Philip Smith-Lawrence's reply.....

Philip Smith-Lawrence replies to the cowardly anonymous blogger that will not 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. 


Thanks
Philip Smith Lawrence

AB = ANONYMOUS BLOGGER. All my answers are italics.