The Lumobras case (Casa Modular): the company changed its name, but the record stayed

In September 2023, SÁBADO reported the story of families who paid thousands of euros for modular houses that never got off the ground. The investigation called it "the pyramid-scheme house scam", and the central example was a family from Coimbra who handed over around 60 thousand euros for a house that, years later, is still not built. The commercial brand was Casa Modular, sometimes written Casa Modelar. The company was Lumobras. Before that, it had been called Vertente Tranquila. And the trail still ran through a third company, Rendisphera.

The line the investigation itself keeps repeating is the key to everything: "the companies change their name, change their partners, but the faces are always the same". As a Portuguese tool that cross-references public records on building firms, we went to check what is accessible today in official sources about these companies and the people behind them. And what we found sums up the whole problem in one line: much of what links these companies was in the public record, a tax number away, the previous name and the same person in management. What was missing wasn't the information. It was cross-referencing it.

Important framing note: nothing in this article states that there was a criminal conviction. There are criminal complaints, there is an investigation, there are accounts from dozens of people who say they were harmed, and there are public-record facts. We always keep the two apart. Where we write "allegedly" or "according to SÁBADO", it is because it is an allegation, not a court ruling.

What the SÁBADO investigation reported (September 2023)

The case aired on the Investigação SÁBADO programme, on CMTV, in September 2023, and was also reported in detail by Notícias de Coimbra. The picture is one of a repeated pattern: turnkey modular-home contracts, large deposits and instalments paid up front, short deadlines that were never met, work that stalled or barely moved, one excuse after another, and clients who kept paying to "unlock" the next phase.

The central story is that of Paula Queiroz and her husband. In 2017, while she was still pregnant, they signed a contract for a three-bedroom container house worth around 90 thousand euros, with delivery promised in six months. The building permit only came in 2020, the work only started in August 2021, and it started badly from the off. They paid around 60 thousand euros for a house that, at the time of the report, was still not finished, while paying rent and a mortgage at the same time. They later found out that the engineer's signature on the works logbook had allegedly been forged, after that engineer had already left the company, which led to a criminal complaint and an investigation at the DIAP in Coimbra.

SÁBADO heard from others who say they were harmed. One of them, from the Santarém area, says he was harmed by around 35 thousand euros in an earlier phase of the brand, linked to Rendisphera, and tells of one scene that stuck: the company once listed as its registered office an address where, it turned out, an optician operated, who confirmed to the reporters that he had never authorised any of it. He even obtained a favourable ruling in a civil court (a finding of breach of contract, not a criminal conviction) but, he says, never got a cent back because the company had no assets. The investigation speaks of dozens of people harmed across the country and of criminal complaints for fraud and document forgery.

The company was given the right of reply. Lumobras's current manager, João Cardoso, replied in writing to SÁBADO: he said the previous owner had allegedly hidden the company's real situation from him, that he renegotiated most of the contracts, that there are some defaults due to financial difficulty, that he is unaware of any criminal complaint, and he firmly denied any forgery. We record his version exactly as he put it.

The part that matters: the company changes its name, the tax number and the people stay

This is where the report and the public records meet. SÁBADO reconstructed the sequence of the Casa Modelar/Casa Modular brand across three companies. We went to check what the record confirms about each one: the tax numbers, the former names and the people linked to management.

There are two things to take from this table, and both change everything.

First: the jump from Vertente Tranquila to Lumobras is not a new company, it is the same company changing its name (the tax number is the same, 514339616). Anyone searching "Lumobras" today and seeing a company from 2019 is seeing only half the story. The record keeps the former name, and you just have to read it: the report we ran on Lumobras shows, at the top, "former name: Vertente Tranquila".

Second, and more important: the jump from Rendisphera to Vertente Tranquila is a different company (different tax numbers). What links the two is not the name, it is the person. Paulo André Albuquerque Ferreira is the manager of both, of Rendisphera since 2010 and of Vertente Tranquila/Lumobras since 2017. It is the same manager tax number on both companies. It is exactly this cross-reference, the history of one person behind different companies, that does not show up when you search one company at a time, and that is the heart of what we do.

When a construction brand moves from one company to another, the commercial name starts from scratch, but the record does not. The tax number stays, the former name stays, and whoever was in management stays. Checking only the commercial name is never enough.

An honest detail, so as not to overstate the link: João Cardoso, who buys the company in 2019, does not appear as a manager of Rendisphera in the record. And that makes sense, because in the report he appears in that earlier phase as a works foreman, an employee, and employees do not appear in the company register. The one who forms the documentary bridge between Rendisphera and Lumobras is Paulo Ferreira, not João Cardoso.

And where it ended up: the company went insolvent and there was no final distribution

The pattern this story describes, taking advance payments, not delivering the work, and dragging things out, almost always ends the same way. And in this case the outcome is in the record: Lumobras went insolvent, there was no final distribution to creditors, and the process was closed because the insolvent estate was consumed by its own debts. This act does not, on its own, confirm that the company is already struck off the register.

There is a detail here worth understanding, because it is the heart of what we do. This insolvency did not show up to anyone checking only court case distribution, it was in the commercial-register publications, and that is where we went to find it and join it to the rest of the history. It is one more signal that gets lost when you look at one source at a time, and that only makes sense when you cross-reference everything.

And then there are the signals that, by their nature, are in no register at all: criminal complaints for fraud are only public when there is a charge or a ruling, and older civil actions fall outside the six-month window that court distribution makes available. Even so, joining what the record confirms with what the report documented, the picture is complete, and any one of these signals, on its own, should already have made a family raise an eyebrow before handing over tens of thousands of euros:

• The company went insolvent and there was no final distribution. The process was closed because the insolvent estate was consumed by its own debts. It is a serious outcome, but it does not by itself prove the company has been struck off the register.
• No valid IMPIC licence. The report shows no active construction licence or certificate in the company's name, and the SÁBADO investigation indicates the licence had allegedly been cancelled. For private works, whoever carries them out must hold a licence appropriate to the value of the job; on a house worth tens of thousands of euros, this should have been clarified before any payment.
• One of the people linked to management appears on a public Tax Authority debtors list. It is a personal signal and does not prove default by the current company, but it changes how you weigh handing over money up front. You can confirm it in the report.
• The same manager's previous company is inactive and with signals still unresolved. Rendisphera has unpaid enforcement proceedings and several consecutive years of accounts not filed. In our report, it shows up as "another linked company" of the manager, with significant records.
• The name changed, but the history did not start over. "Former name: Vertente Tranquila", and behind it Rendisphera, through the same person in management.

None of these signals, on its own, proves anything, and not everything on this list is illegal in itself. But together, and in front of someone before they pay, they change the conversation you have at the desk: they are the difference between handing over tens of thousands of euros and demanding documents and guarantees first. That is the conversation cross-referencing records lets you have in time.

How to check who is behind a building firm

The Lumobras case is a manual of what to check before signing with any building company, especially in the modular-house segment, where staged advance payments are the norm.

1. Start with the company's tax number, not the commercial name. The commercial name ("Casa Modular") can hide several companies over time. The tax number is stable and takes you to the real record.
2. Look for the former name and who is in management. A "former name" and a recent change of manager are not, in themselves, illegal, but they tell you that the company in front of you is not what the name suggests. See who joined and who left, and when.
3. Cross-reference the people's history, not just the company's. Has the manager run other companies? Is any of them insolvent, inactive, with enforcement proceedings, with accounts not filed? This is where the pattern appears, and it is the part almost nobody does, because it means cross-referencing records spread across different systems.

You can do all of this by hand, in the official sources, which are public and free. Or you can search the company on ObraXRAY and have the cross-referencing done: former name, managers and each one's history, licence, debts, lawsuits, all on one page. That is what we built proprietary systems for, to aggregate data from official Portuguese public sources.

You can see the full Lumobras report, unlocked as a demonstration, at ObraXRAY: Lumobras, Unipessoal Lda. The data is real and comes from official public records.

Read also

The pattern of "a company that changes its name while the faces stay" repeats in other cases we documented from public records and reporting: the Dilomi case (modular houses, Vila Real), the Steelme / 5D Home case (light-steel houses) and the Fornelosluxsteel case. See them all on our construction risk cases page.

Disclaimer: this article is based on official public records (consulted in June 2026) and on the Investigação SÁBADO report (CMTV, September 2023) and related press coverage. The accounts from people who say they were harmed and the references to "fraud" are allegations and complaints, not final court rulings; we are not aware of any criminal conviction in this case. The current manager denied the forgery accusations. The register data (former name, management, capital, licence, enforcement proceedings) are facts from public sources, presented with a neutral frame. If you are named here and wish to exercise your right of reply or correct any fact, contact us.