breach of contract

[steveeasy]

Hi,
I am considering submitting a claim towards a organisation for Breaches of contract.* My question is this.* If I have 5-5 breaches identified that are significant and the judge finds 4 in our favour and one he disagrees with that is open to interpretation its not black or white.* What would be the consequences of looseing one of the claims.

the claims are as follows.

Introducing a new venue without consulting venues within 50 miles( they decided to reduce the radius mid way through contract which is a breach of the contract.

Adding dates for that venue outside dates window.* they have absolutely nor right and it is a breach of contract.

changing the terms of the contract half way through.* Breach of contract.

Introducing another venue within a mile without any consultation at all forget the 50 miles radius.* breach of contract.


One of these breaches is not clear cut. 5 years ago they set up the business with misleading information their own staff provided.* they then identified what a staff member had done and revoked the permission.* In their words they now were not going to offer full affiliation to the business. Now they argue it was so they don't need to consult us over it.* ie its not a new business.

There is a lot more of forged signitures by staff in 2015. staff not passing information to commitee meetings and then sitting in the meeting knowing it would have a detrimental impact on us.* uncovered by CEO in 2015.

Overal* its become a complete shambles.

so what might happen if we were successful but unsuccessful.

Id really appreciate just an opinion.

Steveeasy*
*

[steveeasy]

I have to be careful that I don't bring the organisation in to disrepute but id like to explain what they have been doing one example im not pursueing at present.

Our facility is used to hold events they are tasked to manage in this country. In 2015 we were building a new outdoor facility primarily for use with the events we hold for them.* Their RDO came and visited, discussed the new facility, went away and confirmed everything in an email, specs etc.
The RDO then went down the road and prepared an application for another business not related to the organisation at all* on the basis we had no outdoor facility.* this information was then submitted to a committee and on that information the offered the other business a contract.

when we found out we were asked why we had not informed our RDO. we showed the emails confirming our conversations and they then decided not to offer the business a full contract. now they say as they did this four years ago its not a new application.

the same RDO forged our papers a year earlier and changed the date to a form to add information.* apparently it was a error.* At the same time the sports director kept our application from a committee hearing effecting the outcome. of course we overturned each time

Now they have introduced a new business one mile from us.* the contract also states how great care should be taken not to displace periferal venues.* we are in one of thre poorest counties in England, close to the coast. large area, small population. low members and high level of venues compared to all other counties.* they say we are not peripheral.

the recognised distance between venues is 30 miles. the proposed new venue will be the closest in thecountry in an unproductive area. *

when I look at the trail of events as well as breaches to contract, it is all to evident we have been potentially discriminated.

Steveeasy*


*

[steveeasy]

We have submitted our complaint concerning the above as part of a standard complaint set procedure. parties agree to try and resolve the dispute in 30 days. ** they have offered a meeting to try and resolve the dispute with one condition.* we stop and cancel requests for information under FOI and SAR and secondly, we confirm we have exhausted our legal advice and given instruction to stop our lawyers prior to the meeting. * Quite astonishing really.* If you make a complaint, you then try and resolve it, if its unsuccessful then you try mediation and then if you cant come to a resolution you continue with your legal claim if need be.* its also forms part of pre action protocol.

How an organisation thinks it can insist you drop your right to legal advice and withdraw your right to access information is bizarre. *

steveeasy

[steveeasy]

Id really appreciate just some simple advice.
weve made a formal complaint via a solicitor. the organisation has come back saying they will agree to a meeting but only if we confirm we have exhausted our legal avenues. A standard complaint procedure 3o days both parties try to resolve the dispute. then mediation. the agreement states we can still instigate legal proceedings during mediation.

But you cant start a legal claim without trying to resolve a complaint first. is it not then wholly unreasonable for the organisation to refuse to even meet unless we confirm we have exhausted all our legal channels.

Thanks in advance

Steveeasy

[steveeasy]

well then what happens when you submit a complaint in the correct format and the CEO thinks hed rather cover up the mess. he tries to bully the complainant by saying he will only meet when we have completely exhausted all our legal avenues. for clarity we only submitted 1 complaint and recieved 1 response.
If your complaint is not in there interest to deal with correctly is it common for the CEO to try to extinguish it. I thought his role in a governing body for the UK would be to be fair and honest.

Steveeasy

[steveeasy]

Hi,
Im sure there is a reason why im not getting any kind of advice but it would help to understand why not.

We made a very detailed complaint.* we were offered a meeting but only when we had exhausted all legal channels.* then we went to the meeting that was described as a mediation meeting, but just ourselves and the other party. is that mediation?. in that meeting it was agreed the actions of the organisation were wrong.* the CEO said 1 he would review it. 2 make it an appeal.* he would write to the other business putting their acceptance on hold.* but nothing in writing.

we are happy to give them until the new year to act accordingly, but there is no trust now.

the position is.

they are trying to attempt to push through their latest issue buy saying they are going to review it. or an appeal. but the reality is they are playing a game.* it is time for transparency.

So if you have a contract/affiliation agreement and the other party goes of and trys to add a new business that will ruin yours, is their a legal claim you can challenge this in court.* do both parties have to act in the best interests of each other, or can you act in a detremental way to a person you are supposed to be working with.* I am finding getting simple advice from my lawyer difficult and when we were offered a meeting as part of a standard complaints process, this was only if we had exhausted all our legal avenues.* clearly I thought this was an unreasonable request, and I asked that question.* is it reasonable or not.* cant get a simple answer.

as allways any advice is appreciated.

Steveeasy

*

[Amethyst]

Apologies Steveeasy - Nothing sinister - just likely bad timing when you've posted and other posts have knocked you down the list before we've seen your thread - particularly happens late evening . I'm having a quick read back now.

[steveeasy]

It would help if I added better clarity to it.

In essence in 2015. we had a contract with an organisation.* One of their representatives went off and provided very misleading information about our business. as a consequence this lead to a new business next to ours.* when the organisation found out they rectified it and removed the new business.

4 years later they say they added it so its an existing business that has not been operating.* they have in a meeting said it has been handled wrong.* but wont put anything in writing.* they are going to try to revisit it in a committee meeting in January.* There solicitors response before the meeting refuted every claim we made. in the meeting they acknowledged every claim.* the committee have admitred changing the terms of the contract mid term to introduce new busineses,* they just don't understand why they cant do this.

By the way, quite by chance, incase your thinking we are an unpopular business, we have been voted in the top 4 of 30 venues in a region from Newcastle down to Herefordshire.* this is about being perceived by them as not good enough, not by what we provide but by our financial and social standing.* its quite appauling but we all know it goes on.

thank you for reading what ive sent. much appreciated.

Steveeasy

[Amethyst]

Okay

So you are a venue.

You have a contract with a company that books venues that for events held in your area your venue will be used.

There is an exclusion clause that they won't sign up other venues within a 30 miles radius.

They have given another venue within the 30 mile radius the same contract.

Therefore you believe they are in breach of contract.

Does the contract guarantee any specific number of bookings etc per year ?

Any specific guaranteed value to the contract ?

Maybe a copy of the contract would help

And you can of course send them a pre-action letter with a view to taking them to court if you have lost out because they have breached the contract.

Presumably though you want to retain your relationship with them for contracts and bookings going forward which is why you've let them walk over you a bit until now?

[steveeasy]

Hi,
yes we are a venue.* if they want to introduce a new venue there is a clause where they have to consult all venues within a 50 mile radius.* the consultation is to be 2 way meaningful.* so they changed the radius to 30 miles to not consult. venues typically are 30 miles apart.* this one is 1 mile.

the latest debacle involved the RDO selecting the apparently new venue as a meeting for organisors to attend to arrange dates.* we did not attend this one, but attended one a day later for the same region, the same RDO, the same dates.* dates for all venues must be added before this.* during this meeting the RDO did not mention the introduction of the new venue. nor new dates for it. * she then did not mention it for a week.* we read a publicity release.* when we questioned her she merly said if you had come to the first meeting at the new venue I would have told you.* this was reviewed by the CEO that said he was appauled.* it should not have happened. we believed it was malicious.

a new venue can be added if it is better or needed.* ours is better, the demand quite simply is not there.* the consultation gives us the opportunity to discuss the positives and negatives of a new venue so the decision is correct.* that's why they avoided it. to push through an application.* they have said they did not need to consult as it was introduced 4 years ago, when they overturned the decision.

no we are not worried about the relationship now.* they either remove the dates and venue or we sue them if we can.* clearly not the best course of action but at some point you have to put a foot down or they walk all over you.* they say they are reviewing it, and appealing it.* they will reprimand the RDO, but she is only carrying out their decisions based on nothing. they have refused to provide any rational for introducing it. *

Ill try and send our complaint letter to you.

thank you

Steveeasy

[steveeasy]

Hi again,
we attended a meeting with the CEO and two managers.* this they called mediation.* not sure where the mediator was.* the meeting was conditional on* us firstly exhausting all our legal avenues.* even these two points raise some serious concerns.* Our contract has a complaints procedure, we made our complaint in line with this and weretold they would only follow it through if we firstly exhausted legal avenues, secondly they called the meeting specifically mediation. but it was nothing of the sort.

Any way.* the CEO was apparently supprised by the RDO behaviour.* he said he would deal with the rdo.* he would write to the new business putting it on hold , and would launch a review, then said an appeal on the whole matter.* that's it we have not heard another thing from them.* Now I know we should all ways give someone the benefit of doubt. * but that trust has long gone completely, there3 is no trust anymore.

I wonder how relevant the above is. a standard straightforward complaints procedure, and although we spent a considerable amount of money having the complaint written by a solicitor for clarity, they could not even del with dealing with it appropriately.* I cant see why its normal practice to inform a complainant they will not meet until they have sought or exhausted all legal channels.* 2 why they felt it was mediation if no mediator was present.

Steveeasy **

[steveeasy]

Neither xx or the organisor shall act in any way to be prejudicial to the best interests of the other party.

Found this clause in the contract.* The contract is an affiliation contract.* I pondered if by its name alone there was an element of duty of care, but I assumed not.* however this clause seams to set out each party should not act in a way to be detrimental to the other party.* so of course it goes without saying we should not act in a detrimental manner towards xx, and they should not do so towards us.

So when the crafty Member of staff went and prepared an application on behalf of a new business, which its primary benifit was to have an outdoor facility* and intentionally omitted details of our new facility, why did she do this, well that's the element I cant prove, But its all too obvious.(that the organisation withdrew when they found out)* was a breach of the above clause. of course with clear evidence to back this up.

Steaveeasy

* *

I *




*