London-based promotional merchandise distributor Outstanding Branding announced today that it had been unsuccessful in its legal fight against trade association, Promota.

During the proposed merger between Promota and the BPMA in 2010, Promota claims it sent an invoice for the following year’s membership fees along with voting papers to its membership including Outstanding Branding. Managing Director, Sarah Penn, however is adamant that no such invoice was received at the time and that the first communication regarding fees received was a statement showing the invoice which arrived the following month. “In the early days of running our new business, there were many roles that myself and my business partner, Andy Thorne, took on ourselves; and dealing with invoicing and administration was one of the areas of my direct responsibility. Had I received an invoice from Promota at that stage, I would certainly have been aware of it”.

Having queried the invoice in an email to Annette Scott, Secretary of Promota, explaining that Outstanding Branding had decided to retain one trade association membership only for that year, namely with the BPMA, Sarah was shocked to received an emailed response flatly rejecting the request for the credit note.

“I couldn’t believe that any trade association, claiming to be supporting and helping its members, would be so inflexible on a matter like this, let alone refuse to give a member the benefit of the doubt. After all, who would want to force membership on a company that no longer wanted to be involved?”

After several emails between Sarah and Annette, with no attempt at flexibility or understanding on the part of the latter, the issue was handed over to Harris Browning solicitors in October, 6 months after the original statement had been received.

Sarah Penn queried several terms of thePromota Articles of Association with Harris Browning by letter, and received noreply whatsoever, until a full 6months later, in April 2011, a court summons was issued.

Finally, on 26th September 2011, 18 months after Sarah’s original email requesting a credit note for the unwanted and un-received invoice, the case was heard in Birmingham Crown Court. In a hearing lasting over an hour, attended by Annette Scott and Rose Hardy on the side of Promota, and Sarah Penn on the side of Outstanding Branding, the district judge heard both sides of the case before retiring to deliberate.

The judge described the evidence of both parties as ‘compelling and credible’ but had to make his decision based on the ‘balance of probability’ ofthe original invoice having been sent. Sadly for Outstanding Branding, the verdict was returned in favour of Promota.

Speaking about the decision, Sarah Penn was naturally disappointed. “While we do respect the decision of the court, and the invoice, court fees and interest accrued over the 18 months this has dragged on will be paid in full, I am disappointed that the final decision in favour of Promota came down to the time it took me – 2 weeks – to query the statement. The judge’s feeling was that had it been an entirely unrecognised item on the statement, one would have queried it more promptly. I can only assume the judge hasn’t been involved in handling the paperwork generated by a promotional merchandise company dealing with around 100 orders a month! We feel it only fair to let our fellow distributors, and supplier partners, know the way Promota chooses to deal with situations such as this, so they have their eyes fully open if they choose to renew their membership next year. I would also like to thank all those who came out publicly and privately in our support – the thread on the LinkedIn discussion board for BPMA members I think says it all.”

Published on: October 3rd, 2011