Transcription
The reason for this debate is Samuel, from my understanding, has a company called PIMs, which mediates situations, right? And this is essentially where a decision, in my opinion, went against me.
They were claiming that you deceived them. They were claiming that you sold a deal that was bad, and the deal sucked. And you were claiming, "No, the deal was good. It's just a bit of a low season."
"Go above and beyond and still pay that amount as well. £2,230."
"Why not 2,800, the amount that you were supposed to pay back?"
"Because I felt it was very unfair to take advantage, and it hurt. It hurts your pride, you know."
"It hurts your pride. I'm paying thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds to have mediators, adjudicators, lawyers, spending freaking tens of hours trolling through your WhatsApp messages, and you have the disrespect to go, 'Yeah, I disagree.' Who do you think you are?"
So, welcome to the live debates. So, my name is Samuel Leeds, and one of the things I love doing is having conversations with people that most people would avoid. So, I get a lot of people that message me on social media or comment on my videos and say, "You're the reason that this country is messed up," or "Landlords are leeches," all kinds of stuff. And I like to engage in healthy dialogue, conversation, debate, not necessarily to try and tear each other down. The purpose of a debate is not to tear somebody down. The purpose of a debate is to learn, is to be open-minded.
And this first one's a little bit different because this guy I'm about to enter into a debate with is actually somebody that was a student of mine. His name is Teshi, and he's done really well for himself. And me and Teshi have been very close, and I've had nothing but love for Teshi. However, he wants to debate me. I'm going to let Teshi explain in a moment why he wants to debate me, but it's a little bit different. So, firstly, I want to say Teshi, respect for coming down because personally, the way I, the way I see things is we're living in a generation where people don't do this, where people don't dialogue, where people don't debate. And I think it, you know, massive props for coming. So, I said to you this before you came, the purpose for my end is not to try and win an argument. It's certainly not to try and make you look bad. It's just to have a conversation. And I think that it's not only good for me and good for you, but it's also good for the people listening because they'll be able to learn from it. Lessons will be learned all around. So, firstly, I want to say respect for coming down.
Absolutely. Anytime, Samuel.
Appreciate the opportunity as well. You know, uh, it's good to be running it back as well on Mr. Debate. You know, I did reach out to you. So, I'm thankful for the opportunity to put my cards on the table, you know, be here with my palms up, nothing to hide, and just actually get into it and have a talk.
Absolutely. And why don't we start? Why don't you, I mean, you can, you can maybe tell the camera if you want, or how you feel comfortable as to what the, or you can tell me, but what the reason was that you wanted to sit with me, debate me, what, what was the, uh, what, what's this about?
Absolutely. Yeah. So, first, I'm just going to get into a little introduction about myself as well for the audience as well. So, I'm just going to let people know. So, my name is Teshi Chima. I come from the north of England, from a city called Leeds. I grew up in an old mining town called Micklefield. So, I was raised by third-generation grandparents, and a lot of stuff happened early doors in my life, which I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty of it here, but, you know, I've worked hard to get to where I am. Come from extremely humble beginnings. So, you know, started with nothing. You know, never was involved in property. Never was involved in business. Never had family who owned assets, owned property. Never had anyone I could really look up to and, uh, start to, you know, achieve the things I've achieved that people would think, you know, I had helping hands and foundations already set for me. Foundations didn't exist for me, you know. And the reason I get onto this is because from the age of 17, this is where I really, really, um, just created the foundations for myself, you know. So, I started from nothing. And the reason I tell this story is, and the reason why it loops back around, is because I have worked tirelessly and effortlessly with scars and cuts on my back, and mentally, mentally, you know, forged scars from business to get to where I am today through hard work, discipline, dedication, and always, in my opinion, acting in good faith, humbleness, and doing the best I possibly can with all the cards I've been dealt with.
So, the reason for this debate is, and I'm going to let you get into some stuff as well, Samuel, for my understanding, has a company called PIMs, which mediate situations, right? And this is essentially where a decision, in my opinion, went against me. And simply, I'm here to put my cards out on the table and explain why I feel like the decision that went against me was made wrongly, and why I feel so passionate, and why I'm here, you know, with my shields, you know, defending myself, defending my honor, and protecting my name as far as I can because up to today, the blacklisting, as you may know, has been very one-sided in terms of there's been no details, and, you know, Chinese whispers go around, right? And that's not really fair. Chinese whispers aren't fair. So, I'm here to debate you, have an intellectual, honest conversation, and put my cards out on the table. So, Samuel, I'd just like to ask you, so, given what you know about the PIMs case, what's your take on it with me and the client who brought it forward? What's your actual take on it?
Yeah. I mean, firstly, I want to start by saying, um, for context for anyone listening as to what PIMs is and how it works. So, PIMs is called Property Investors Mediation Service. Now, we within the academy, we've got hundreds of property entrepreneurs and investors. And I know you know this already, but I'm saying this.
Of course, it's important.
We've got hundreds of people that pay money, a lot of money, to be part of a community where they're joint venturing together, doing deals together, partnering, selling deals, all working together. Now, back in the day, how it used to work was, I'm just a trainer. Yeah. I'm a property investor, but in this context, I'm a trainer.
Absolutely. I'm going to teach you what to do. I'm going to put on networking events. If you do business with one another and then it goes bad, don't come to me. I'm just a trainer. I'm not. So, so people used to come to me and say, "Oh, that person sold me a deal." And I'm like, but then what would happen is now that same person could potentially be selling bad deals, bad deals, basic, not saying you, obviously, but could be scamming people in my community, and everyone's coming to me, and I'm like, I'm not getting involved. So I thought I need to have a system in place whereby we can protect the community so that if someone sells a deal, someone does a rent-to-rent with someone, and a deal goes bad, if we're going to look at it, we can't half-ass it.
Yeah.
So, you when you ask me what's my opinion, for a start, that's, it's not really, I'm not going to, I'm not going to answer your question.
Yeah. But it's not really that relevant because if my opinion, if I'm saying, "Oh, let me look at it. Oh, what do I think?" I really like you. Me and you went to Uganda together.
We did. Yeah.
We had a really good relationship. You fought on my boxing show.
Against and won.
And, and so me and you have got a good relationship. We've always had a good relationship.
You've come from nothing like how I've come from nothing. I trained you. I mentored you through the academy. You started making lots of money. And I'm like, "Yeah, man. My guy."
Yeah.
So, the reality is, if you've got a dispute with someone and they come to me, and it's a little bit 50/50, let's say, who, I'm a human being.
Of course.
So, it's very, it'd be very easy for me to say, "Oh, but Tes." Yeah. Also, what makes it even worse than that is if I'm looking at the cases and I'm involved, and it's down to me, I'm not a lawyer. I'm friends with people within the academy. And now, from a reputational perspective, people are going to say, "You only said that," even if what I say is completely fair, it's, "You only said that because he went to Uganda, he fought on your show." So, when I set up Property Investors Mediation Service, I set it up, and I will come back to your question. I have looked at your case. I looked at your case. Yeah, I looked at your case, but only because of this.
Of course.
Right? I didn't want to come into this conversation and just go, "But, but, but." I set PIMs up in such a way where I've got lawyers, I've got mediators, I've got professional people that know the law far better than I know the law, who run PIMs almost semi-independently. Yes, they are, um, instructed by me. So, now they make our decisions. They look into what's what, and, and, and, and, and it's got that, um, professional, it's, it's somewhat independent. People can't say, "Oh, but Samuel just likes this person." I can't be humanly. It's a conflict of interest for a judge to be friends. You, in fact, a lot of the times, solicitors will say, "I'm professionally embarrassed. I can't represent you. I can't." So, I feel professionally embarrassed almost.
Of course.
To to be involved in PIMs cases because it's like, man, I'm their friends. I'm their mentors. On there. I'm too involved. So, that's why I set this company up so that if we have a dispute, then it goes to PIMs. PIMs look at it. PIMs mediate. PIMs look at the receipts, and then PIMs make a ruling. So,
Yeah.
That, that, that context. But to answer your question, what do I think? I think about the case that your, uh, the ruling that that was, uh, you could say against you, I think was not only fair, but I think that it was actually in your favor.
That's interesting. So, what makes you say that?
Because the, the, the, um, the claim against you was three parts. The first part was, I want a refund for, for, for, and I have got the, the details to hand very quickly. Okay. The first, the first part of the claim was, "I paid you, I think, three grand."
Okay.
"First typical sourcing fee."
Yeah. Typical sourcing fee.
"The deal was rubbish."
Okay.
"I'm not making money on it. You miss-sold, mate, and I want a refund." That was the first part of the claim. Am I right?
So, I would disagree with those points, but you can keep going on.
But that's what they said.
That's what they said. Yeah. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying there's two sides to every story.
Of course.
100%. But that was what that was their claim. Whether they had merit or not is irrelevant, but that was what they were saying.
And we'll get back to that as well.
Right. The second thing they were saying is, you furnished the property, and you furnished it with, um, you got the furniture for free from an estate agent friend, and you furnished it badly, and they wanted a refund for your furniture and dressing.
Okay. So, I disagree with that point. So, that's another weird claim. So, it's strange how.
I'm not saying I understand.
I'm no, sorry, I'm not saying that the, what they were saying was fair,
Reasonable, right or wrong. I'm saying that's what they said.
Okay.
Is that correct?
I did not hear them actually say those words that I got that furniture off an estate agent for the end. I've got receipts for furniture.
But there was a refund for the furniture though.
Okay. Interesting. Yeah. Yeah. Am I right? So,
Looking back at it now, yes, they did want a lot of stuff as well.
Yeah. Listen, listen. You seem. No, no. I don't think you do understand. I'm not saying you seem. I'm just saying factually, they wanted a refund for those points. I'm not saying they were right or wrong.
I'm just saying that's what they were asking. That's what they was. That's what they were saying.
That's what they're saying.
That's what they're saying. I'm not saying they're right. So, they wanted a refund for the deal. They wanted money back for the furniture and dressing. And they said that the property that you had sourced for them that you were managing was making a loss. And they said that you agreed to top up the difference and didn't, and they were claiming for that as well.
Okay. Okay.
Is that right?
Okay. So, the third bit is incorrect, but that is what they're saying as well.
So, I do dispute all those points. I don't agree with all those points, but that is what. Didn't you did say that you'd top up the.
I specified in the low season I would top it up. So, let's just go back to those points. So, the first point is, I sold them a deal, right?
So, as an investor, you know, as training, as a professional property sourcer, you understand when you sell someone, they've got a 14-day cooling-off period. Yeah. You know, like, all my deals, I do do the best due diligence I can possibly do. Rent-to-service accommodation is one of these games where nightly rates do fluctuate. High season, low season, that's a given. You know, anyone should know that. So, they had 14 days to do their due diligence. If they did buy the deal off me, you know, I sold it in good faith. I sold it with genuine, you know, understanding that it would do well. Okay.
And keep it facts though.
Keep it facts. Yeah.
You can talk about.
And factually, you know, I sold comparable properties which are very like-for-like, three-bed, one-bath, three-bed, one-baths within the same area, within, you know, just 100 doors up the street. You know, those properties did exceed well. They were getting large, large bookings, £35,000 bookings in nine months. There's no context to say that that property could not have done the same. You know, at the end of the day, it's just, it is one of these games where bookings come in, bookings go out. You know, you know, nightly rates do go up, nightly rates do go.
They wanted their money back.
Yeah.
But you're saying, but they're out of the cooling-off period. So, tough.
Exactly. And that's, you know, that's fair. That's very fair. Secondly, with furniture and stable. It's not fair though if, um, if you've sold a deal in bad faith, or if you've misled somebody, then that then it's different. Yeah. If it's sold in bad faith, or I've misled someone, and that's subjective somewhat, and that would be need to be looked at by, uh, an adjudicator, or if it went to court, a judge would look at that and they'd say, "Well, hang on a minute. Yes, they're out of the cooling-off period, but did you break trading standards? Did you mislead? Did you misrepresent?" And that's.
Of course, I've got receipts to back myself there as well. So, this is the reason I've come here. It's because I know. They were claiming, they were claiming that you misled them. They were claiming that you deceived them. They were claiming that you sold a deal that was bad, and the deal sucked, and you knew it sucked. That's what they were claiming, and you were claiming, "No, the deal was good. It's just a bit of a low season." It's a bit. Yeah. And that's what the case was about, and that's what my team had to look into.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And then the second point there about furniture and staging, saying that I brought it off an estate agent friend. That point doesn't make sense. I've not heard that point. I've got receipts.
You didn't give, you refused to give the receipts. That's interesting.
Yeah, I'm not too sure about that because I know exactly where I do my shopping. I know exactly where, um, I buy new things from. So, I don't entirely agree with that. But at the same time, so let's move on to a third bit, which is where, you know, they have claimed that I offered to make up the entire overheads.
Well, I've got the exact wording of what you said to them on WhatsApp. I've got the screenshots, which I can, I can read if that's helpful.
And I can bring up my receipts as well. We can bring up the context as well.
Yeah. Is that, is that correct though? Is that, is that been documented anyway, or is that, 'cause that's the, uh.
Yeah. So, you need to look at the prior context and after context.
Okay. But that is correct though. Maybe you could say you could.
One screenshot, and I can always show you screenshots as well. Have a look then.
Yeah. So, it says, "Yes. Exactly."
No, let me read it.
Okay. You can read it. Okay. You can read.
You checked it. You've checked. It's good. It's legit. Fine. It might be out of context.
Okay.
But this is the, this is the, uh, this is the evidence that they gave in. And that's another thing, Teshi, as well. When we do a mediation, you don't, you say things like, "Samuel, what's your opinion?"
Oh, sorry. I, I'll let you.
I'm trying to bring up the receipts as well.
Yeah, that's fair enough, man. That's fair enough. But, you know, you say, "Sam, what's your opinion?" If I was mediating cases just based on a willy-nilly, "Oh, what do I think? What's my, what's my gut feeling? Who's who's convincing me the most? What's my gut feeling saying?" That's not what our mediators and adjudicators do. What they do is they go, "Let's go through all the receipts. Let's see all the." And it's free for academy members. What a service to be able to say, "Oh, you've had a dispute with this person. You have lawyers and mediators, spending tens of hours going through the receipts, looking at the bank transfers, speaking to them, speaking to you." Over 90% of our cases are resolved in mediation. Those that are not are then adjudicated. And then even when they're adjudicated, then if some, if, if someone says you need to pay back, then they do because they don't want to be blacklisted. There's very few people, you're one of the very few people that have ever gone, "I know I got ruled against, but, you know what? I ain't paying."
And you know why I did that? It's because I'm a man of principle. But I really do want to touch on the third point you said as well. Let's do that. Let's keep it to actually.
Well, let me read this. It says this. It says, um, the guy said to you, he said, "Even Teshi, it was good to talk the other night, even though it wasn't a nice convo for either of us. Just to clarify, so that we can tell Samuel Leeds to take the property off the market because he was talking about putting it back on the market 'cause it wasn't working." You said, "Don't do that."
Yes.
"You've agreed to make up the difference of any shortfall each month for us to break even until the break clause." And you said, "Yeah, man. Exactly. I'll fill your overheads if you're short and cover the management as well. I think the deal will work. It's just a bad time with the low season." He said, "Spot on, mate. We'll rank tomorrow this morning. All sorted on that front, too." And you said, "Sound, mate." So, you have agreed until the break clause.
Okay. So, this is where the context of what I'm saying. I haven't agreed to top it up until the break clause. And this is where the message has been misconstrued. So, you can see in my receipts as well, I've got the chats live up here as well. I'm going to read it out and I can show you as well.
Show me.
So, I'll show you there.
So, when's this?
So, this is the 3rd of November.
And, and when was that? When was that? That's, uh.
Yeah, but.
Maybe the 27th.
Yeah, but hang on. That doesn't matter.
Of course, it does matter. The context does matter.
No, it's not the context because this is after this.
And I'm going to show you after as well as well.
Yeah, but yeah, but any, you've been back and forth with this guy for ages, but then he's messaged and said, "Long conversation. It wasn't nice for either of us, but just to clarify, this is now what we're saying." And you say, "Yes." You can't think, "Oh, but a month before we said something different."
This was days before, and this is what I'm saying. It's been misconstrued. It's being taken out of context and it's being manipulated.
It's a week before, but then you were clearly in dispute, and, and now he's saying this, and that, but I'm just being real.
Yeah.
If you went to court, a judge would say that is a contract. That is an agreement.
Okay. So, so let's look at what I've said as well. So, if I can read out what I've said because I'm disputing it, you know, it's not irrelevant because it's before and it's after. The context always matters in the sense of a situation. Right?
It's not the context. It's a, it's a pre, you were back and forth with the guy, and then he's just messaged and said, "Look, I know we had lots of conversations back and forth, but this is what we agreed, right? This is the." And you say, "Yeah, absolutely." And confirm that in court, my friend. I'm not, I'm not being funny. If there was a judge right here right now, the judge would say, "Yeah, that, that overrides." If you have a, if, if in, in law, if me and you have an agreement and we have a contract, even if we have a contract, if we then get a new contract, that will replace the old contract.
That's interesting because I haven't even really got my points across yet. So, I don't actually need to get my points across, say what I want to say. So, I did actually tell this individual, you know, "I think you're jumping the gun, and you need to wait out the low season. I'm going to help you on fees and rent if you're not breaking even because you're my client. But if you decide to get rid of it, I want to sell your deal onto another investor as a ready-to-go investment, which I know I can do because I have trust in this deal. It's going to work. It's just timing right now, coming into the low season right now. But I'm going to support you completely right now and help you out." So, my context was in good faith.
That shows bad faith though.
Why does it? It shows bad faith because you're saying this guy, you've sold this guy a deal, and he's, you're managing it, and presumably you're a good manager, and it's not making money. It's losing money. He wants his money back. It's all a nightmare. And then he says, "Look, I'm just going to give it back to the agent." And then you say, "Don't do that. Let me sell it to somebody else." It's like, "Hang on a minute. If a deal's really bad, and the guy isn't making money, why on earth would you say to him, 'No, no, don't do that. Let me.' It sounds to me like you said you'd top up the shortfall." 'Cause you were thinking, "Oh, I only need to pay him a few hundred quid, top up for a couple months, and then I'll find another person to sell it to to make another three grand. Bap." Sounds to me that's pretty bad faith.
Well, you, you can't really say that because then you're preempting stuff which hasn't happened because I could have refunded him with that sourcing fee. Many things could have happened if I sold that deal. You know, that never happened. I didn't sell that deal. What I actually did promise was, I will fill his overheads in the low season, and I will actually do that during the low season. That is exactly what I did.
But did you though throughout the low season?
After that message in December? Yes.
Okay. But you owed him that, that agreement. You're saying that that doesn't stand because you had previous stuff. I mean, when did the break clause end?
The break clause would have ended in June.
March. June. So, you said here, he said, you said here,
Yeah.
In June, that you'll pay the shortfall up to June, but you didn't.
So, I never agreed to do it up until June.
But you did here, 'cause the break clause was June. So, this is where it's been misconstrued, and this is where I find the situation unfair because I acted in good faith to go above and beyond for the client, and, you know, I acted in kindness and generosity, and he's manipulated that.
But how have you acted in kindness and generosity? You didn't refund him his fee. You didn't pay him the shortfall.
So, he never actually asked me to refund his fee up until that point. Up until when he actually sent it to PIMs, he's, you know, he said, "I want a refund for the sourcing fee, and I want the furniture and staging fee back." That was never something he talked about at that point. I simply just said to him, "I'll keep you in the deal, and I will actually fill up your overheads for you by going above and beyond." I exceeded my obligations, and I went above and beyond there. And I would agree with that, you know, and that's just honestly what I say.
But listen, Teshi, this is the, this is the point, and this is what I said at the very beginning. You won your case most in the most.
I really didn't.
You really did. This is why I don't. This is why I worry about your. You're an intelligent guy. Like, the guy brought a claim against you. It's what I said at the beginning. He wanted a sourcing fee back, right?
He wanted his furniture and dressing back, and he wanted the money that you promised him to cover the short.
To me, that is taking advantage because at no point did he ever ask my sourcing fee back to begin with, or the furniture fee back to begin with.
I'm not saying he was right or wrong.
These are added points. So, anyone can then really say anything to get any, you know, sourced.
All of his money back. They did pay you. He said, "Listen, I've bought this deal. I've been misled."
And that's not fair either.
Listen, I'm not saying it's fair.
And I'm talking about being fair. I'm talking about as a business going about above.
But I'm talking about the facts.
And you can see that, you can see the figures as well. You can see the facts and the figures I've ever seen. And I've seen them.
Yeah.
But, but let me, let me talk facts, right? 'Cause you, you're not understanding. I'm not saying he's right. I haven't even been able to in the last 20 minutes explain to you why you mostly won your case, 'cause every time I start telling you what the facts are, you cut in and go, "Yeah, but that's not fair."
It's interesting. So, I'll hear why you think I won that case when I was clearly on the losing end of that case.
Okay. Here's why you mostly won that case. Because he put a claim against you, and he wanted his money back from the sourcing fee of three grand. And he said that he'd been misled, the deal was bad, and that you'd sold him a duff deal. He said that he wanted the furniture money back because that you'd done a bad job furnishing it. You refused to give him the receipts. He said you wouldn't give him the receipts. He asked for his furniture money back. And he also said that you promised to pay the shortfall during the break clause of of his, um, losses until the break clause of June, which you agreed. And hence, hence the, we pulled out the screenshot, and that was his claim against you. So, when he came to us, we always hear first the person's claim, and then we give the other person a chance to defend themselves, give their evidence, and then we mediate, and then we adjudicate. So, when he brought that claim, that's what he said.
Okay. Okay.
We then spoke to you, and you defended yourself and, and, and said, "No, that's nonsense. I shouldn't have to do that," and explained your case. We tried to mediate. We couldn't. And then it went to adjudication. And the adjudication, as if it was in a court case, was, he's asking for his money back for the sourcing fee of three grand. And the case said, the adjudication said, "However, he's not owed his money back. He bought a deal. It's his fault if he didn't do his due diligence. You sold him a deal. He later, way over the 14-day cool-off period, said he wants his money back. No, he's not owed his money back. He should have done due diligence himself. He can't say the deal's bad because you had a 40-day cool-off period." So, you won that point. Second point, furniture. Okay. Teshi didn't give you the receipts. So, Tes, but did he furnish it? Yes, he furnished it. You paid for a service, and he delivered. You're now saying, "Oh, but I want the money." You haven't got a case, mate. Struck out. Lost another point to Teshi. Two-nil. Third point. You're also, you're asking for the money to be paid for the shortfall. Uh, well, there is screenshot evidence of that, and Tes did say that. So, you know what? Here's the final ruling. Teshi, you do not need to return the sourcing fee. It's not fair. He paid, you delivered. You do not have to refund the furniture. It's not fair. He paid, you delivered. Tes, the shortfall, you should pay. Okay.
And the adjudication is that £2,800, or whatever pounds, whatever the shortfall was from all the looking, you should pay that back, and you have 14 days or whatever to pay that money back. You then say, "No, I don't want to pay it back."
Okay.
That is the conclusion to the matter.
Yeah. And there's a solid point there because I'm actually going to get into this deal again because I feel like, you know, you've spoke about everything. So, I did sell this deal to this guy in August, right? So, he did take on up until November. That is when he was like, "You know what? The nightly rates aren't hitting, so it's not really, you know, projecting what you said it was." I tried giving it with facts and evidence. At the same time, you're saying I won, but this is where I'm trying to defend myself as well.
The only point you didn't win on was the shortfall, 'cause you should never have said, "Take this as a lesson," on the 3rd of December, you should never have said, "Yeah, man. Exactly. I'll fill your overheads if you're short and cover the management as well, etc."
That is your fault, and you should have took responsibility and put your hand in your pocket and paid it.
So, Samuel, I had already put my hand in my pocket and put my money where my mouth was when I offered to this individual. "I'll make your overheads up in the low season. It's just a timing with the low season, and I will help you out now." That is exactly what I did as a manager, as a sourcer, as an investor. I actually tried to help him as much as I could because I want him to actually make profit.
You agreed on the which is with the break clause in.
So, this is what I'm disagreeing with. I'm saying that those messages have been taken out of context. That's not what I agreed to because in my messages, you know, we can see that specifically talking about the low season, how I'll help him.
In law, anything that you say after what you agreed previously is a new agreement.
Yeah. Most. That is how most judges.
If that went to court, I'm telling you now, right?
I'm telling you on camera. I'll tell you off camera. I'm telling you now, man-to-man, businessman, man-to-businessman, a man who I respect. If that had gone to court, and you'd have been taken to small claims court, what would have happened is you'd have had to pay to defend yourself. You'd have had to pay to get a lawyer, probably, if you wanted a lawyer. If not, you'd have defended yourself, which probably wouldn't have been very good, and you would have lost that point.
So, it's actually very interesting you say that because I, what people don't know is I actually did pay this investor back money as well. So, they was asking me to pay back £2,730. Well, I actually dispute that, and I'm saying that I shouldn't pay that back because I actually did hold my own during the low season for this investor. I did put my money where my mouth was. Whether it was grand, whether it was hundreds, I did dip into my pocket and I did pay him to actually do what I said I was going to do. In my heart of hearts, in my goodness, in my mind, what I understood was correct. Um, so coming out of that as well, so that is where I said, "Look, I shouldn't pay the £2,730 because I've already dipped into my pocket and gone above and beyond, but here I will pay you, you know, let's call it two grand." He refused to accept two grand. We ended up settling on £2,230. So, people haven't even seen that I actually did try and make peace with him as well.
So, the thing is, the thing is, and that's that's good. I'm glad to hear that. But the thing is, and this is the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is that when you're on the academy, and when you're under PIMs, and when you're doing contracts with people, and that as part of the T&Cs, T&Cs to the academy, as part of the, um, the setup on the academy, which everybody knows is that if there's a dispute and it goes to PIMs, no matter what the case says, you can't just say, "I don't like the adjudication results, so I'm not going to listen." It, you, you need.
Have you ever done business with someone and it felt unfair?
Yeah.
You know, so emotions get the better of you. Things can happen where it goes against you, and it's unfair.
Of course.
Absolutely.
But the thing is, let's say you go to court and you lose. You can't go, "Well, I don't like that decision on principle." It's like, you lost. So, that's just if you, even if I, I personally, you ask me what my opinion is. I personally think that the PIMs adjudication was brilliant. And I think that it was the fair and right decision based on the evidence, based. That's what I think. That's my opinion. But it doesn't matter what my opinion is. It doesn't really matter what your opinion is. What matters is we've got. I'm paying thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds to have mediators, adjudicators, lawyers, spending freaking tens of hours trolling through your WhatsApp messages, and you have the disrespect to go, "Yeah, I disagree." Who do you think you are?
So, I feel like at the same time, I did, in the kindness of my heart, go above and beyond for that client. This is why I offered to make it up in the low season. This is why I did what I said I was going to do.
But if you're not prepared, let me tell you, let me tell you something as well. This is why you're blacklisted. Because if somebody refuses to comply with papers, they're blacklisted. Because you deserve to be blacklisted because people on the academy would want you to be blacklisted because you're somebody that will sell a deal to somebody and then if it goes bad, we'll go through all the rigmarole of going to PIMs and getting it mediated and adjudicated. But if you disagree with the adjudication, you'll just go, "Well, I just disagree." So, tough.
It's interesting you say that because I've got many clients, and I've refunded many clients on deals before. Things haven't gone well. So, you can't really just say I'm the sort of person that I'll just let it go through adjudication.
I can only look at the facts.
You can look at this situation on this one. You can't then make assumptions and say.
No, it's not making assumptions. It's saying these are the facts, and based on what happened in this scenario, I now have an opinion.
And there's been many scenarios as well. And I'm sure as a businessman as well, you've been through many scenarios yourself, and there's been a fair, and you know, you've acted with emotion as well.
And I've had to make a commercial decision.
Yeah.
Say, okay. And from, and I said to you, I begged you to to pay the guy back, and I'm like, bro, and so did Russell, like, bro, it's £2,800.
I made a very good point as well, and I feel like everyone did understand my points as well. You know, I speak from the heart, and I speak truthfully as well. And I genuinely did go above and beyond. I knew what I meant, and he knew what I meant as well. So, I will actually go out and say that this client did take advantage of my kindness, and he did manipulate and weaponize my generosity. But PIMs didn't let him.
Because PIM.
In that situation, in that sense, this. Well, I'm, I'm, you know, in the sense I didn't actually disagree with PIMs.
You won.
I lost a point. I lost a point.
It was 2-1, and you went, "Yeah, but I want it to be 3-0."
Yeah.
And, and as a businessman, I begged you, as a friend, and so did Russell, and said, "Bro, you're going to be blacklisted. We can't just go, 'Oh, Teshi says he doesn't like the adjudication. Teshi is not happy it's 2-1. He wants it to be 3-0, and he's refusing to comply with PIMs.' But, you know what? We're not going to blacklist him because he's a good guy. He's got a good heart, and we like him. And generally, that would be undermining PIMs. Suddenly PIMs would be completely worthless."
Yeah. And this is where I did actually still actually go above and beyond and still pay that amount as well. £2,230. But, you know, it is not.
Why not 2,800, the amount that you were supposed to pay back?
Because I felt it was very unfair to take advantage, and it hurt. It hurts your pride. Do you know when? Of course, it does. When you've gone, when you've gone above and beyond for someone, and you feel like they've taken advantage of you.
What does the Bible say about pride?
So, if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Yeah. So,
What does the Bible say about about pride? It says pride comes before what?
Go on.
Pride comes before a fool. Now, you're doing good, man. And I want, I want nothing but, I want nothing but your success. But certainly from an academy perspective, which is a small, I know, I know your business is bigger than that. It's not just about the academy. I get it.
Well.
Right. But the reality is, you can't let your pride. I'm not happy. As a businessman, you're having to deal with lawyers, judges, governments, banks, institutions, going to court. You can't just go on principle, "I'm not." Sometimes you need to say, you know what? Let me look at this from a commercial perspective and say, even if I disagree, even if I feel like I've been wronged, I won these two points. If I have to pay back £2,800, but as a result, I'm not blacklisted, I'm still in the academy, and now I've got trust within everybody in the academy because they know that even if I feel like I've been wronged, if I will submit to the rulings.
Yeah.
Then that means you're somebody that can be trusted. But if you're saying I'm too prideful to do that, how can we?
Well, I haven't said I'm too prideful to do that because, you know, the context which I'm defending myself is, which I'll always defend myself in, whether I believe I'm right or I'm wrong. I want to create peace. So, I have actually got money here, and I have got the difference as well. Now, the difference I owe is £500. So, no matter whether I believe I'm right or I'm wrong, I'm still, I still want to create that peace, and I want to pay that £500. Anyway, I've done a lot of growth in my time, and even though whether, you know, I still feel if I'm right or wrong, I still want to make peace, and I do want to actually pay that money as well. I've got my cashier as well.
I think that's a brilliant move.
So, I've actually got the cashier.
That's a very, that's a very responsible.
So, if there's cash here, we will count it.
You, we don't need to count it. I know you, I know you're, I think you're trustworthy there.
Well, I'll pass that to the man in question. Yeah. And we will unblacklist you.
All right. And it's been a real pleasure.
No. Well, thank you very much.
I look forward to catching up with you again tonight.
Yeah.
How do you feel?
I mean.
How do you feel that went?
We'll have to see. I mean.
I think it went good.
You think it went good?
I think it went good.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm proud of you, bro.
You proud of me? Yeah.
I'm proud of you.
Okay. Cheers, man.
I'm really proud of you. We'll catch up soon. All right. Off camera. Okay. Cool. Yeah.