Dev Match's Micro Company Accounts, showing the company to be active, retaining profits, and holding nearly £70,000 in capital and reserves. PDF downloaded from Companies House filings on 27^th October 2025.

This was the moment it became clear that the months of operational detail, staff conversations, shifting timelines and elaborate explanations had not been evidence of a struggling company at all, but the mechanics of a deception coming to an end. There was no longer even a pretence of resolution; everything simply collapsed into silence.

A Trail of Defunct Companies

With the timeline of my personal experience now concluded ‑ and unanswered ‑ it is worth documenting the wider company ecosystem surrounding James Kieran McConnell.

One of the reasons this worked at all is because Dev Match Ltd. is ‑ on paper at least ‑ a legitimate UK‑registered company with a real Companies House number, a London address, and VAT registration. That lends credibility. When someone can point you to an active listing on Companies House, complete with director names, SIC codes and filings, it lowers suspicion. It did for me.

All of the companies listed below are linked directly to their Companies House pages, so that anyone reading this can verify every detail independently, without having to take my word for it.

Dev Match Ltd.

• Company No.

  13474747

• Status:

  Active

• Director:

  James Kieran McConnell

This is the company that issued the invoice for the iPad, and the company against which I later obtained a County Court Judgment after receiving no response from McConnell or the company to the court claim.

PCB Technologies Ltd. (Now Slalom Ltd.)

• Company No.

  15532373

• Status:

  Active

• Director:

  James Kieran McConnell

Originally incorporated as 'PCB Technologies Ltd.', later renamed to 'Slalom Ltd.' The 'PCB' nomenclature also appears in my communications with McConnell, where he occasionally referred to his business as 'Dev Match PCB'. It's worth noting that I've had no direct dealings with this company, although I've since spoken with others who describe strikingly similar experiences under this company name ‑ and even the same telephone number ‑ suggesting that McConnell may have continued the same pattern with this company too.

There are also two entirely separate companies called 'Slalom LLC' (operating internationally) and 'Slalom Consulting Limited' (based in the UK), which, to be absolutely clear, do not have anything whatsoever to do with McConnell or this article, as far as I am aware.

Source Code Personnel Ltd.

• Company No.

  10039547

• Status:

  In liquidation

• Director:

  James Kieran McConnell

Companies House filings show a large director's loan account balance owed by McConnell, arising after Source Code Personnel secured a Bounce Back Loan. According to the official liquidation notes, this loan was renegotiated down to a little over 10% of the amount owed, but the liquidator records that repayments have not been made in line with the agreed schedule. PDF copies of these filings were downloaded from Companies House on 21 November 2025.

Local PDFs here downloaded from Companies House filings on 21^st November 2025

Sharely Ltd.

• Company No.

  12628743

• Status:

  Dissolved / struck off

• Director:

  James Kieran McConnell

Another company previously attributed to McConnell, now removed from the register after ceasing to trade and not filing further accounts.

Other Companies Attributed to McConnell

James has two profiles on Companies House under James McConnell and James Kieran McConnell. This history shows multiple short‑lived companies, some renamed, some simply struck off for failure to file accounts or confirmation statements.

I should be clear here: I am not speculating on intent, but simply listing what is displayed on the Companies House register.

Registered Addresses and Operating Pattern

It's also worth noting that none of these companies appear to operate from a genuine trading address. Dev Match Ltd., Slalom Ltd., Source Code Personnel and the rest are all registered to serviced office or mailbox‑style addresses, such as 71–75 Shelton Street in Covent Garden, which is used by thousands of companies via virtual office providers.

However, McConnell's personal residential address does appear in some filings, including historic director appointment documents and liquidation notes, first in Cheshire and later updated to an address in Princes Risborough, where he is believed to have lived until around June 2025. His former landlord later stated that McConnell was evicted from the property at that time following a prolonged period of unpaid rent and significant property damage. These addresses are from official records filed by him or on his behalf and are available in the public Companies House documentation.

I include these details ‑ again ‑ not to speculate, but to demonstrate an established and consistent pattern: front‑facing company identity via serviced addresses, with personal involvement only visible in deeper filings, not in the customer‑facing material presented during transactions.

Others Begin to Speak

Whilst Dev Match Ltd. has vanished from every channel available to me, public traces of similar experiences began to surface elsewhere. All of a sudden, a flurry of negative reviews appeared on Trustpilot, describing almost identical patterns: payments taken, long threads of elaborate excuses, and no delivery or refund.

Search results begin to shift, terms like 'Dev Match scam', 'James McConnell scammer', and 'James McConnell refund' start surfacing in Google's Autocomplete. A site named dev‑match‑scam.co.uk appears in Google, clearly created by others attempting to publicly document, support others, and warn future buyers. I should be very clear at this point: I have had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the development or contents on that website.

The tone of these external reports matches my experience with disturbing precision ‑ not just in outcome, but in style: the delays, the warmth, the operational jargon, the emotional hooks, the final disappearance.

By this point, the most striking thing was no longer just the absence of a refund ‑ it was the extraordinary amount of time, fiction, channel‑hopping, narrative invention and emotional performance that McConnell had poured into avoiding paying back £570. The labour of maintaining the fiction had grown larger than the money itself.

The pattern I had experienced alone was now appearing in public, described by others in almost identical terms.

Legal escalation becomes inevitable.

What This Looked Like in Practice

Up to this point, this record has relied almost entirely on written evidence: invoices, timestamps, emails, and court judgments. Text alone, however, cannot convey tone.

One of the reasons this pattern proved effective is that James McConnell did not present as overtly hostile or evasive. In recorded communications, he spoke fluently and casually, adopting the manner of a chaotic but personable tech founder rather than someone engaged in a dispute over unpaid goods.

During the same period that my own refund was being delayed by what were described as 'banking glitches', McConnell was recording and sending video updates like the one below to other individuals in similar situations. This video was not sent to me. It was recorded for another person while my own case remained unresolved.

The video is included here as a primary source. It is presented unedited and without commentary. It shows the setting in which these assurances were delivered, the tone adopted, and the ease with which explanations were offered.

The content and manner of delivery closely mirror the written communications I personally received, and as documented throughout this article.

Legal Action: Letter Before Action, Court Proceedings, and a CCJ

This is where the story transitions from digital theatre to real‑world legal consequences. By late April, after months of circular explanations, emotional appeals, and increasingly elaborate internal 'system' narratives, McConnell suggested something unexpected.

He told me that if I issued a Letter Before Action, it would force Dev Match's compliance team to release the funds, implying that legal pressure from a customer could be used as an internal escalation tool within his own company.

Taking him at his word ‑ and still operating in good faith ‑ I issued a formal Letter Before Action on 29 April 2025, addressed to Dev Match Ltd., at their 71‑75 Shelton Street address (the same as listed on both the invoice and the Companies House register), as well as via email. McConnell acknowledged receipt of the letter almost immediately.

Nothing happened.

Weeks passed. The refund did not materialise. Communication continued briefly, still full of apology, still full of 'just one more banking batch run' optimism, but no money ever arrived.

As I've documented above, eventually, all communication ceased entirely, and McConnell essentially attempted to remove himself from the internet ‑ phone stopped working, WhatsApp went silent, the LinkedIn accounts attached to his business disappeared, the website disappeared, and SMS and emails went unanswered.

The company stopped responding in every channel, except one. The official Companies House record, still listing Dev Match Ltd. as an active company with assets and liquidity, submitted a fresh set of accounts (PDF downloaded from Companies House filings on 27^th October 2025) for the previous year (admittedly filed a few weeks late).

So I proceeded with formal legal enforcement, as McConnell had actively encouraged me to do on many occasions.

I filed a claim with the County Court via Money Claim Online, naming Dev Match Ltd. (Company No. 13474747) as the defendant. I even posted a copy of the claim to his known home address in Princes Risborough, which I now know he had been evicted from some months earlier. No acknowledgement of service was filed. No defence was submitted. No attempt at settlement was made. The court waited the full deadline period. McConnell did not respond to the judiciary any more than he had responded to me.

The court entered a Judgment in Default. A County Court Judgment (CCJ) is now officially registered against Dev Match Ltd. for the unpaid amount plus court fees.

The judgment remains unpaid, and I am not the only one. McConnell shows no indication that he intends to settle his debts (or those of his company).

Winning a judgment, of course, is not the same as being paid.

McConnell's Movements Since

Despite the County Court Judgment and the total communication blackout, James McConnell has not disappeared. Instead, he appears to have shifted domains, rebranded assets and continued operating under adjusted identities.

Since July 2025:

Domain and Website Changes

• The original dev‑match.co.uk domain was abandoned, allowed to expire, then re‑registered by McConnell at the last possible moment. For a long period it returned only a 404 page, before being set to redirect to devmatch.uk.
• A new Dev Match Ltd. website now exists at devmatch.uk, visually and structurally very similar to the original. This site alternates between being live and returning a 404, often remaining online or offline for weeks at a time.
• A third site, RPO Flex (rpoflex.com), was also published during this period, using the same design, layout, language, phone numbers and addresses as the Dev Match websites. For a short period it even included a headline stating: 'Dev Match is now PRO Flex'. This site has shown the same intermittent behaviour: online for stretches, then offline again.
• McConnell had previously spoken of 'merging Dev Match with our pod mates Harbour to form PRO Flex', although it remains unclear who 'Harbour' is or whether it exists as a real entity or partner at all.
• The intermittent availability of these domains ‑ disappearing for long periods and then returning without explanation ‑ forms part of a wider pattern of shifting identities and unstable online presence.

Continuation of the Hardware‑Sales Model

• Both live websites still list 'surplus hardware' for sale ‑ the same offer pattern used in my case. The screenshot here was taken from devmatch.uk/latest‑updates (17 October 2025), showing that the hardware‑sales narrative is still very much active.
• A public Google Drive folder contains product photographs identical to those shown to me ten months earlier.

• 

  In September 2025, another prospective buyer shared a WhatsApp exchange (via the same telephone number he and I had communicated) in which McConnell offered two iPhones for sale. The photographs in that exchange showed the correct date and time, and a visible weather widget that suggested he was in the Covent Garden area at the time.

Company Records and Identity Changes

• James's other company, PCB Technologies Ltd., was renamed to Slalom Ltd. (PDF downloaded from Companies House filings on 27^th October 2025), despite an unrelated established consultancy group already trading under that name.
• James's LinkedIn profile resurfaced intermittently under the shortened name 'James M.' My access remains blocked.
• Companies House incorporation records for an earlier company, XY Social Limited (incorporated in 2012), record James McConnell under a former surname, Wharton. These records form part of the public Companies House register and predate the incorporation of Dev Match Ltd. This matters for clarity: historic filings and related records may refer to James under the surname Wharton.

Company Status Despite Non‑Delivery

• Dev Match Ltd. remains active on Companies House with freshly filed accounts showing capital and reserves still held. No attempt has been made to pay the CCJ.

Reports from Others

• Over time, many more individuals have come forward with stories that mirror mine almost exactly.
• I am now aware of over £40,000 paid to McConnell or his companies by more than a dozen people, with no product delivered and no refunds issued.
• Many describe the exact same sequence that I personally experienced: initial friendliness, payment taken, detailed operational excuses, shifting dates, manufactured internal drama, then silence.
• Several individuals have secured their own CCJs against Dev Match Ltd. or its related entities. As with mine, judgments remain unpaid.

This is not an isolated customer dispute. Based on the reports I've reviewed and the records I hold, there is a repeated pattern across multiple people, trading names and domains. James McConnell is central to them all.

Registered Office and Officer Address Changes

On 24 February 2026, four separate filings were made to the Companies House record for Dev Match Ltd on the same day:

• Director's details changed (Mr James Kieran McConnell);
• Registered office address changed;
• Change of details for Mr James Kieran McConnell as a person with significant control;
• Secretary's details changed.

The company's registered office address was altered from:

71 – 75 Shelton Street
Covent Garden
London
WC2H 9JQ

to:

3 Town Farm Barns
Princes Risborough
Buckinghamshire
HP27 9AD

At the same time, the service address for McConnell ‑ in his capacity as director, secretary, and person with significant control ‑ was also updated to the same Princes Risborough address.

As we know from the landlord at this address, McConnell was evicted from that property back in June last year and has not returned. The current occupants continue to receive post and in‑person visits intended for him.

Practical Advice: What to Do Now

If you found this article via a Google search after hearing one too many excuses about 'compliance checks' or 'queued refunds', I am sorry. I know exactly how frustrating and isolating this experience is as you come to the realisation that your refund isn't coming. If you are currently waiting for a refund that never comes, you need to stop waiting and start acting.

Based on my experience and the advice of others who have been through this, here is your checklist:

Report to Action Fraud

This is your first and most critical step. You cannot effectively progress a claim with your bank without an official police record.

1. File a report online at reportfraud.police.uk, or call 0300 123 2040.
2. When reporting, reference Dev Match Ltd and James McConnell clearly to help link your report to the wider pattern.
3. Secure your Crime Reference Number (NFRC).

Preserve Your Evidence

• Export everything immediately. Do not rely on WhatsApp or LinkedIn remaining active (as my story shows, profiles are deleted/blocked).
• Screenshot every message, especially the excuses and 'promises to pay'. Download your bank confirmation PDFs. Export your emails to PDF.
• Save the original invoice.

Contact Your Bank

Do not wait for James to 'fix the glitch'. Once you have your Crime Reference Number and you've gathered together your evidence, contact your bank's fraud department.

1. State clearly that you believe that you have been the victim of an Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam.
2. Provide them with your Crime Reference Number as proof that you have reported the crime. They will also want to see your evidence.
3. If you paid via bank transfer, explicitly ask them to assess your case under the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) Code. This is a code many major banks adhere to which can reimburse victims of transfer fraud.
4. If you paid by card, ask for a Chargeback.

Get in Touch

As I mentioned, I am in touch with a large number of James's victims, and we know that there are many more out there.

There are updates that I simply cannot share at this time on this article, but if you expect you have also been a victim, then feel free to get in touch.

Closing Thoughts

From a simple and innocent‑looking LinkedIn message about surplus office equipment, this spiralled into months of messaging, repeated storyline resets, vanishing domains, new trading names, Trustpilot complaints, multiple CCJs, and an officially registered company still filing healthy account statements whilst ignoring legal judgments and debtors. Twelve months later, the judgment remains unpaid, with no communication or restitution from James McConnell or Dev Match Ltd.

I quite genuinely do not know how McConnell was able to carry on such an elaborate scheme for so many people. It has been exhausting and trust‑destroying.

I am not a judge, and this article is not a legal ruling. It is a public record. What I have done here is document events precisely as they occurred, supported by invoices, chat logs, Companies House filings, court records and public testimony from others.

With distance, it is now clear that the shifting personas, internal Slack conversations, and staff references were all components of a performance designed to present the illusion of a functioning company rather than the actions of multiple real people.

The psychological toll of being trapped in that loop ‑ of being polite, understanding and patient whilst being lied to and slowly ghosted by a real human voice who speaks to you warmly ‑ is difficult to describe. A full year on, nothing has changed: no refund, no apology, no accountability.

At what point does repeated incompetence and endless excuse‑making stop looking like chaos and start looking like something more deliberate and duplicitous?