RVA Suveyors Trust Pilot Review (1 out of 5 stars)

To All,

IMA Industries Limited fell into the same trap as many of you have. RVA cold called IMA and disingenuously claimed that the Small Business Rates Relief was in fact not an 'automatic' relief and that a calculation would need to be made to the Local Authority.

Upon a visit by [xxx] of RVA Surveyors, a member of my staff dealt with what he had come for - to take a look at our current Rates bill. What he told a member of my staff (I was held up at a previous meeting) was that 'everything had been previously agreed with the MD and he had simply come to get a signature'. This was in fact, untrue.

We expected a 'survey' to be undertaken of the premises, as we had been told, after the initial meeting but this did not happen.

The member of staff did not read the onerous Terms and under pressure, signed. This was IMA’s error. However, mitigating, IMA signed under circumstances where the RVA representative had disingenuously claimed a mistruth. The Judge found that IMA’s story was more credible than RVA’s.

We sent an email to RVA to remind them that a survey had not taken place (how could they create a 'case' we thought to the LA without a physical premises survey).

Instead of deal with the email where IMA expressed concern at the Terms, RVA followed up with an invoice (conveniently a day after our email was sent).

We began to receive calls and emails after the initial invoice.

These increased in frequency and became quite difficult to deal with. The member of staff concerned became very stressed as a result.

RVA resorted to sending us a draft claim form in the hope that we would succumb to their aggressive tactics. A note to all, unless a claim form is STAMPED by the Court, send it straight to the shredder.

We didn't and eventually they took us to court.

We attended our hearing after filing the necessary Defence and Witness Statements (we received legal help on putting these WS together - which was crucial to the outcome).

RVA rejected multiple offers (sensible offers) to settle and wanted to proceed with the trial. Even on the morning of the trial, offers to settle conveyed by our barrister were rejected.

RVA were claiming 5 years' savings from IMA – approx. £7k. Our offers were, at their highest, £3k. and at their lowest £750.

At the hearing the Judge was confronted by a scruffy [xxx] (Assessor) and a nicely suited but junior [xxx] (Litigation Executive). [xxx]’s witness statement was baseless as he was not a party to any of the conversations before or after the initial site visit by [xxx].

[xxx] was torn to shreds by our barrister.

RVA eventually lost the case after rambling through various documents. Their argument failed based on two key points:

1. Factually, [xxx] did not and could not be expected to recall the meeting with the member of staff at IMA. His witness statement was generic and laid out what he WOULD do, not what he DID do. The barrister quizzed [xxx] on approximately how many meeting of the IMA sort he would ordinarily undertaken on a daily or weekly basis. When multiplied out, the Judge agreed that [xxx] could in no way accurately remember one meeting out of potentially hundreds of meetings of similar nature.

This opposed to the IMA witness statement which clearly and in detail laid out exactly what was said, but whom and crucially whether that member of staff had authority to sign on behalf of the MD.

The Judge found that IMA’s case was stronger, more reliable and crucially the member of staff from IMA was more likely to recall the meeting in greater detail.

2. The strength of IMA's witness statement vs the weak and poorly put together witness statement of RVA's representatives.

RVA then tried to appeal the Judge's decision which was thrown out without a Stay of Execution.

An Oral Hearing was then not pursued by RVA. This was despite [xxx] claiming ‘they were still considering the merits of an oral hearing’ (even though they were at this point out of time to pursue an oral hearing request).

Throughout the process [xxx] who was the 'Litigation Executive' acting on behalf of [xxx] sought instructions on the phone (not during the hearing). It can only be assumed RVA did not want this case to fail as it would create a precedent to other Judges. IMA’s case was won based on a finding of fact. This could potentially crush RVA.

Our Solicitors and our Barristers were grade A compared to the nonsense that RVA had put forward.

RVA settled our expenses for £370 and sent a cheque (which to our surprise which did not bounce).

IMA are keen to help others in our situation fight these despicable individuals off. We are keen to share details of our lawyers and our barristers, our case and other confidential documents.

Happy to help anyway we can to bring these lowlifes down,

Ishil Mehta

IMA Industries

020 3371 1460

UPDATE ON 30 April 2020

N.B      (yellow highlights were removed from original post due to RVA complaint)

We received an email on 29 April 2020 from Trust Pilot stating that RVA Surveyors had complained about our (factual) review of their scam.

We identified the visiting surveyor and the in-house litigation executive by name which we are now required to remove from our post (which we have done).

If anyone would like this information and the full original review then please email us for a copy on info@imaindustries.com or visit https://www.imaindustries.com/news-updates/ima-industries-v-rva-suveyors/.