Respondent (Master Distributor for a Private Commercial Training Organisation)

1. Although our investigation doesn’t prove that Respondent applied pressure as a selling technique, in general, it is recommended all life coaches/training providers provide their customers with a reasonable timeframe to consider making purchases for which a significant investment is required.
2. No evidence has been submitted to show that Respondent and his team were unable to answer Complainant’s questions, except for Complainant’s questions about accreditation.
3. Timelines indicate that the complaints form had only been sent to Complainant at a very late stage in the complaints process and only after the Complainant had registered their Request for Facilitation and Discussion with the Ombudsman Service. Evidence shows that this was done after multiple requests to provide this were made by Complainant and Third Party.
4. The company information provided isn’t transparent.
   It is good business practice to publish company contact information consistently and transparently across all business documentation and promotions, which isn’t the case as evidenced by both parties.
   When multiple companies are involved in offering a product, the relationship between such companies and the roles and responsibilities of each of those companies should also be made very clear.
   Sending an invoice from one company, and then a receipt from another company for the amount paid, is confusing and incorrect.

Third Party (CEO of Private Commercial Training Organisation)

1. The Ombudsman Service has found evidence that at least some of the information provided was incomplete or incorrect.
   • Third Party isn’t accredited by the IRCM.
     The IRCM does not provide accreditation services to training companies, nor does the IRCM endorse training companies. The IRCM does offer a registration service to training companies who commit to adhere to the IRCM's Codes of Conduct (standards, ethics, core competencies) and disciplinary procedures.
     Third Party, a UK limited company, is registered on the IRCM's Education Directory.
     Respondent is not, nor has ever been registered or listed on the IRCM's Education Directory.
   • Third Party forwarded the Complainant’s complaint to their Professional Body, who responded that they couldn’t process this complaint because Respondent is not registered/accredited with the Professional Body.
   • ILM has confirmed that Third Party is an approved centre.
     No proof of approval has been provided for Respondent.
2. It has been evidenced that Third Party had been in contact and discussed the complaint with the Complainant.
   In this contact, Third Party offered various solutions to come to an amicable agreement on the way forward, which included training with a different Master Distributor and participating in another course free of charge.
   Although Third Party offered various solutions, it has also been evidenced that, as the process progressed, when it came to the repeated request for a refund, the Third Party referred the Complainant back to the Respondent, as the contract was between the Complainant and Respondent.