logo
Who's the boss? The ousted car sales tycoon versus his private equity investor

Who's the boss? The ousted car sales tycoon versus his private equity investor

The Guardian21-06-2025
In many ways, Peter Waddell is lucky to be alive, let alone a multimillionaire. His backstory involves him wandering the streets of Glasgow after parental abuse left him in a children's home during the 1970s.
And yet Waddell went on to build a used car empire called Big Motoring World, accumulating an estimated £500m fortune, a historic home on the outskirts of London and a string of performance cars.
But now the 59-year-old faces another challenging chapter, which is threatening chunks of his fortune. The used car salesman has brought an employment tribunal claim as well as a high court case against private equity investors in his company after he was ousted from Big last year.
His exit, in April 2024, was triggered after an investigation found he had made sexist, racist and abusive comments towards colleagues – allegations that he contests.
However, Waddell goes further than simply denying the claims, raising questions about how private equity firms interact with founders once the financiers have invested in their companies.
His court filings allege he was prevented from responding to the accusations, and that they were used by his 'capricious' investors who 'prejudged and in fact determined the outcome of [an] independent investigation as a means of securing Peter Waddell's exclusion from Big'.
Now it looks likely that a court will have to assess whether Waddell's alleged behaviour demanded he be sidelined from the business he created. A surprising second question will also be in play: does Waddell's ousting make him a victim?
When entrepreneurs give interviews about their big career break, they often tell tales about dropping out of university to launch a startup or hustling for jobs they were barely qualified for. Waddell's tale is very different.
The businessman, who is autistic, has dyslexia and is partially deaf, for which he now wears two hearing aids, has a story that involves being physically abused by his mother.
'She scarred my whole body, attempted to cut my hands off and smashed my head,' he said in a recent interview. From toddler age onwards he spent most of his childhood in a children's home. From there he graduated to living on the streets, describing himself as a 'tramp'.
Homeless and desperate for warmth during one particularly biting winter day, Waddell wound up at Glasgow's Buchanan bus station where he shielded himself from the cold behind a pile of suitcases in the boot of a parked coach. The door was slammed behind him and the teenager finally emerged in London.
In the capital he recalls landing a job at a minicab office and eventually ploughing his earnings into buying cars at auction, which he lined up in parking spaces along the road near a flat he had managed to rent. This was the genesis of Big Motoring World, which grew to a company with 525 employees, revenues of £371m and profits of £6.6m, according to the company's 2021 annual accounts.
Those figures attracted investors and in April 2022 Freshstream, a private equity group, acquired about a third of the business, with the option of eventually buying out Waddell's remaining shares. The businessman planned to retire to Spain and enjoy his string of homes, luxury cars and helicopter.
But it didn't work out like that. Within two years the used car market had stalled and the two parties were at war.
With the business beginning to struggle, Freshstream started to doubt whether it wanted Waddell running Big and so began to explore potential avenues.
Freshstream's contract gave it 'step in rights', where it could take action against Waddell if the business underperformed. It also possessed a nuclear option: removing Waddell from his company if he had committed a grave offence that might affect Big's value – a 'material default event', in the jargon.
At the start of last year, Freshstream and the company's management opened an investigation into accusations concerning how the founder spoke to staff, customers and business partners. The allegations that emerged were shocking.
The claims, some of which were historical and were not formally dealt with by the company at the time, included 'extremely serious racist abuse and sexual harassment of female employees', according to defence filings submitted to the high court by a Freshstream holding company.
'Serious instances of racism including allegedly referring to Hindu people as [the car marque] 'Hyundais',' the Freshstream papers add. 'Serious allegations of sexual harassment including allegedly … telling a female cleaner: 'I bet you'd like to suck my dick?''
The papers also allege that Waddell called 'senior members of the management team the 'C word'' and suggested 'he would 'give it to them up the arse''.
In total, Freshstream investigated 27 allegations, some of which Waddell denies and some of which he claims were taken out of context. 'The allegations are fake,' Waddell told the Guardian. 'We will prove it in the court case.'
Waddell's high court filings deal mostly with process, with the tycoon stating that he was not allowed to defend himself during the group's internal investigation, which he alleges was set up to oust him.
Waddell's claim says it is difficult for him to 'easily read and digest information'. He had been signed off work by a doctor for four weeks with a heart condition on 28 March 2024, the court papers say, and was invited five days later – on 2 April – to an 'investigation interview' that would take place on 9 April.
At the interview, 764 pages of evidence were to be considered. Waddell's lawyers requested more time but the company pressed on without him, on the basis that there would be an 'intolerable risk' to the business in delaying.
The investigation's final report, which was written by the employment lawyer Nicholas Siddall KC, runs to 138 pages. In it, Siddall suggests he was instructed to come to a conclusion in the absence of any response by the accused; he also seems to raise questions about why the company had concluded there would be an 'intolerable risk' in granting Waddell extra time in which to respond.
'Plainly I had hoped to interview PW [Peter Waddell] in order to receive his version of events,' the KC's report states. 'However, my instructions … were clear. I was not informed of the intolerable risk which [Big Motoring World] would face, and in any event I do not consider it is a matter for me to interrogate the reasons of those who instruct me.'
Siddall found, having interviewed 22 sources, that a 'material default event' had occurred in 15 out of the 27 allegations. Waddell was out.
All of which means this row – along with a separate claim about how Waddell came to invest some of his fortune in a Freshstream fund – looks likely to be fought out in the high court, probably next year.
But whichever way the judge leans, other entrepreneurs have made comparable allegations.
The Guardian has spoken to four other British founders of startup businesses who wished to remain anonymous but make similar claims that various investors had attempted to oust them from their companies.
None of these allegations were ever tested in court. In Waddell's case, that seems about to change.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Fresh trade deal calls as Trump tariffs hit UK exports
Fresh trade deal calls as Trump tariffs hit UK exports

The Independent

time14 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Fresh trade deal calls as Trump tariffs hit UK exports

British exports to the US have plummeted by 13.5 per cent, or £2bn, in the last three months compared to the same period in 2024. This significant decline is attributed to tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump, which include a 10 per cent levy on most UK goods and a 25 per cent levy on steel and aluminium. The fall occurred despite a US-UK trade agreement signed in June, which failed to include carve-outs for the steel industry. The British Chambers of Commerce said that the effects of the tariffs are clearly being felt by companies exporting to the US. Ministers are now facing calls to secure the outstanding part of the trade deal, particularly concerning the high tariffs on steel and aluminium exports.

Man accused of ramming car into Liverpool soccer parade faces a further 24 charges
Man accused of ramming car into Liverpool soccer parade faces a further 24 charges

The Independent

time14 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Man accused of ramming car into Liverpool soccer parade faces a further 24 charges

The man accused of ramming his car into a parade of Liverpool soccer fans in May as the team was celebrating its Premier League triumph is to face a further 24 charges, including two relating to victims who were babies. Paul Doyle, 53, was in tears as he appeared over videolink from prison for the Liverpool Crown Court hearing on Thursday. During the hearing, he was informed of the new charges, 23 of which were for assault. Six of the new charges relate to children, including two babies aged 6 and 7 months at the time. He was originally charged with seven offenses after the incident in the city center on May 26. Doyle is expected to enter pleas on Sept. 4. Fans had been celebrating Liverpool's record-tying 20th title when Doyle allegedly drove down a street full of fans and joy quickly turned to tragedy. Police said they believed Doyle got through a roadblock by following an ambulance that was trying to reach a possible heart attack victim. In a video the car could be seen hitting and sending a person wrapped in a red Liverpool flag into the air before swerving into a sea of people packed on the side of the road. At least four people, including a child, had to be freed from beneath the vehicle when it came to a halt. The victims ranged in age from 9 to 78, police said. The suspect was believed to have acted alone and terrorism was not suspected, Merseyside Police said. They have not disclosed an alleged motive for the act.

I watched the police arrest hundreds of peaceful protesters – I fear Britain is on a slippery slope towards authoritarianism
I watched the police arrest hundreds of peaceful protesters – I fear Britain is on a slippery slope towards authoritarianism

The Independent

time14 minutes ago

  • The Independent

I watched the police arrest hundreds of peaceful protesters – I fear Britain is on a slippery slope towards authoritarianism

Last Saturday, I stood in Parliament Square and bore witness to the largest mass arrest in a single day in the last decade. The Metropolitan Police detained 532 peaceful protesters – an operation that will live in infamy. The demonstration was organised by Defend Our Juries, which had called on participants to sit peacefully on the Parliament Square lawn between 1pm and 2pm, holding signs that read: 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.' Organisers had expected around 500 people. In fact, thousands turned up. That morning, I had published an opinion piece in The Independent announcing that I would be there, holding a sign quoting Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): 'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.' I also quoted Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, who warned that the UK government's proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation 'appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK's obligation under international human rights law'. When I arrived at 1pm, the square was surrounded by police. Hundreds of Metropolitan Police vans were stationed around the square, stretching as far as Oxford Street. Officers formed cordons to prevent people entering, but I managed to squeeze in. For nearly three hours, I stood in silence, holding my sign. The arrests began shortly after the scheduled sit-in concluded at 2pm. Officers began to position themselves to advance against the peaceful protesters seated on the lawn, and the few lying on the ground. Police reinforcements, including officers from Wales, swept into the square. Of the 532 arrests, 522 were for the simple act of holding placards supporting Palestine Action, under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. The statistics are as shocking as the scenes I saw. According to the police's own figures, 112 of those detained were in their 70s, and 15 in their 80s. Nearly half were 60 or older, with an average age of 54. The police waged a relentless campaign against the protesters. Many were frail, elderly, or disabled. I saw priests and vicars in clerical collars led away in handcuffs. I saw retired nurses and NHS healthcare workers in scrubs being taken into police vans. One of them, Nick, was interviewed, and asked if he was afraid. His reply was very moving and and it almost brought me to tears: 'I'm absolutely terrified. I'm shaking. I'll be honest with you. I nearly cried earlier. The thought of doing something like this is just awful, but it's even more awful if we don't do it. I mean, I think to myself, you know, I've seen things, not on the mass media. I've seen things that cannot ever be unseen. And if we don't protest about it, we're culpable.' I also saw Jewish protesters critical of the Israeli government's actions being arrested alongside climate and human rights activists, including Chris Romberg, 75, a former British Army colonel and the son of a Holocaust survivor. No one was spared. One image that is seared in my mind: an elderly blind man in a wheelchair being dragged away by multiple officers as demonstrators shouted 'Let him go!' and 'Shame on you, shame on you!' I also watched the police arrest a frail woman in her 80s suffering from Parkinson's disease, while her son pleaded with the officers not to arrest her. The Metropolitan Police's motto is 'Working Together for a Safer London', but it is hard to see how dedicating so many resources to policing a peaceful protest and arresting frail and elderly citizens exercising such an ancient British freedom achieves this objective. Jonathan Porritt, former environmental adviser to King Charles, referred to the UK government's policy as 'absolutely standard authoritarian tactics'. 'I've come to the conclusion that the UK government is incontrovertibly complicit in this genocide not just through the continuing sale of arms to Israel, but because of its reckless refusal to follow guidance to seek to prevent genocide in countries like Gaza.' This is exactly how states erode democratic freedoms – not in one sudden lurch, but in small, calculated steps, until dissent itself becomes a criminal offence. The decision to ban Palestine Action was itself the product of a cynical political ploy. Home secretary Yvette Cooper bundled the group together with two violent white supremacist organisations – the neo-Nazi Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement – and forced MPs to vote for all or none. Many later admitted they felt they had no choice but to approve the ban. As Yasmine Ahmed, UK Director of Human Rights Watch, has warned: 'Proscribing Palestine Action is a grave abuse of state power and a terrifying escalation in this government's crusade to curtail protest rights.' The crucial issue here is that Palestine Action exposed what it – and many of us – see as the UK's complicity in the commission of genocide by Israel against the Palestinian people. Since December 2023, the RAF has flown more than 600 surveillance missions over Gaza, reputedly to locate hostages. This is why ordinary citizens – older people, clergy, disabled protesters – were criminalised for condemning what we believe to be genocide and demanding accountability. It also begs the question: who does prime minister Keir Starmer answer to – the UK electorate, Donald Trump, or the Israeli government and its lobbying organisations? Let me be clear: I unequivocally condemn Hamas for the atrocities of 7 October 2023. I call for an immediate and lasting ceasefire, and the unconditional release of all hostages. I was horrified seeing the images of an emaciated hostage. These crimes demand justice, but not through the carpet bombing of Gaza from North to South, the slaughter of civilians, and what is surely a deliberate policy of starvation of the population. Renowned human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who has defended Guantánamo Bay detainees, has drawn direct parallels between this crackdown and authoritarian measures elsewhere: 'Supporting Palestine Action's right to protest is not the same as supporting Palestine Action. It's time for Keir Starmer to remember why human rights exist.' Even conservative voices such as Andrew Neil, who strongly disagrees with Palestine Action's aims, have condemned the terrorism designation as absurd and a waste of police time and public resources. What I saw on Saturday was not public order policing. It was the suppression of lawful dissent, and the deliberate targeting of vulnerable people to send a chilling message: no cause is safe from criminalisation. This is the logic of authoritarianism – a steady erosion of freedoms under the pretext of security. I know what authoritarianism looks like. I was born in Nicaragua. In 1981, in Honduras, I faced Salvadorian death squads armed with M16 assault rifles. I had a terrifying experience that changed the course of my life. That experience taught me the importance of bearing witness. I came to Parliament Square to stand with ordinary citizens calling attention to the genocide against the Palestinian people – and the UK government's complicity. The UK government has embarked upon a dangerous path. The right to peaceful protest, the cornerstone of our democracy – from the suffragettes to the anti-apartheid movement – is under attack. The government has conflated dissent with terrorism, and the police have acted as enforcers of political orthodoxy rather than guardians of public safety. When Benjamin Disraeli said in 1845 that 'a Conservative government is an organised hypocrisy', who could have imagined that his words would describe so aptly the current Labour government and its authoritarian home secretary? The question we must ask ourselves is simple: When history judges us, will we be remembered as those who stood against injustice, or those who stood by in silence? Parliament Square on 9 August was not just a police operation. It was a test of our democracy – and it is a test we are in danger of failing.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store