Maureen Singh claimed she had not received the cleaning work she purchased, but documents indicate that two national franchise systems have separately accused her of redirecting work through an independent business while publicly attacking their brands.
When Christchurch franchisee Maureen Singh contacted this publication, she alleged that Candoo had accepted tens of thousands of dollars from her and her husband but had failed to provide the cleaning work they believed they had purchased.
She publicly described the company as a "fraud" and made further allegations about Candoo in online groups.
But inquiries into Singh's complaint revealed that her dispute with Candoo was only one part of a considerably wider story.
Singh is understood to have been involved with two separate national cleaning franchise systems—Candoo and Premium Clean—while also operating an independent cleaning business.
Both franchise brands have now separately alleged that Singh breached her respective franchise agreements by operating a competing business.
More seriously, both companies allege that work or customer leads connected to their franchise systems were redirected to Singh's independent business, allowing the work to be invoiced outside the franchise networks and avoiding the payment of royalties.
Both brands have also raised concerns about public statements Singh allegedly made about them in Facebook groups and other online forums.
However, the similarity between the concerns independently raised by two separate franchise systems materially changes the context surrounding Singh's original grievance.
Two franchise systems and an independent business
During the course of this investigation, this publication was provided with details for a representative of Premium Clean, another national cleaning franchise operating throughout New Zealand.
Information subsequently supplied indicates that Singh was also involved with Premium Clean as a franchisee.
Documents reviewed by this publication show that Premium Clean has issued legal correspondence alleging that Singh breached its franchise agreement by operating a competing business.
Candoo has raised substantially the same concern under its own franchise agreement.
Representatives of both companies allege that Singh was not merely operating another business alongside the franchises.
They claim that work or leads originating through their respective franchise networks were diverted to her independent cleaning company and then invoiced through that business.
If proven, this could have enabled Singh to retain the full revenue from work introduced through the franchise systems while avoiding royalties and other contractual obligations payable to the brands.
Both companies have also accused Singh of publicly criticising or defaming their brands after concerns were raised about her conduct.
Screenshots provided to this publication show negative statements about both Candoo and Premium Clean being made in Facebook groups that form part of a broader pattern alleged by both companies: work was allegedly redirected away from the franchise systems, and when contractual concerns were then raised with Maureen, the brands were subsequently attacked publicly.
The complaint against Candoo
Singh initially presented her dispute with Candoo as a failure by the company to supply the cleaning work she and her husband, Rajnesh Singh, had purchased.
The couple had reportedly paid approximately $65,000 to enter the Candoo franchise system.
However, after this publication approached Candoo and reviewed emails, operational records and other documents relating to the dispute, the evidence did not support the simple claim that no work had been made available.
Records indicate that the Singhs completed training and were offered a collection of cleaning sites valued at more than $7,000 a month.
They commenced work on the sites but returned the keys after one day, initially advising Candoo that they were unwell.
The correspondence shows that Candoo later asked Singh to make a clear decision about whether she intended to operate the franchise or exit the business.
She was offered two options: commence work on the available sites or proceed with the sale of the franchise.
Singh elected to sell.
She asked for her investment to be returned after Candoo secured a buyer for the business.
That decision placed Candoo in the position of attempting to sell the franchise while Singh was allegedly making public statements describing the company as fraudulent.
Sites offered before fraud allegations
Candoo then advertised the business for sale.
However, information provided to this publication shows that the Trade Me advertisement for their business was then reported as fraudulent from an account associated with Singh.
At around the same time, screenshots and communications supplied for this investigation show allegations about Candoo being circulated online and among other franchisees.
That created an obvious commercial problem.
Singh was asking Candoo to recover her investment by finding a buyer for the franchise while allegedly publishing or supporting statements that could discourage prospective purchasers from dealing with the company.
Reporting the sale listing as fraudulent, if accurately attributed to Singh, would also have directly undermined the sale process she had requested.
Candoo issues breach notices
Candoo has since issued Singh with formal breach notices.
The company alleges that she breached her franchise agreement by operating, participating in or benefiting from competing cleaning businesses.
It has also raised allegations concerning customer work, unpaid franchise fees or royalties and public statements made about the Candoo brand.
Candoo claims that work associated with its network was redirected to an independent business rather than being processed through the franchise system.
It further alleges that Singh's online statements caused reputational damage, affected relationships within the franchise network and made the resale of her business more difficult.
However, the significance of Candoo's allegations increased when this publication became aware that Premium Clean had reportedly taken similar action in relation to a separate franchise agreement.
Similar concerns raised by Premium Clean
Premium Clean is understood to have issued its own legal notice alleging that Singh breached restrictions on operating a competing cleaning business.
Representatives associated with Premium Clean have also raised concerns about work allegedly being moved outside its franchise system and invoiced through Singh's independent business.
The allegations closely resemble those made by Candoo.
Both franchise systems claim that Singh operated a separate cleaning company while bound by franchise agreements restricting competing activity.
Both allege that work connected to their brands was diverted away from their systems.
Both have raised concerns about royalties or fees potentially being avoided.
And both brands claim they were subsequently criticised publicly by Singh.
A more complicated account
Singh's original complaint deserved to be investigated.
A franchisee who pays a substantial amount of money and claims not to have received the promised opportunity raises legitimate questions that a franchisor should be required to answer.
But those allegations must also be tested against the documents, the company's response and any wider commercial relationships that may be relevant.
The records reviewed indicate that Singh was trained, offered sites, briefly commenced work and then chose to sell the franchise.
They also indicate that Candoo attempted to progress a sale while dealing with public fraud allegations and concerns about competing business activity.
The discovery that Singh was also involved with Premium Clean—and that Premium Clean has reportedly raised similar contractual concerns—substantially deepens the story.
Until those matters are answered, the suggestion that Singh simply paid for these franchises and was denied work appears to leave out significant parts of the story.
