Welcome to NWC - Our site is under maintenance.

Further to the article in the MEN, you will note there is NOT a single client complaint or comment, in the absence of a complaint, what is this article really about?

Smear Campaign
We believe some parties in the article have conspired to remove a competitor from the marketplace, as our successful detox treatments are a direct threat to the 'useless' support services offer by various charities who have never detoxed a single patient as their services can only retain addicts 'in treatment' (on drugs) and not to help them to get clean and stop using.

Our successful drug and alcohol detox treatments are a direct threat to these charities hence the 'smear campaign'.

We have raised our complaint with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) however it is on 'temporary hold' in light of the Leveson report and the PCC not being 'fit for purpose' as it run by the press. Lord Justice Leveson was very critical of the press and their 'ethics and culture' or rather their 'lack of ethics', the MEN article being a typical example of 'junk journalism'. Parent company Trinity Mirror have also been implicated in the phone hacking scandal with the arrest of 4 senior journalists, one of which sat on the PCC ethics committee!

The MEN have offered no evidence to substantiate their claims and allegations as they are 'untrue' yet refuse to remove the article which is in clear direct breach of the editors code:

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

We provided a full explanation to the MEN in response to their initial questions but they ignored our reply and printed 'lies and half truths' to sensationalise their article and destroy a business without any justification. The headline alone is a blatant lie, at no time have we ever claimed to 'cure addicts'.

Successful Franchise
In relation to the Drivertime issue, it is IMPOSSIBLE to miss-sell a franchise due to the due diligence process designed to uncover any misrepresentations. The Drivertime franchise was a successful business with franchisees trading up to and beyond £1million per annum with profits in excess of £28,000 in the first year alone however ALL the financial accounts and other financial data were excluded from evidence in the hearing so the Drivertime ruling was 'fatally flawed'.

For example: Drivertime Norwich claimed in court in his oral evidence he had not made any money from his Drivertime franchise but his accounts showed he had made £28,000.00 profit in his first year of trading, he also bought another franchise area of Ipswich in his second year of trading. Despite having his accounts in front of me showing a £28,000.00 profit I was unable to challenge his oral evidence as the court had excluded ALL financial information from the hearing. It was at this stage we realised the hearing had a predetermined outcome as one cannot assess any business by excluding the financial data for that business. The franchisee lied.

The evidence also shows the franchisee never achieved a sales turnover or profit higher than when he was a Drivertime franchise after he had transferred the franchise business into his own trading name to avoid the franchisee agreement. This is also true for the other ex-franchisees involved in the hearing that had left to trade independently, that without our support their business went into decline despite the overall economy being in growth, this is not a failed franchise.

The MEN omitted these 'facts' and published the flawed ruling anyway which in itself is a breach of the editor's code: 'the Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'.

New Press Regulator
We await the formation of the new press regulator which 'could be delayed due to compensation concerns' and note the comments 'The launch of a new press regulation body could be delayed due to fears that a new arbitration unit, recommended in the Leveson report, would spawn a new industry of "ambulance-chasing" lawyers seeking big money compensation from newspapers for breaches of the industry's code of ethics' (similar to the banks & PPI miss-selling) this illustrates the sheer volume of complainants due to the blatant disregard for the Code of Ethics shown by the press and the 'LIES' they publish.

Malicious & Unfounded
The 'malicious' MEN article is a 'smear campaign' and nothing more, they have provided no evidence to support their claims and allegations and had no complaints yet still refuse to remove the 'untrue and offending' article providing clear evidence of 'actual malice'. We await the formation of the new press regulator with powers to 'investigate' and fine papers up to £1million for breaches of the code and the arbitration unit to reinstate our 'substantive complaint'.

We welcome a 'full investigation' into this article as various parties have serious questions to answer regarding their conduct and comments which could lead to criminal prosecutions.