2012 - What a year - Part 1.

Well it started OK but quickly went down hill in January, when I found out that the blog put on the internet by an anonymous blogger, was causing me problems with my new business venture - but that did not deter me, as I have always treated the anonymous blog as an itch that I couldn't scratch!

I say 'couldn't' because by the close of 2012 I am now very close to identifying the gutless, spineless anonymous blogger, that wasn't even a franchisee or licensee of Advanced Media Information Limited.

I cannot elaborate on the details of the how I have traced the anonymous blogger, as there is a set legal procedure that I need to follow, and I would not want to jeopardise the procedure and the outcome.

Around the end of Q1 of the year things got really interesting with the Insolvency service and the report to creditors that they issued.

They, the Insolvency Service, issued a report that stated the company had been closed and had debts of £1.4million, when in fact the company was closed with debts of £7,000!

What the Insolvency Service had done was to add up all the franchise fees, master license fees and license fees received by the company and add them to the £7k, and this was the figure that they, the Insolvency Service, determined the company debts were.

Well, as you can imagine I was astounded and asked a very simple question;

"How can you add in all the franchise fees, master license fees and license fees and class them as debtors when they have received everything that they paid for?" To date I still have not received a coherent answer to my question.

I have sought advise from independent professionals in the Insolvency industry, and they too are baffled as to why the Insolvency Service would do this.

Every franchisee was paid any commissions due to them, save for one that had started legal proceedings against the company claiming that he had never received the support he was contracted to receive. I am only sorry that I never got my day in court with this guy because he would have had to answer some questions that would have made him feel very uncomfortable.

So, as you can see the Insolvency Service certainly has a lot to answer for but getting those answers is an entirely different matter.

As my solicitor says "Being in business leaves you open to attack from everyone you are in business with, doing business with or may do business with. And once the Government, the CIB et al, have you on their radar screens you will never be left alone no matter what you do or how good your business is"

Wise words I believe.

For those of you new to this blog here is a post from 2010 to give you some background.

ADVANCED MEDIA INFORMATION LTD, ITOUCHWORLDWIDE.COM (ITW)

March 11, 2010 by Philip Smith-Lawrence

When I, Philip Smith-Lawrence, took over Advanced Media Information Limited I did so knowing that I was acquiring an exciting and profitable business that had an innovative product. I was without doubt excited but I still undertook a process of due diligence. 

This process did not last long but as a businessman it was a ‘no brainer’ decision to engage in the process.The business used the brand name AskAmi and I had to change that to itouchworldwide.com because of a certain blog and forum.

Now any business has problems, just look at the airline industry, although I do like a cetain CEO’s approach to addressing his company’s bad press by using the very people  that published the bad press to answer them. I certainly will not be using that approach though. 

Franchising, as a business, is no different to most other businesses when it comes to bad press but no one, least of all me, had expected it to come from within the network of franchisees! Nor did I expect it to come from someone, I have probably never met, that has a personal vendetta against the previous owner of the company.

I would like to make it clear that the blog that is currently available online is defamatory.That is not my opinion but the opinion of the company lawyers.As such, in conjunction with the company lawyers, an investigation into whom the author(s) of the defamatory blog is/are has been undertaken. I am pleased to inform you that, very soon I will be able to seek legal redress against the author(s) in the courts of England based on the evidence obtained.

The concerns of the franchisees quoted in the defamorty blog and forum have been addressed.
I was quite astounded that the franchisees business sense had been clouded by the need to vent their concerns online without them realising that in fact, they were damaging not only my business, but they were in fact damaging their own businesses in the process.

I have no view eitherway on the conduct of the previous owner of the business when he was running his previous business. That business clearly has not got any association with Advanced Media Information Limited.What he did prior to starting Advanced Media Information Limited is bewteen him, his conscience and anybody that foolishly did not undertake a process of due diligence before dealing with him.

I know that business is not black and white, there are plenty of grey areas, but to publicly defame both me and my company, without allowing me the ability to publicy refute the ridiculous defamtory comments on the blog in question by placing comments on the said blog,is without doubt the work of a coward.

There are many positive facets to itouchworldwide.com as a business, the main one being it is a very simple business to run as a franchisee/licensee, if the system is followed.This claim can be substantiated by the fact that a master licensee has generated revenue in excess of Euros100,000 in his first year and a franchisee has generated over £30,000 in the first four months of operating his franchise. There are other Regional Directors and franchisees that have had simliar success.There are also some franchisees that have not had as good a success rate as the aforementioned but we are working with them to bring them upto the same level and of course there are some failures.From what I have seen the failures are down to the franchisees trying to run two or more businesses at once, not taking the advice and support from head office and /or thinking they can ‘re-invent’ the system, all of which are simply not conducive with running a successful and profitable business.There are two main skills needed to run the business and either can be employed, singularly or intandem, they are management skills and sales skills.

Thanks for reading and come back soon for Part 2.

Best regards,

Philip Smith-Lawrence.

This is me Philip Smith-Lawrence

Russia's new law.



I understand that each country can pass whatever laws they want but passing on in a game of tit-for-tat is silly.

Interesting comments from the Judge in this case?

The Farepak directors who were vindicated after the collapse of a High Court case against them, are to be granted millions of pounds in legal costs by the Government.

By Jonathan Russell, Assistant City Editor

10:01PM BST 22 Jun 2012

 

The Department for Business, which brought the case, has taken the unusual step of short-circuiting a costs hearing by paying full costs to the seven individuals.

It is thought that their costs could exceed £6m. Total costs for the case, the five-year investigation and related hearings are understood to be in the region of £20m, all of which will have to be borne by the taxpayer.

The Department for Business made the decision to pay the costs two days after the case collapsed amid accusations by the presiding judge that the evidence presented had been “unfairly slanted” against the directors and was “oppressive”.

The decision to award costs, at the higher indemnity level rather than standard, marks the end of the case.

However questions remain unanswered about the role of HBOS, now part of Lloyds Banking Group, in the collapse of the Christmas saving club.

The bank was widely criticised by Mr Justice Smith this week. He blamed it for taking in over £10m in depositors’ money in the knowledge that the company was heading for insolvency. The money later went towards paying down debt held by HBOS.

The findings of Mr Justice Smith were in direct contrast to a letter written by HBOS to depositors in Farepak shortly after the company collapsed in 2006.

In the letter, HBOS stated: “To make totally clear we did not claw back £1m a week in Christmas savings from Farepak as you are alleging.
“You are wrong in claiming HBOS was somehow responsible for what happened at Farepak.”
Mr Justice Smith found that the bank benefited directly from the £10m that Farepak took in as it approached insolvency.
The judge added that all attempts to save the business failed on the “flinty ground of HBOS conceding nothing.”

The bold section reminds me very much of the way the Insolvency service and the CIB worded their documentation in my case.

Philip Smith-Lawrence

Arctic Cruise

Surviving alone in Alaska

My reply to point out some facts.

11th August 2012.

It seems that the anonymous blogger is at it again....what a coward.

Here is what the coward has written on his blog;

You will also find the Andrew Penman and Nick Sommerlad from the Da*** Mi****s Investigations team mentioning this case named Philip Smith-Lawrence's operation which billed itself as "The Virtual Concierge" has been shut down in the High Court in the public interest.

Point of fact: The court did not close down any company which billed itself or was named 'The Virtual Concierge' as that company has never existed in any form whatsoever, so therefore the company could not be closed.So the cowardly blogger is completely wrong once again and really needs to get the facts right.

Point of fact: 'The Virtual Concierge' was the name given to the digital touch screen information kiosk itself, an inanimate yet functional object.

Point of fact: The two journalists named me in an attempt to link me with another case that they had investigated, an attempted link that was very spurious at best.

Commenting on the case, Investigation Supervisor Scott Crighton said:

"AMI promoted itself as something it was not, selling franchises which did not deliver the advertised returns." 

Point of fact:  Scott Crighton was an administrator and NEVER was involved directly with the CIB case, save for reading what was put in front him. It is strange that the Official Receiver has stated to me that he has seen documentary proof that franchisees did make money and he doesn't understand why the CIB team didn't pay more attention to the information provided to them.

The CIB were in possession of various documents, including financial statements, showing what each franchisee generated in terms of revenue, and they chose to ignore the fact that franchisees had made money from their franchise business. They, the CIB, focused on the few franchisees that failed to operate their franchise business in accordance with the operations manual.

I will also add that a number of franchisees that I had inherited when I took over the company, never actually operated their franchise business at all.That means they never even started their business! The same franchisees never responded to any of my attempts to contact them and they never made any attempt to contacted me, so how was I supposed to deal with these franchisees if there was not contact?

Scott Crighton has flatly refused y invitations to meet me and my legal team on numerous occasions to explain his exact role in this debacle.He has not given any valid reason why he will not meet me or my legal team.

The case is still continuing and is now being dealt with The Official Receiver, Public Interest Unit who can be contacted on 0161 234 8531.

Point of fact: The OR dealing with this case has all the relevant contacts of all the people relevant to this case.I am sure that he will be thrilled to find out that the blogger has publicised his telephone number.However, it doesn't matter to me if the telephone number of the Official Receiver is publicised.

We thank everyone for their support with this blog and hope this result has helped a lot of those who have lost life savings and helped those who have stressed over Philip Smith-Lawrence and his company Advanced Media Information Ltd.

Point of fact: The blogger and all those who have supported the blog are leaving themselves wide open for legal action. No-one, let alone 'a lot' of people, to my knowledge, have lost their life savings. This is clearly sensationalism on the part of the cowardly blogger. Remember that I have all the documentation connected to this case, including the questionnaire's sent out by the CIB, and completed by the franchisees, and returned to the CIB. Not one of the questionnaires I have seen, and completed by a franchisee, directly refers to the loss of their life savings. One of the franchisees does however mention that during a conversation, this is called hearsay, that he was told that a franchisee had lost their life savings. If this was the case why didn't the franchisee in question ever mentioned this fact to the CIB or the Official Receiver? The only plausible answer is, that it isn't in fact, true.

Every potential franchisee had the option NOT to sign the agreement.No franchisee was ever forced to sign any agreement with the company. Every franchisee had the option to take the agreement to their solicitor, whether they exercised this option or not was up to them, the franchisee.

We never give into bullies!

This phrase is consistently used by the cowardly blogger and it just goes to show the level to which the cowardly blogger will stoop too.It is not a school playground, it is the real world and real world business.

Thanks 

Philip Smith-Lawrence

Philip Smith-Lawrence once again replies to the anonymous blogger.

This is my reply to the anonymous blogger who hasn't got the guts to reveal their identity.

AB-After many threats from Philip Smith-Lawrence we kept going with this blog to reveal the truth, -commercial decisions to trace the owner of your blog were made and lawyers consulted but no threats were ever made, I don't even know who you are! - AB-which has been acknowledged by the government investigation- the government has not acknowledged your blog or even you or anything your posted in your blog.If they have it will be in their evidence, which I have a copy of perhaps then I will find out who you are?

AB-You will see Philip Smith-Lawrence - using a copyrighted without my permission image has serious consequences -AB-with blogs online blaming everything on franchisees and not apologising for the not knowing how to run a business or franchise model and taking peoples money with just offering broken promises and unrealistic income.-Not everything is or was blamed on ALL franchisees, some made a success of their franchises, some didn't.Not one of the franchisees that signed up were made to sign up. They all had the option NOT to sign up.How many undertook due diligence or took advice from a solicitor before signing the contract, a legal contract? Nobody forced any one of the franchisees to do anything they didn't willing want to do.
AB-But the truth is the truth and the investigation shows this-The CIB investigation shows anything but the truth, more what the Government wanted to show.The truth will be published and it won't be an abridged version that anonymous bloggers LIKE YOU blog about or a version that the Government wants people to know. By the way, what happened after you posted a an article by one of the franchisees 'slagging' off the business? Oh yes, I remember the franchisee in question had a meeting with me and retracted the article, of his own accord. He realised that he was not only damaging HIS business but those of the other franchisees.
AB-As you will see Ask Ami which went on to be ITouchWorldWide made over a £1 million from franchisees hard saved money.- Ask Ami NEVER went on to be iTouchWorldWide, it always remained Ask Ami, and all franchisees used the Ask Ami branding and documentation.Ask Ami NEVER made over £1 million from franchisees.The company had a turnover over the YEARS of £1.6 million plus but that was just that TURNOVER.

AB-"The investigation found that AMI generated a turnover of more than £1.6m, of which £875,000 was paid to the current director, a former director and a senior sales person.- You didn't need a CIB investigation to find that out.All you had to do was go to Companies House and get the accounts of the company, accounts accepted by HMRC and Companies House,so nothing to hide there then. What the previous director was paid had nothing to with me. What a senior sales person was paid was bewteen the company and the person in question and it was all documented in the accounts.The same accounts accepted by HMRC and Companies House.

AB-Investigators found that the company failed to maintain, preserve or deliver adequate accounting records to explain these payments. In addition, the director did not cooperate fully with the investigators."-The CIB had ALL the files of invoices, bank statements and other company documentation showing exactly where every penny that came into the company went. The CIB investigators also had the details of the Chartered Accountant, whose services the company used, but the CIB NEVER contacted the accountants- why? As for not cooperating fully with the investigators, well let's see what happens when all the correspondence between me and the CIB showing that I cooperated fully is presented to the relevant governing bodies, who will be looking at the procedures of the CIB in this matter? It is a standard practice of the CIB to quote 'non-cooperation' when their findings are not what they thought they would/might be! 
AB-"Investigators found that nobody achieved that figure, that some franchisees earned nothing at all from their investment and that others had not even been provided with a kiosk many months after paying their fee.-Every franchisee got the rights to sell onto a kiosk(s).NOBODY achieved that figure! What about the ones that achieved in excess of 'that' figure? The franchisee is Cyprus achieved in excess of €100,000 in one year! Another invested £10,000 and return £13,000+, shall I go on? The CIB had this information and never took it into account, why? The ones that didn't achieve 'that' figure or anything at all obviously found the business model too difficult to operate.If so why did they WILLING sign the franchise agreement?

AB-The investigators also found that franchisees were dissatisfied with the level of training and support received from AMI and that the company had terminated franchise agreements unreasonably.-The Insolvency section now dealing with the company was VERY surprised to see documented proof that a Government backed training agency had actually be paid by AMI to run a training course for the franchisees! Again the CIB had this documentation and ignored it, why? Franchisees were terminated for a reason.Do you think that the termination of  franchisees, for lack of contact from those same said franchisees for over twelve months, was a unreasonable? 

AB-Commenting on the case, Investigation Supervisor Scott Crighton said:
"AMI promoted itself as something it was not, selling franchises which did not deliver the advertised returns." -I have only met Scott Crighton once during the CIB's investigation and it will be proven that AMI was NOT selling something it was not.The business model works and is still working to this day.This fact is proven by the sale of the assets of the business, kiosks and franchisees contracts.

AB-You will also find the Andrew Penman and Nick Sommerlad from theDaily Mirror's Investigations team mentioning this case named Philip Smith-Lawrence's operation which billed itself as "The Virtual Concierge" has been shut down in the High Court in the public interest. - The business was not billed as "The Virtual Concierge" it always did operate as Ask Ami-"The Virtual Concierge" related to the physical KIOSK not the business, because that what it was 'a virtual concierge'. As for the public interest element.The company had sold its assets, it wasn't and had't been selling franchises for over twelve months and there was no public engagement, the company operated in the B2B sector.

Now taken all the above has now been outlined to you, there remains a few points that the CIB failed to mention in their very biased press release;

One of the main points in the Governments winding up petition was that I had sold the assets of the company when I shouldn't have. The Judge threw this point out. Why? because I was well within my rights to sell the assets of the company for commercial reasons.That part never got mentioned in the CIB biased press release did it, I wonder why?

Every franchise, except one, got every penny of commission they were due. Oh, wait! They never earned anything so why should I pay them? Wait for the creditors report to see exactly how much these 'non-earning' franchisees actually got paid.The one franchisee that didn't get his commission didn't get paid because he started legal action against the company and his commissions were merely suspended until the outcome of the legal action was known.

Here is something else the biased CIB press release didn't contain, and this document was accepted by the court;

For the urgent attention of the Learned Judge sitting on the hearing of the under-mentioned Petition

Dear Judge,

Re: ADVANCED MEDIA INFORMATION LIMITED. Case Number:

I have received the Petition for the winding up of Advanced Media Information Limited, dated 23rd November 2011 and I would like to take this opportunity to state that, in light of the fact that the company, Advanced Media Information Limited, is no longer trading due to the CIB investigation, I do not oppose the petition for pragmatic reasons. I cannot afford to incur yet further legal costs on the Company’s behalf.

However, this should not be taken as an admission on my part of the matters raised in the supporting statement.

In particular (and this should not be regarded as an exhaustive list) I take issue with any assertions that (inter alia):

a)I took monies from franchisees, licensees and /or master licensees with no intention of performing our side of the contractual obligations;

b)I misrepresented the potential of the company and its’ franchisees, licensees and /or master licensees;

c)I knowingly permitted a person to act as a director when I was aware that he was prevented from doing so;

d)Failed to co-operate with the Petitioner or supply documentation in my possession;

e)The company had traded with a lack of commercial probity;

f)Made unreasonable representations regarding earnings;

g)Failed to provide support, including training, to the franchisees, licensees and /or master licensees;

h)Failed to address the issues of Regional Directors, Franchisees, licensees and /or Master Licensees that I either inherited or entered into an agreement with;

i)The company failed to run a pilot digital touch screen kiosk located at a hotel.

If any or all of these matters are pursued against me at any time in the future, I fully intend strenuously defending each and every such allegation. I should be grateful if this letter could be placed on file, if necessary for future reference.

Yours respectfully,

Philip.R.Smith-Lawrence.

Now I don't expect you, anonymous blogger, to accept any of the above, as you have some form of agenda and I have always stated that you were never a franchisee because you started  your blog to get at someone else. If in fact, if you were a franchisee then make yourself known. 

AB = ANONYMOUS BLOGGER. All my answers are italics.

Philip Smith-Lawrence has tried to find out the who the anonymous blogger is but he/she is hiding......what a coward.

On another note all the allegations listed above in the letter to the judge are now being addressed by me, Philip Smith-Lawrence with the correct authorities.

Date: Wed 20th June 2012

Philip Smith-Lawrence will be updating the anonymous blogger very soon about the proceedings to date in respect of Advanced Media Information Limited and the insolvency.

I can say that the franchisee's that instigated this process will not get any more satisfaction. The insolvency practitioner is a professional and can see the work put in by  me and the staff of the business and he can hardly believe half of what the franchisee's have said when he has been presented with the real facts. I have some very interesting emails between franchisee's that clearly show that they had no intention of working their business.

Also with the new laws being passed in the UK parliament regarding the internet, I have been advised that once the laws come into force I can find out who the anonymous blogger is. That will be a wonderful day because I will then finally get to meet them face to face!!!

Best regards,

Philip Smith-Lawrence.

11th August 2012.
It seems that the anonymous blogger is at it again....what a coward.
Here is what the coward has written on his blog;
You will also find the Andrew Penman and Nick Sommerlad from the Da*** Mi****s Investigations team mentioning this case named Philip Smith-Lawrence's operation which billed itself as "The Virtual Concierge" has been shut down in the High Court in the public interest.
Point of fact: The court did not close down any company which billed itself or was named 'The Virtual Concierge' as that company has never existed in any form whatsoever, so therefore the company could not be closed.So the cowardly blogger is completely wrong once again and really needs to get the facts right.
Point of fact: 'The Virtual Concierge' was the name given to the digital touch screen information kiosk itself, an inanimate yet functional object.
Point of fact: The two journalists named me in an attempt to link me with another case that they had investigated, an attempted link that was very spurious at best.

Commenting on the case, Investigation Supervisor Scott Crighton said:
"AMI promoted itself as something it was not, selling franchises which did not deliver the advertised returns." 
Point of fact:  Scott Crighton was an administrator and NEVER was involved directly with the CIB case, save for reading what was put in front him. It is strange that the Official Receiver has stated to me that he has seen documentary proof that franchisees did make money and he doesn't understand why the CIB team didn't pay more attention to the information provided to them.
The CIB were in possession of various documents, including financial statements, showing what each franchisee generated in terms of revenue, and they chose to ignore the fact that franchisees had made money from their franchise business. They, the CIB, focused on the few franchisees that failed to operate their franchise business in accordance with the operations manual.
I will also add that a number of franchisees that I had inherited when I took over the company, never actually operated their franchise business at all.That means they never even started their business! The same franchisees never responded to any of my attempts to contact them and they never made any attempt to contacted me, so how was I supposed to deal with these franchisees if there was not contact?
Scott Crighton has flatly refused y invitations to meet me and my legal team on numerous occasions to explain his exact role in this debacle.He has not given any valid reason why he will not meet me or my legal team.

The case is still continuing and is now being dealt with The Official Receiver, Public Interest Unit who can be contacted on 0161 234 8531.
Point of fact: The OR dealing with this case has all the relevant contacts of all the people relevant to this case.I am sure that he will be thrilled to find out that the blogger has publicised his telephone number.However, it doesn't matter to me if the telephone number of the Official Receiver is publicised.

We thank everyone for their support with this blog and hope this result has helped a lot of those who have lost life savings and helped those who have stressed over Philip Smith-Lawrence and his company Advanced Media Information Ltd.
Point of fact: The blogger and all those who have supported the blog are leaving themselves wide open for legal action. No-one, let alone 'a lot' of people, to my knowledge, have lost their life savings. This is clearly sensationalism on the part of the cowardly blogger. Remember that I have all the documentation connected to this case, including the questionnaire's sent out by the CIB, and completed by the franchisees, and returned to the CIB. Not one of the questionnaires I have seen, and completed by a franchisee, directly refers to the loss of their life savings. One of the franchisees does however mention that during a conversation, this is called hearsay, that he was told that a franchisee had lost their life savings. If this was the case why didn't the franchisee in question ever mentioned this fact to the CIB or the Official Receiver? The only plausible answer is, that it isn't in fact, true.
Every potential franchisee had the option NOT to sign the agreement.No franchisee was ever forced to sign any agreement with the company. Every franchisee had the option to take the agreement to their solicitor, whether they exercised this option or not was up to them, the franchisee.

We never give into bullies!
This phrase is consistently used by the cowardly blogger and it just goes to show the level to which the cowardly blogger will stoop too.It is not a school playground, it is the real world and real world business.

Thanks
Philip Smith-Lawrence

Philip Smith-Lawrence's selection of Olympic art deco posters.

All posters are courtesy of Google images and are my favourites. All are posted in homage to the London 2012 Olympics.

Philip Smith-Lawrence's answer.....

..to the anonymous blogger that hasn't got the guts to reveal their identity.

AB-After many threats from Philip Smith-Lawrence we kept going with this blog to reveal the truth, -commercial decisions to trace the owner of your blog were made and lawyers consulted but no threats were ever made, I don't even know who you are! - AB-which has been acknowledged by the government investigation- the government has not acknowledged your blog or even you or anything your posted in your blog.If they have it will be in their evidence, which I have a copy of perhaps then I will find out who you are?

AB-You will see Philip Smith-Lawrence - using a copyrighted without my permission image has serious consequences -AB-with blogs online blaming everything on franchisees and not apologising for the not knowing how to run a business or franchise model and taking peoples money with just offering broken promises and unrealistic income.-Not everything is or was blamed on ALL franchisees, some made a success of their franchises, some didn't.Not one of the franchisees that signed up were made to sign up. They all had the option NOT to sign up.How many undertook due diligence or took advice from a solicitor before signing the contract, a legal contract? Nobody forced any one of the franchisees to do anything they didn't willing want to do.

AB-But the truth is the truth and the investigation shows this-The CIB investigation shows anything but the truth, more what the Government wanted to show.The truth will be published and it won't be an abridged version that anonymous bloggers LIKE YOU blog about or a version that the Government wants people to know. By the way, what happened after you posted a an article by one of the franchisees 'slagging' off the business? Oh yes, I remember the franchisee in question had a meeting with me and retracted the article, of his own accord. He realised that he was not only damaging HIS business but those of the other franchisees.

AB-As you will see Ask Ami which went on to be ITouchWorldWide made over a £1 million from franchisees hard saved money.- Ask Ami NEVER went on to be iTouchWorldWide, it always remained Ask Ami, and all franchisees used the Ask Ami branding and documentation.Ask Ami NEVER made over £1 million from franchisees.The company had a turnover over the YEARS of £1.6 million plus but that was just that TURNOVER.

AB-"The investigation found that AMI generated a turnover of more than £1.6m, of which £875,000 was paid to the current director, a former director and a senior sales person.- You didn't need a CIB investigation to find that out.All you had to do was go to Companies House and get the accounts of the company, accounts accepted by HMRC and Companies House,so nothing to hide there then. What the previous director was paid had nothing to with me. What a senior sales person was paid was bewteen the company and the person in question and it was all documented in the accounts.The same accounts accepted by HMRC and Companies House.

AB-Investigators found that the company failed to maintain, preserve or deliver adequate accounting records to explain these payments. In addition, the director did not cooperate fully with the investigators."-The CIB had ALL the files of invoices, bank statements and other company documentation showing exactly where every penny that came into the company went. The CIB investigators also had the details of the Chartered Accountant, whose services the company used, but the CIB NEVER contacted the accountants- why? As for not cooperating fully with the investigators, well let's see what happens when all the correspondence between me and the CIB showing that I cooperated fully is presented to the relevant governing bodies, who will be looking at the procedures of the CIB in this matter? It is a standard practice of the CIB to quote 'non-cooperation' when their findings are not what they thought they would/might be! 

AB-"Investigators found that nobody achieved that figure, that some franchisees earned nothing at all from their investment and that others had not even been provided with a kiosk many months after paying their fee.-Every franchisee got the rights to sell onto a kiosk(s).NOBODY achieved that figure! What about the ones that achieved in excess of 'that' figure? The franchisee is Cyprus achieved in excess of €100,000 in one year! Another invested £10,000 and return £13,000+, shall I go on? The CIB had this information and never took it into account, why? The ones that didn't achieve 'that' figure or anything at all obviously found the business model too difficult to operate.If so why did they WILLING sign the franchise agreement?

AB-The investigators also found that franchisees were dissatisfied with the level of training and support received from AMI and that the company had terminated franchise agreements unreasonably.-The Insolvency section now dealing with the company was VERY surprised to see documented proof that a Government backed training agency had actually be paid by AMI to run a training course for the franchisees! Again the CIB had this documentation and ignored it, why? Franchisees were terminated for a reason.Do you think that the termination of  franchisees, for lack of contact from those same said franchisees for over twelve months, was a unreasonable? 

AB-Commenting on the case, Investigation Supervisor Scott Crighton said:
"AMI promoted itself as something it was not, selling franchises which did not deliver the advertised returns." -I have only met Scott Crighton once during the CIB's investigation and it will be proven that AMI was NOT selling something it was not.The business model works and is still working to this day.This fact is proven by the sale of the assets of the business, kiosks and franchisees contracts.

AB-You will also find the Andrew Penman and Nick Sommerlad from theDaily Mirror's Investigations team mentioning this case named Philip Smith-Lawrence's operation which billed itself as "The Virtual Concierge" has been shut down in the High Court in the public interest. - The business was not billed as "The Virtual Concierge" it always did operate as Ask Ami-"The Virtual Concierge" related to the physical KIOSK not the business, because that what it was 'a virtual concierge'. As for the public interest element.The company had sold its assets, it wasn't and had't been selling franchises for over twelve months and there was no public engagement, the company operated in the B2B sector.

Now taken all the above has now been outlined to you, there remains a few points that the CIB failed to mention in their very biased press release;

One of the main points in the Governments winding up petition was that I had sold the assets of the company when I shouldn't have. The Judge threw this point out. Why? because I was well within my rights to sell the assets of the company for commercial reasons.That part never got mentioned in the CIB biased press release did it, I wonder why?

Every franchise, except one, got every penny of commission they were due. Oh, wait! They never earned anything so why should I pay them? Wait for the creditors report to see exactly how much these 'non-earning' franchisees actually got paid.The one franchisee that didn't get his commission didn't get paid because he started legal action against the company and his commissions were merely suspended until the outcome of the legal action was known.

Here is something else the biased CIB press release didn't contain, and this document was accepted by the court;

For the urgent attention of the Learned Judge sitting on the hearing of the under-mentioned Petition

Dear Judge,

Re: ADVANCED MEDIA INFORMATION LIMITED. Case Number:

I have received the Petition for the winding up of Advanced Media Information Limited, dated 23rd November 2011 and I would like to take this opportunity to state that, in light of the fact that the company, Advanced Media Information Limited, is no longer trading due to the CIB investigation, I do not oppose the petition for pragmatic reasons. I cannot afford to incur yet further legal costs on the Company’s behalf.

However, this should not be taken as an admission on my part of the matters raised in the supporting statement.

In particular (and this should not be regarded as an exhaustive list) I take issue with any assertions that (inter alia):

a)I took monies from franchisees, licensees and /or master licensees with no intention of performing our side of the contractual obligations;

b)I misrepresented the potential of the company and its’ franchisees, licensees and /or master licensees;

c)I knowingly permitted a person to act as a director when I was aware that he was prevented from doing so;

d)Failed to co-operate with the Petitioner or supply documentation in my possession;

e)The company had traded with a lack of commercial probity;

f)Made unreasonable representations regarding earnings;

g)Failed to provide support, including training, to the franchisees, licensees and /or master licensees;

h)Failed to address the issues of Regional Directors, Franchisees, licensees and /or Master Licensees that I either inherited or entered into an agreement with;

i)The company failed to run a pilot digital touch screen kiosk located at a hotel.

If any or all of these matters are pursued against me at any time in the future, I fully intend strenuously defending each and every such allegation. I should be grateful if this letter could be placed on file, if necessary for future reference.

Yours respectfully,

Philip.R.Smith-Lawrence.

Now I don't expect you, anonymous blogger, to accept any of the above, as you have some form of agenda and I have always stated that you were never a franchisee because you started  your blog to get at someone else. If in fact, if you were a franchisee then make yourself known. 

AB = ANONYMOUS BLOGGER. All my answers are italics.

Bobby Womack

An all time classic.

PLA: Defense budget increase appropriate CCTV News - CNTV English

PLA: Defense budget increase appropriate CCTV News - CNTV English

Kofi in Syria.

Killdozer Helicopter News Footage

Off for a walk.

It is such a nice day I think I shall go for a walk.

The mobile world.

Philip Smith-Lawrence has gone real technical and is blogging via mobile.

Welcome.

Welcome to my blog.

I am will be blogging about anything that takes my fancy. I may blog frequently or I may not, I don't know yet.

Anyway, thanks for reading Philip Smith-Lawrence's first blog post.