This statement is issued to correct inaccuracies and provide factual context in response to recent media coverage concerning myself, Mr Michael Pattemore, Ms Lynda Bellingham, and Virtual Property World Ltd.
Recent articles have presented a partial and, in some respects, misleading account of events. The factual position is as follows.
Background
In March 2012, I published a single blog post. Its purpose was straightforward: to bring to the attention of the British Franchise Association (BFA) information that was already publicly available regarding Mr Michael Pattemore’s prior criminal conviction for fraud.
At the time, Mr Pattemore was a director of Virtual Property World Ltd and was offering franchises within the same marketplace in which I operated. As a participant in that sector, I considered it appropriate that the BFA be aware of publicly reported information when assessing matters relating to franchise accreditation and representation.
Mr Pattemore’s conviction was not new information. It had been reported nationally at the time of sentencing and remained accessible online. The blog linked to those existing reports.
Following its own independent review, the BFA made the decision to withdraw accreditation from Virtual Property World Ltd and to bar the company and Mr Pattemore from exhibiting at its events. That was the BFA’s decision, reached independently.
The blog remained online for approximately three weeks. It was not promoted to the press, not circulated to the public at large, and, to the best of my knowledge, had limited readership during that time.
Content of the Blog
The blog stated that Mr Pattemore had a prior conviction for fraud for which he received a two-year custodial sentence. That was a matter of public record.
The blog also stated that Mr Pattemore was married to Ms Lynda Bellingham and that both were directors of Virtual Property World Ltd. This was confirmed by Companies House filings at the time. Ms Bellingham was prominently associated with the company’s branding and marketing.
At no point did the blog allege that Ms Bellingham had committed any offence. At no point did it allege that Virtual Property World Ltd had committed fraud. The reference concerned Mr Pattemore’s historic conviction only.
The sole inaccuracy in the blog was the description of the conviction as “property fraud” rather than “investment fraud.” I acknowledged that error and apologised for it. The fact of conviction itself was accurate.
Legal Proceedings
Mr Pattemore and Ms Bellingham issued defamation proceedings seeking damages in excess of £750,000, together with legal costs. They alleged that the blog had caused the failure of their business.
The case did not proceed to trial. No court made any findings of fact following a contested hearing.
The matter was resolved by way of an out-of-court settlement on a without-admission-of-liability basis.
The settlement sum represented a small fraction of the amount originally claimed. It bore no meaningful resemblance to the scale of damages asserted in the claim and reflected a pragmatic commercial decision to avoid the substantial time, expense, and disruption associated with prolonged High Court litigation.
Contrary to some media reporting, there was no court judgment awarding significant damages. The claim concluded privately and commercially.
Business Performance
It has been asserted publicly that the blog caused the collapse of Virtual Property World Ltd. That assertion is not supported by the objective record.
Publicly available data from before the blog was published demonstrates that the company was already experiencing significant commercial and financial challenges.
I make no assertion as to the cause of the company’s subsequent difficulties. However, it is incorrect to state that any court has determined that the blog caused the business to collapse.
Specifically:
• Listing data visible at the time on major UK property portals, including Rightmove and Zoopla, showed that in the twelve months prior to publication the company was advertising approximately one property per week on average across its entire network.
• This level of stock exposure was materially low for a business described as operating a national franchise model.
• Companies House accounts for the financial year ending March 2012, covering the period prior to publication of the blog, recorded a reported loss of approximately £120,000.
• The same accounts recorded outstanding liabilities in excess of £180,000.
These figures relate to the period BEFORE the blog was published and BEFORE the BFA withdrew accreditation.
The blog was live for approximately three weeks and was not promoted to the wider public. Given the pre-existing financial losses, liabilities, and limited listing activity recorded independently on third-party platforms and in filed accounts, it is not accurate to state that the blog created the underlying commercial position reflected in those documents.
No court has determined that the blog caused the failure of the business.
Clarifications
For the avoidance of doubt:
• I acknowledge and apologise for incorrectly describing the historic conviction as “property fraud” rather than “investment fraud.”
• I do not allege that Ms Bellingham committed any wrongdoing.
• I do not allege that Virtual Property World Ltd committed fraud.
• Mr Pattemore’s conviction for fraud was a matter of public record and had been reported nationally prior to the blog.
This statement is issued to ensure that the public record reflects documented facts rather than speculation.
Further Public Reporting
Mr Pattemore’s conviction for fraud was reported in the national press at the time of sentencing in 2007, including:
Daily Mail - Convict smells gravy as he shares home with TV Oxo mum
In addition, commentary offering an alternative perspective on the wider dispute has been published, including:
Canarian Weekly - Oxo Mum causes stir
These references are included solely to demonstrate that information concerning Mr Pattemore’s conviction was already in the public domain prior to the publication of my blog.