
Vodafone whistleblowers warned executives about plight of high street store staff
Whistleblowers warned a series of senior Vodafone executives – including the current chief executive, Margherita Della Valle – that scores of its franchised store owners faced financial ruin about two years before a high court claim accused the company of 'unjustly enriching' itself.
Vodafone employees made repeated complaints to their superiors about the company slashing commissions paid to the small businesses running the company's high street retail network, according to a string of current and former Vodafone employees. The cost-cutting tactics resulted in a group of 62 of about 150 Vodafone franchise operators filing a £120m-plus legal claim last December.
The telecoms company, which is valued at about £17bn on the London Stock Exchange, has said: 'We refute the [legal] claims but will be fully engaging in [a mediation] process with a view to resolving this commercial dispute.'
However, the emergence of warnings to senior management reveals for the first time how some of the mobile operator's own staff appeared to support the franchisees over their own employer.
The drastic cuts to commission rates paid to franchisees, which were imposed as the country emerged from Covid-19 lockdown in 2020, were blamed for the small business owners running up huge personal debts and fearing for their livelihoods or homes, with some reporting suicidal thoughts.
The company says it apologises 'unreservedly to anyone whose experiences while operating their business has impacted [their health] in this way' and added that 'where issues have been raised, we have sought to rectify these and we believe we have treated our franchisees fairly'.
Della Valle, who has been Vodafone's chief executive since December 2022 and was previously finance director from 2018, was notified of the franchisees' plight around the time of her promotion, according to interviews and records seen by the Guardian. One email to Della Valle, which she appeared to respond to, cited an instance of an internal Vodafone whistleblower raising concerns about the company's treatment of its franchisees.
Sources allege that some of the senior executives briefed about the franchisees' grievances during that period included two members of Vodafone's current UK board: Max Taylor, who was promoted to Vodafone's UK chief executive last year and was previously its chief commercial officer from 2019; and Jon Shaw, who was promoted to commercial operations director in 2022 and who has worked for the business for a decade.
Vodafone said it disputed the term 'whistleblower', stating that the company has a transparent and open process. It said the company's 'Speak-Up process provides a safe forum for anyone to anonymously raise any issues or concerns they may have, which are picked up by a dedicated team … This process was used by one Vodafone employee in relation to the franchise programme and an immediate and thorough investigation was conducted.'
The company added that it had made 'improvements to the programme' and had made payments to current and former franchisees.
'We reimbursed a total of £4.9m including VAT across our franchise estate,' a spokesperson said. 'We made this payment with no obligation to do so and applied it consistently across our estate. This resulted in individuals who are bringing the claim against us, some of whom are no longer franchisees, receiving payments with no strings or legal consequences.'
A franchise is a type of licence that allows a company to sell a product or service under another business's brand name, in return for paying certain costs such as rent and wages. As part of their deals, Vodafone franchisees – who created their own small businesses to run the stores – were paid commissions based on the handset and airtime revenues they generated from customers visiting their shops.
The changes to the commission rates left many franchisees with drastically reduced revenues, while their costs remained largely unchanged.
One Vodafone employee, who said that the company's UK bosses were aware of the issues affecting franchisees, said: '[The franchisees were] very badly treated throughout and I felt very compromised … Every day was a battle.'
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
Another Vodafone employee suggested the issues for the franchisees were widespread. 'Everyone had a problem,' the source said.
The court papers allege that Vodafone acted in 'bad faith' by unilaterally cutting fees to its franchisees; imposed swingeing fines on them totalling thousands of pounds for seemingly minor administrative errors; and then cajoled them into taking out loans and government grants to keep their businesses afloat.
Many said they feared losing their livelihoods, homes or life savings after running up personal debts of more than £100,000. Some franchisees claimed that regional managers told them it was only their individual stores that were in difficulty, in messaging that some complainants allege echoes one theme in the long-running Post Office scandal.
A spokesperson for Vodafone, who argued the legal claim is actually worth £85.5m, said: 'This is a commercial dispute between Vodafone UK and some of our franchise partners. We have fully engaged with all claims made by these partners since they were first raised, including through a formal process which, at appropriate times, involved independent legal review.
'We are now fully engaged in mediation … with the claimant group. This is run by an independent mediator, who was selected and agreed upon by both sides. We are hopeful the mediation will reach a conclusion that suits both parties.'
The company says that many franchisees disagree with the claim and out of its current '83 franchise partners, 68 have chosen not to join the claim and are continuing to run their businesses'.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

South Wales Argus
2 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Diesel clothing advert banned for objectifying Katie Price
The ad, which appeared on the Guardian news website on March 26, included an image of Price wearing a bikini and holding a handbag in front of her chest. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 13 complaints that the ad objectified and sexualised women and featured a model who appeared to be unhealthily thin. The banned Diesel ad featuring Katie Price (ASA/PA) Diesel said the ad was part of a brand campaign called 'The Houseguests', which was designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion in the fashion industry by reflecting a wide range of body types. It believed the ad was compliant with the advertising rules but said it removed the ad from the Guardian website. The brand said Price was 46 years old and had a body type that was not usually included in high fashion campaigns, explaining that the average age for editorial models was between 16 and 23. Diesel believed the image was a 'celebration of Ms Price's sexuality and empowerment and was not objectifying, degrading or sexualising', and 'showed Ms Price clearly in control in an active and dynamic pose where she proudly showed off her body and the handbag'. Diesel added that Price was 'well-known for her exaggerated appearance and larger-than-life personality and her large lips and breasts formed part of her curated public image', and this 'exaggerated, eccentric and altered appearance' formed part of the creativity of the campaign. Finally, Diesel said although Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight. The Guardian said it received a complaint directly about the ad on April 4 and blocked it from appearing again because it did not consider it complied with their policies. Partly upholding the complaints, the ASA said the bikini only partially covered Price's breasts, and it considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers' attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body. The ASA said: 'While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her. 'We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.' The ASA did not uphold complaints about Price appearing to be unhealthily thin, and concluded that the ad was not irresponsible on that basis. The watchdog ruled that the ad must not appear again, adding: 'We told Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.' Diesel said: 'Diesel's latest Houseguests campaign continues its tradition of challenging norms and embracing individuality. A key image features model Katie Price, 46, showcasing a body type rarely seen in high fashion, proving that women of all shapes and ages deserve representation. The photo celebrates confidence and empowerment without objectification. 'Shared in over 100 countries, it has not received any regulatory complaints, highlighting Diesel's commitment to respectful, inclusive storytelling.'


Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Diesel clothing advert banned for objectifying Katie Price
The ad, which appeared on the Guardian news website on March 26, included an image of Price wearing a bikini and holding a handbag in front of her chest. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 13 complaints that the ad objectified and sexualised women and featured a model who appeared to be unhealthily thin. The banned Diesel ad featuring Katie Price (ASA/PA) Diesel said the ad was part of a brand campaign called 'The Houseguests', which was designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion in the fashion industry by reflecting a wide range of body types. It believed the ad was compliant with the advertising rules but said it removed the ad from the Guardian website. The brand said Price was 46 years old and had a body type that was not usually included in high fashion campaigns, explaining that the average age for editorial models was between 16 and 23. Diesel believed the image was a 'celebration of Ms Price's sexuality and empowerment and was not objectifying, degrading or sexualising', and 'showed Ms Price clearly in control in an active and dynamic pose where she proudly showed off her body and the handbag'. Diesel added that Price was 'well-known for her exaggerated appearance and larger-than-life personality and her large lips and breasts formed part of her curated public image', and this 'exaggerated, eccentric and altered appearance' formed part of the creativity of the campaign. Finally, Diesel said although Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight. The Guardian said it received a complaint directly about the ad on April 4 and blocked it from appearing again because it did not consider it complied with their policies. Partly upholding the complaints, the ASA said the bikini only partially covered Price's breasts, and it considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers' attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body. The ASA said: 'While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her. 'We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.' The ASA did not uphold complaints about Price appearing to be unhealthily thin, and concluded that the ad was not irresponsible on that basis. The watchdog ruled that the ad must not appear again, adding: 'We told Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.' Diesel said: 'Diesel's latest Houseguests campaign continues its tradition of challenging norms and embracing individuality. A key image features model Katie Price, 46, showcasing a body type rarely seen in high fashion, proving that women of all shapes and ages deserve representation. The photo celebrates confidence and empowerment without objectification. 'Shared in over 100 countries, it has not received any regulatory complaints, highlighting Diesel's commitment to respectful, inclusive storytelling.'

Western Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
Diesel clothing advert banned for objectifying Katie Price
The ad, which appeared on the Guardian news website on March 26, included an image of Price wearing a bikini and holding a handbag in front of her chest. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 13 complaints that the ad objectified and sexualised women and featured a model who appeared to be unhealthily thin. The banned Diesel ad featuring Katie Price (ASA/PA) Diesel said the ad was part of a brand campaign called 'The Houseguests', which was designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion in the fashion industry by reflecting a wide range of body types. It believed the ad was compliant with the advertising rules but said it removed the ad from the Guardian website. The brand said Price was 46 years old and had a body type that was not usually included in high fashion campaigns, explaining that the average age for editorial models was between 16 and 23. Diesel believed the image was a 'celebration of Ms Price's sexuality and empowerment and was not objectifying, degrading or sexualising', and 'showed Ms Price clearly in control in an active and dynamic pose where she proudly showed off her body and the handbag'. Diesel added that Price was 'well-known for her exaggerated appearance and larger-than-life personality and her large lips and breasts formed part of her curated public image', and this 'exaggerated, eccentric and altered appearance' formed part of the creativity of the campaign. Finally, Diesel said although Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight. The Guardian said it received a complaint directly about the ad on April 4 and blocked it from appearing again because it did not consider it complied with their policies. Partly upholding the complaints, the ASA said the bikini only partially covered Price's breasts, and it considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers' attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body. The ASA said: 'While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her. 'We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.' The ASA did not uphold complaints about Price appearing to be unhealthily thin, and concluded that the ad was not irresponsible on that basis. The watchdog ruled that the ad must not appear again, adding: 'We told Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.' Diesel said: 'Diesel's latest Houseguests campaign continues its tradition of challenging norms and embracing individuality. A key image features model Katie Price, 46, showcasing a body type rarely seen in high fashion, proving that women of all shapes and ages deserve representation. The photo celebrates confidence and empowerment without objectification. 'Shared in over 100 countries, it has not received any regulatory complaints, highlighting Diesel's commitment to respectful, inclusive storytelling.'