Adrian Howe, 58, was found drowned on 27 August 2018, a short walk from his home in North Ayrshire. His new Vodafone franchise was scheduled to open on 2 September. A notepad found at his home contained the entry: "1st September nice to have death." His family says he killed himself after becoming convinced the franchise deal would prove financially ruinous. Howe had been preparing to open a single Vodafone franchise in Irvine. His family recall being told the company then required him to take on a second store in Kilmarnock — one he had previously worked in and knew was struggling. A personal guarantee in his franchise contract put the family home at risk if the second store could not be turned around. His youngest son Nathan recalled his father saying "Vodafone has me by the balls" shortly before his death. Howe's case sits inside a wider pattern. Last week Vodafone settled a legal claim filed by 62 former franchisees who alleged the company "unjustly enriched" itself at their expense by up to £85m. The confidential settlement came 19 months after the high court filing, "without any admission of liability." Those 62 claimants represented nearly 40% of Vodafone's total 167 franchisees. A 2020 survey found franchisees were overwhelmingly critical of the effects Vodafone's actions had on their mental health. After the Guardian first reported the case in December 2024, Vodafone apologised to claimants who blamed the telecoms group for triggering suicidal thoughts. Howe's daughter, Kirsty-Anne Holmes, met a representative of the then Department for Business and Trade earlier this month to propose new franchising regulations under the banner of "Adrian's law." Her argument is structural: the UK has no governing body overseeing franchise contracts, no restriction on terms like personal guarantees, and no regulatory floor below which franchisors cannot push. "The fact that franchisors like Vodafone can put anything into a contract, such as personal guarantees, is really bad behaviour," Holmes said. "If these protections had been in place previously, my dad taking his own life might not have happened." The case reached parliament in January, prompting then-PM Keir Starmer to pledge a review of franchising laws. Holmes is now pressing to ensure the commitment survives the change of prime minister. "I don't want it to be forgotten and brushed under the carpet," she said. Vodafone offered no fresh comment on Howe's case. The company has previously stated it "wholly rejects" any suggestion it "knowingly or recklessly or negligently" put anyone under unreasonable pressure. A spokesperson said: "We continue to run a successful franchise operation, and many of our existing franchisees have expanded their business with us by taking on additional stores." The forensic pathologist noted a history of anxiety and depression from 1995 — which the family says was short-lived and never recurred — and concluded Howe's death was "consistent with drowning." The structural question is not whether Vodafone intended harm. It is whether a franchise model that can require personal guarantees on struggling stores, with no regulatory oversight and no exit, creates conditions where harm becomes predictable. Forty percent of Vodafone's own franchisees filed suit. One is dead. The UK remains one of the only developed economies with no franchise-specific regulation.
