Wednesday 21 April 2010

Free speech for the anonymous

One of our members has brought to our attention a forum posting that Mr Ceri Edwards (Business Development Director of RTA) has placed on the UK Business Forums website - you can see the full post here

Mr Edwards initiated a forum topic on how government agencies should be helping people who want to purchase current businesses (as well as new startups). All jolly enterprising.

A poster who calls himself TheDC is obviously rather disgruntled with RTA and has used the forum to voice his opinion of RTA. He notes "They have a withdrawal fee, which can be a number of £thousands, that YOU have to pay if THEY decide to pull out of the contract. They also have their commission fee if they sell your business, which is fair enough, but if they don’t sell your business and you question the withdrawal fee then they suddenly accuse you of alsorts and ask for the commission – which is usually MANY thousands.". This is one of the biggest issues that members of our group (and no doubt, a lot of RTA clients like TheDC who don't know about our group yet) have with RTA. It isn't good enough that they want up-front fees, or paying a commission when they find a buyer, but they also want paying when they decide to end the contract and claim commission under onerous clauses when they don't sell your business.

Mr Edwards later re-posts in answer to what he calls "a commenter who has seized the opprotunity to vent his angst". Some of the more interesting points he raises are that he agrees "freedom of speech is a Human Right" but then goes on to say "that anonymity is the scourge of the online blog".

He also invites the poster to contact RTA and enter into discussion.

I can only assume the poster won't do this. And is it any wonder?

Mr Edwards is not an advocate of the anonymous blogger.  He has a whole article dedicated to it on the RTA website.  But is it any wonder that these people hide behind their pseudonyms when, should they raise their heads over the parapet, RTA shout LIBEL ACTION from the rooftops?

Let's just look at the case of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) who had RTA listed as a scam company on their website. RTA threatened legal action and the FSB have taken it off.....for now.

A number of RTA clients have placed their stories on the Mirror's Penmann and Sommerlad blog - we've all read them and the Mirror blog has been paramount in getting this support group together - but those that used their true names have been blighted with the threat of action for libel.  Even the Mirror investigators had their own little dance with the RTA libel action threats.

One of our own members, a single mother of 2, posted her own sorry story on the Mirror blog.  Later, during correspondence with RTA, RTA chose not to focus on the issues she raised with the service they provided stating that she "did not have a leg to stand on" but rather focused on her "slandering remarks" on the Mirror website and informing her that they had instructed their solicitor in order to commence legal action against her for libel.

Their solicitor, Ruth Collard of Messrs Cart-Ruck, must be a very busy woman.

It is unlikely that they will get very far though. They will not be able to show any economic loss resulting from her comments, and there are numerous other comments and public information on similar sites already.  And this course of action is usually prohibitively expensive and as such will require a huge financial commitment from them.

So it's likely to be just more bluff.

How do you think RTA should resolve their issues with all this bad press?

I personally think they should first of all provide a proper service, have better trained surveyors who do actually know how to value a business, and deliver what their sales reps promise (or better educate them in the limitations of RTA's service and contracts).  They need to take on board the findings of their recent court case losses and review their contracts to make them fair and equal.  And they need to put a bit more effort into maintaining contact with their clients - in a recent court case Mr Edwards of RTA stated that they were far too busy to properly correspond with ALL the clients they had.....and yet he has plenty of time to post articles in forums and other websites.....

Friday 16 April 2010

RTA's new contracts - January 2010

Clause 13 of RTA's contract circa January 2010 says:

"I/We agree that in the event of a dispute arising between us from this contract then I/We agree to keep the dispute private and confidential between me/us and my/our professional legal advisors.  I/We further agree that I/we will not place or permit any other person, firm or company to place any dispute in the public domain (excpt for records required by statute), nor will I/we make public or consent or enourage a third party to make public, any defamatory, disparaging or derogatory remarks about RTA, it's employees, directors or shareholders.  Neither I/we nor anyone acting on my/our behalf shall pursue or intiate any complaint, allegation or process against RTA, it's employees, directors or shareholders for any matter arising out of this contract."

So, if you have an issue with the service that RTA are providing, RTA are attempting to stop you raising the issue with them through this clause, and also stop you going through the courts.  In addition, you can't tell anyone that you have problems or pass opinion on the service they provide.

Section 7 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1977 says "(3A)Liability for breach of obligations arising under section 2 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (implied terms about title etc. in certain contracts for the transfer of the property in goods) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any such term."

Article 10 of The Human Rights Act 1998 allows for us to express our opinions without fear of penalty.  Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Monday 12 April 2010

Justice prevails - a win against RTA in the courts!

Majid Ahari, a Chartered Surveyor from Hampshire, placed his business for sale with RTA.  RTA valued his business at £713k.  Majid checked the figure with his Bank Manager who valued the business at no more than £250k.  When Majid tried to re-negotiate the commission RTA refused.  So Majid cancelled the contract and RTA attempted to claim £4324 having only had Majid as a client for 3 weeks.

You can read all of Majid's story, up to his court hearing, here

Mr Ahari's case was heard at Southampton County Court on 9th April 2010.

Under questioning by the Judge, Mr Ceri Edwards, Business Development Manager of RTA, agreed that the contract lacks consideration for their clients.

On summing up, the Judge stated that the contract was ambiguous and 'strange' and that, as he understood it, it was set up in such a way that it allows RTA to take money from unwary clients but carry out no work (i.e. no advertising, no introducing clients to businesses) if they choose to.  On that basis, he dismissed the case.  Mr Edwards requested an appeal and the Judge declined his request.

Mr Edwards has requested that we remove Majid's full story of the court case, which we have done for now, but if you would like a copy, please contact us at info@rta-complaints.co.uk

Friday 9 April 2010

Where RTA spend their money

Recently Ceri Edwards, has not been too happy with what Google offer him.

In recent posts on forums on Google and Bling he complains that he spends £120,000 a year with Google and yet other websites, some of them new, rank higher than his own.

He claims that his company struggles in the rankings whilst other "SEO savvy charletons" rank higher.  I think this clearly misses the point of what SEO is all about - it's a fundamental to rankings.  Perhaps money can't buy you love after all?!?

However, it is his comments later on in the forum, in response to another contributor commenting on the Mirror blog, Mr Edwards states that he has over 8,000 clients and only some '16 or so' clients have jumped on the Mirror bandwagon because they didn't sell.

Obviously, as our little group now consists of almost 100 members, we know there are more than '16 or so' people who are having to fight RTA.  And that's only the ones in our little group - there must be even more out there who have succumbed to bullying tactics and paid up, or been thrown to the lions in RTA legal action.

Mr Edwards has also missed the point with his 'because they didn't sell' quip.  It isn't the fact that RTA failed to sell that's the big issue - although that is bad enough - it's the fact that RTA believe they are entitled to £1000s in withdrawal fees (when they were the party to withdraw) and commission fees even though they failed to uphold their part of the bargain.

Perhaps some of that £120,000 might be better used in advertising OUR businesses rather than their own, in providing a better customer service for business owners and a complaints procedure which enatils a little more than completely ignoring our correspondence!!

Rant of the day now over....

Majid ** WIN **

Majid Ahari, a Chartered Surveyor from Hampshire, placed his business for sale with RTA. RTA valued his business at £713k. Majid checked the figure with his Bank Manager who valued the business at no more than £250k. When Majid tried to re-negotiate the commission RTA refused. So Majid cancelled the contract and RTA attempted to claim £4324 having only had Majid as a client for 3 weeks.

You can read all of Majid's story, up to his court hearing, here
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Majid Ahari

Strictly without Prejudice

Following my nightmare but subsequent jubilation with RTA on Friday 09/04/2010 it is my pleasure to summarise my court hearing for all of you as follows;

I arrived at Southampton County Court by 13.30 P.M but there was no sign of RTA's representative.

The Court receptionist received a call from RTA's representative, she informed the caller that Mr Ahari had arrived in court and not to worry, we would wait.  The RTA representative was late, finally arriving at court at 1.50pm. He signed in and then came over to make pleasantries with me but I declined to join in.

He went away and five minutes before court hearing came back to me and asked to have a word with me.

I was surprised and we went to one of the private rooms of the Court.

He introduced himself and immediately produced an RTA business card declaring himself as Mr Ceri Edwards, the Business Development Manager of RTA (in an email at a later Mr Edwards described himself as the Business Development Director).

Following some mumbling, he asked me if we could 'do a deal'.  I was shocked but I told him it was too late. Besides, I had already made an offer to RTA a year ago of £500 and they did not accept it.

Mr Edwards said that the previous offer and declination didn't matter and for me to make an offer so he could relay it to the RTA office for acceptance.  If RTA accepted then we would have a deal and there would be no further need to go into Court.

I accepted this and offered £300 but just at that moment we were summoned to court and Mr Edwards was unable to call his office.

Inside the court room the Honourable Judge Brown received us. The Judge was very relaxed and polite.

The Judge then described the court proceedings indicating that this is a small claim hearing. He then said to Mr Edwards that he presumed Mr Edwards has been in one of these hearings before and Mr Edwards confirmed this. He then asked if I had and I told him I had not.

He had all my correspondences spread out on his desk in front of him and I felt a little sorry for him because of the volume!  But I was happy with mine and the ladies (Jane, Dawn and Gill) efforts as he had all the information he needed for my case.

The Honourable Judge Grand started the hearing by asking Mr Edwards to put his case forward.  He did, by referring to clauses of my contract with RTA and kept emphasizing that "Mr Ahari is guilty of signing the contract", etc, etc.

The Judge was listening patiently and was also taking notes. Mr Edwards, very passionately, pointed out my guilt (i.e. in signing the RTA contract).

The Judge asked for a copy of the RTA contract to read and whilst studying the conditions of RTA’s contract he had a puzzled expression.  He eventually told Mr Edwards that the contract was very strange and that he thought it appeared that RTA lacked consideration for the interests of any of their clients during their contractual dealings with RTA.  As he understood it, the RTA contract is set up in such a way that it allows RTA to take money from unwary clients but carry out no work (i.e. no advertising, no introducing clients to businesses) if they chose too.

Mr Edwards agreed and admitted that there existed some ambiguity in their contract terms and conditions.

That was the break I needed!  I had all my correspondence filed, labelled and had a copy ready for the Judge. The Judge now asked me to present my case.  I immediately jumped on Consumer Protection Acts and brought to his attention the case of RTA vs Draper.  I explained the case to him and indicated that RTA ignored the rights of the defendant in that case by not giving them cancellation rights, etc, etc. The Judge was very interested and indicated that he will read the case.  I then offered him the Daily Mirror blogs and showed him the reported cases of the clients of RTA (all in same predicament as me) that had been investigated by Penmann and Somerladd.  I also mentioned that the Federation of Small Businesses had placed RTA under their Scam Section on their website.  I then detailed the subject of all my correspondences to RTA and their lack of professionalism in respect of responses to my queries (this was an idea of Jane's - well done Jane!).  Then I had my defence sheet ready which I went through it.  By the time I had finished I think the Judge was all too aware of all the reports regarding RTA's dealings with their clients!

Whilst I was presenting my case, Mr Edwards appeared to me to be very uneasy and he interrupted a number of times - the Judge told him politely to be quiet and that he would have his say eventually.  The Judge asked Mr Edwards about the Draper case, and Mr Edwards admitted that it was a Consumer Protection Act case and that the defendant had won.  However, he also noted that RTA had hundreds of other cases that they HAD won to date.  I believe that statement by Mr Edwards regarding the number of RTA’s court cases shocked the Judge - he appeared to be quite concerned.  Then Mr Edwards admitted that not only does RTA’s contract lack consideration for their clients but also that they are too busy to correspond appropriately to all their clients! The Judge noted down all of Mr Edwards statements.

The Honourable Judge then asked me if, in my first meeting with RTA agent on 20th February 2009, did I understand the terms and conditions of the contract which I was signing?  I told him I did not.  He asked if the contract was explained to me clearly?  I told him it was not and I added that the whole meeting lasted only 20 minutes and the agent was in such a hurry to get the cheque from me and he was kept diverting my attention away from the contract.  The Judge noted it all.

Then he asked about the turnover and profits of my company.  I could not remember exactly and told him estimated figures.  On hearing my figures, Mr Edwards appeared to be very happy and excited.

Mr Edwards then asked the Judge to allow him to ask me some questions, which the Judge allowed.  His questioning went something like this;

Mr Edwards - "Mr Ahari, when you are corresponding with us, you put designated letters of MRICS, FCIOB after your name. What do they present?"

Me - "Ah!. Before I answer that, are you admitting that you had some correspondence from me? If so, why have you not responded to them to date? Is it not law to reply to all correspondances?!

Mr Edwrads - "I refer to my previous remarks. I am not responsible for paper work in the RTA office. "

I then told him that MRICS is (Member of Royal institute of Chartered Surveyors) and FCIOB means Fellow member of Chartered institution of Building.

Mr Edwards then noted that he had already established that I am a Chartered Surveyor and he also noted that  I have been in the Building and Civil Engineering industry for 25 years.

But one thing he did not realise was that this proved our point - that I am not a business sales person but a Civil Engineers/builder.  I think judge noticed that.

Mr Edwards stated that if I am Chartered Surveyor and have 25 years experience of running a successful business, then how come I did not read their contract and understand it at my first meeting with their agent on 20th February 2010?

My answer was simple; I might be academically successful but I am not successful with my business.  If I was successful with my business then did Mr Edwards think I would allow my company to fail?

Mr Edwards did not answer and moved to a new topic.  He produced a couple of sheets of paper and, whilst brandishing them at me, asked me why I had told the Judge that RTA's agent did not look at my previous years accounts when he valued the business, and yet he had a copy here.

My answer was simple.  Yes he was correct, the RTA agent did not consider my accounts when valueing my business.  And, if the documents are my accounts, then I must have provided them to RTA at a much later date when I was requesting that RTA reduce their fee.  I then asked why RTA had not sent me the documents prior to the court hearing as is required by law.

Mr Edwards did not like my answer and told me that his agent had worked for RTA for five years and that he is a very decent and honourable man - he sasked if I was calling his agent a charlatan?

I told him that I was not calling him anything but by the same token was he implying that I was a charlatan?

Mr Edwards merely replied, "Not at all."

Mr Edwards again produced a paper with his agent's version of our previous company’s turnover and profit margin.  I have no recollection of seeing that paperwork previously.  He said that I had told the Judge that the turnover of my Company was £1.2M with a 4% profit but that the statement from his agent showed a turnover of £2.5M and a 10% profit margin.  He asked "Which one is it?".  At this point, he was so full of himself and was acting like a glorified Judge - he had to make apologises to the Judge for taking over the court which made the Judge laugh.

Again I had the answer.  I asked him if he were surprised that I had given wrong figures to Judge - given that he had all my contract details, and for most of last year I have been asking him for a copy of this information.  I asked him why he had not supplied the information to me.  For the court and the Judge, I referred to my letters dated 16/02/10 and 18/02/10 where I specifically asked for relevant information.  I then gave my apologies to the Honourable Judge for providing the wrong turnover figures.  Mr Edwards said "but you had them" and I responded that I had but, as I had already told the court, it had been necessary to send them to my Insolvency Practitioner when my business collapsed.

The Honourable Judge agreed with my statement.  Mr Edwards quickly removed his 'evidence'.  I emphasized that I had supplied the court and RTA with all the relevant paper work before the hearing but that RTA had not.  The Judge said he was aware of that fact.

** Please note, this is very important. By law, I could if I chose to, not reply to any of Mr Edwards questions because Mr Edwards did not present the relevant document either to me or to the court prior to the hearing. The law requires or dictates that all parties must send all the relevant documents not only to court but also to each other prior to case hearing. I asked RTA for these documents on numerous occasions and they did not provide them. This is one of their tricks; they want to surprise you in the court. **

Then the Judge asked me if I had any questions to put to Mr Edwards, which I had.  The Judge also had a copy of the 24 questions.  He read through them and notified me that some of them were irrelevant but insisted that question 4 (asking RTA where they had advertised my business, what magazines, news papers etc (another great idea of Jane, thank you) during 3 weeks of our contract with them.) should be asked.  Mr Edwards answered "Honestly, no where sir, we have done nothing on the sale of Mr Ahari’s company following cancellation of his contract."

That was the end of the hearing and the Judge told us that it was time to make his judgement.

He notified Mr Edwards that on the basis of their ambiguous contract conditions which lacked any consideration for RTA clients and also the failure of RTA's agent in explaining the conditions of the contract, and simply overpricing my business, he would credit me the claim of claimant and, for the aforementioned reasons, he dismissed the case.

I was speechless but very relieved.

The Honourable Judge then asked me where I came from ("other than Iran", he joked).  I told him I travelled from Portsmouth where my office is.  He asked me if I wanted to claim any expenses and I said "no, I just want RTA off of my back".  He accepted.

Mr Edwards asked the Judge’s permission to appeal but the Judge refused.  Mr Edwards again insisted and reading from his RTA notes, tried to persuade the Judge.  The Judge wrote Mr Edwards argument down and then informed Mr Edwards that he could answer his first two points (which he did) but that his last point was wasting his time.

Finally I had my reward.  In fighting these nasty people for fourteen months, I never gave up.  One thing I noticed with RTA was their lack of correspondence and communications.  They like to threaten and bully you but when you fight back, at the last minute before court hearings, they want make deals with you.  They know that their contract terms and conditions are unfair and unethical and no consideration has been given to their clients.  Signing their contract allows them not only to take your money but also, if they chose, to do nothing for you or the sale of your business.

My advise to you all is TO FIGHT and never give up.  They know they are wrong.  There are a lot of good and decent people like Gill, Jane and Dawn around who can help you as they helped me with my fight (for which I am forever grateful to these ladies).  Furthermore I am grateful to the Daily Mirror, especially to Mr Penman and his colleagues.  Finally I wish good luck to all the victims of this monstrous company and if I can assist any of you out there against them please contact me via info@business-sales-agents-complaints.co.uk

Thursday 8 April 2010

The Red Hand Rule

The powerpoint (written by the law lecturer) refers to the 'Red Hand Rule' and that it can be useful to argue that onerous contract terms should have been brought to the attention of RTA customers.

Powerpoint Presentation

Excerpt from Article:

INCORPORATION OF UNUSUAL OR UNREASONABLE TERMS INTO CONTRACTS: THE RED HAND RULE AND SIGNED DOCUMENTS

STEVE KAPNOULLAS* AND BRUCE CLARKE**

[This article analyses case law relating to the red hand rule. In particular, there is an examination of the decision of the High Court in Toll V Alphapharm Pty Ltd. The judgment of the court signals a clear answer as to whether the red hand rule applies to signed documents. In this context, the authors also consider whether section 52 of the Trade Practices Act, and statutory provisions relating to unconscionability, are available to protect consumers against unusual or unreasonable clauses incorporated into signed contracts. Two recent cases involving share trader David Tweed are also analysed. ]

INTRODUCTION

It is trite law that a party attempting to exclude or limit legal liability, by incorporating an exemption clause into an unsigned contract, must take reasonably sufficient steps (at or before the time of contracting) to give notice ofthe clause to the other party.'  The more unreasonable or unusual the clause, the greater the insistence by some judges that the clause be drawn to the attention of the other party in an explicit way, such as being printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it.  The genesis of the so-called red hand rule is to be found in Spurling v Bradshaw Ltd where Lord Denning said:
The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.

* Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology. ** Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Business and Enterprise (Hawthorn) & Faculty of Higher Education (Lilydale), Swinburne University of Technology. ' See Parker v South Eastern Railway Co {ISll) 2 CPD 416. ^[1956] 1 WLR461. ^[1956] 1WLR461,466.

Thursday 1 April 2010

Gill ** WIN **

You can read all of Gill's story, up to her court hearing, here
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Gill Draper

Strictly without Prejudice
Myself and my partner Mr Crane, flew in from Spain the previous day. On the afternoon of the 16th of September 2009 we arrived in good time at Huntingdon County court,after being security checked we went into the building. Mr Steve Patterson was already there, (he was the representative from RTA that came to take the details of the pub we owned)


The tried to make eye contact but I was having none of it.

Waiting for our barrister who we had not met before, because he had been sent as a replacement to our solicitor who was ill. We kept looking for him to arrive.

Before this happened a large man with glasses came in, now I had never met Ceri Edwards but I said to Mr Crane "I bet thats Ceri Edwards he looks like one of O Reillys men" and I was right as he immediately went over to Steve Patterson and shook his hand. After a few minutes he walked over to us and said "Mr Draper"? I replied "No Mrs Draper", he said " I,m Ceri Edwards" I said "Yes I know who you are" He then scuttled back to his seat as I was a little bit sharp with him.

Our barrister arrived and we went to a private room where he told us that we were going to use the 1999 Consumer Protection Act as our defence. We were then called into court,sitting behind the bench was Judge Dak, He opened the hearing Mr Edwards stood up to say his piece.

First of all he told he judge he was a Director of RTA, I knew this was untrue as I had already downloaded from the Companies House website the list of directors of RTA and he wasn,t listed.

I attracted the attention of my barrister Mr Tim Williams and handed him the list. He said if he got a chance to get him in the dock he would quiz him over it. Anyway after Mr Edwards had told the judge that I was not a consumer and not a natural person, he sat down.

My barrister stood up and pointed out that I was a consumer because I wasn't in the business of buying and selling pubs like RTA are. Also that I was buying a service from rta who, when they sold my pub, would get their commission.

The judge listened to both sides of the argument and gave his own 8 points as to why I was a consumer and also a natural person. Giving the example that if he took his car to a car dealer to sell and that dealer sold it that didn't make him a dealer as the car dealer would be paid a commission for selling the car, making him a consumer for buying a service.

Similar to me buying RTA service to sell my pub. He then asked me if I intended to buy another pub if I sold this one. My barrister answered that no I wasn't buying another pub.

The Judge then awarded me the case. Mr Edwards then stood up and asked for the right to appeal, the Judge said he could appeal but must do it within 28 days. We then thanked the Judge and left the room.

At the top of the stairs Mr Edwards turned to us and said "We will always accept an offer" and I said "We just won". Him and Mr Patterson then left.

We went into a private room with our barrister where he said that they may appeal. I told him we shall come to the appeal.

On the 28th of October I again flew in from Spain and went to Peterborough County Court. Mr Crane couldn't come.

I waited for my barrister to arrive and we went into court in front of Judge De Mille. After going through the previous evidence, the Judge agreed with all of Judge Daks comments from the case before and still awarded me the case. He also awarded expenses of £80 for my flight from Spain.

I must say that I was over the moon with the verdict, but even if it had gone the other way there is no way that I would have paid RTA a shilling.

I left the court, said thank you to my barrister, and swore that I would make it hard work for RTA to con anyone else.

After three years of heartache with this company it is now my turn to give them some heartache. They have already changed their contract - it's got two sides to it now that you wouldn't notice if it was still attached to the pad. You sign the front and unless it was pointed out to you, you wouldn't notice the reverse where they have put that you can't speak or complain about them to anybody. What's that? You're not allowed freedom of speech now?? They had best read the law books!

My Thanks to Andrew Penman, for setting up the complaints blog on the Daily Mirror website. If only I had seen this before, I wouldn't have signed with them. This has given me the opportunity to help set up this website to warn others of this company.

If you need my help further or would like any more information then do not fail to contact me on info@business-sales-agents-complaints.co.uk