By Rob Ager 2013


This page is still in writing. It includes links to webpages and downloadable documents with regards particular instances of unethical and/or illegal conduct by Metropolitan International Schools Limited (aka Skillstrain, Train2game, Train4TradeSkills) whom I shall also refer to in this publication as "MIS". I have made this information available in the public interest and in response to the campaign of disinformation that MIS has conducted against me.

My original article and video regarding MIS can still be viewed here.

Regarding the information posted below I have written (in the interest of responsible journalism) to Metropolitan International Schools Limited, requesting that they submit their views and any informational corrections on these matters. They have since denied all these allegations.


Individuals who have had their course fees refunded.

Rob Ager - Author of this page you are now reading. Refunded for a Skillstrain course during complaint to Liverpool Trading Standards - case number 165963. Download Trading Standards report. Refund confirmation letter from MIS. Refund confirmation letter from MCT. Note that liability is passed off as being not attributable to MIS, but to a supposed marketing company called Multimedia Computer Training Ltd (MCT). See updated section below titled Relationship with Multimedia Computer Training Limited.

I am aware of more refund cases and will be adding details here shortly.

Investigations and media coverage relating to Metropolitan International Schools Limited

Please note that these links are merely to illustrate the ongoing public controversy relating to MIS. The contents are the sole responsibility of the publishers.


Evidence of a disinformation / smear campaign waged against citizen journalist / former customer Rob Ager

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. have written letters containing demafatory statements intended to persuade its customers that I am a racist, am being sued by several Hollywood companies, have been banned by Youtube 3 times and have been intentionally inciting people to bring claims against MIS on false grounds (all of which are untrue) - Letter to G Davies, Letter to I Watson, Letter to C Campbell. Note that in one of these letters MIS makes the statements itself, but in the other two letters it attributes the statements to a supposed marketing company called Multimedia Computer Training Ltd (MCT). However, in a High Court claim against this author (a claim that was dropped) MIS described MCT as a "subsidiary" of MIS. The two companies are also linked in that Jan Telensky is, or has been, a director of both. This author proposes that the defamatory statements in the aforementioned three letters were most likely made by the same individual(s) regardless of which company name they were attributing the statements to.

Here is a falsified publication submitted to Croydon County Court (case 0UA11947) and Wakefield County Court (case 2WF00619) by Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. containing untrue statements about me, including an attempt to persuade the court that I left my Father to die and am a sexual deviant and a paedophile. The editor of The Son (a Christian magazine whom the mocked up document is designed to appear to be published by) has stated in this email that The Son did not publish the aforementioned document. I believe that individuals acting on behalf of Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. mocked up the clearly malicious document.



MIS has attempted to shift blame and responsibility, both for its false endorsements and its defamatory statements against me, to a company called Multimedia Computer Training Limited (who I shall refer to as MCT). MIS describes MCT as a “marketing company”. This shifting of blame is implausible for the following reasons.

  1. Neither MIS nor MCT have explained specifically how false endorsement claims and logos ended up in MIS marketing materials.
  2. MIS is responsible for providing reliable and factual information about endorsements of its products to any marketing companies it uses.
  3. If a company creates marketing materials for MIS that contain false endorsements then MIS should request those endorsements be removed before using those materials to market its products. It is implausible that MIS simply didn’t notice the appearance of false endorsements in its marketing materials.
  4. I have not found any use of the MCT name or logo in any of the marketing materials that were used to sell me a Skillstrain / MIS course. On the other hand false endorsements of a similar nature appeared in a Skillstrain promotional DVD forwarded to me a former MIS student. The DVD was produced for MIS by a marketing company called Odyssey UK, who are credited in the DVD. It is implausible that two separate marketing companies, MCT and Odyssey UK, would independently of each other put similar false endorsement claims into separate marketing materials regarding the same client (MIS) unless they were instructed by MIS to do so. In addition, here is an endorsement letter which the “marketing director” of MIS wrote regarding the services of Odyssey UK. Note that the letter itself includes several logos, some of which MIS was not authorized to use.
  5. The defamatory statements made against me, which MIS has blamed on MCT, are not a “marketing” matter.
  6. If MCT had made serious allegations against me (alleging that I left my father to die, have been sued by Hollywood companies, and implying I am a paedophile are extremely serious alegations) then it was still the responsibility of MIS to check whether those allegations were factual before repeating them. Neither MIS nor MCT enquired with me about those allegations.
  7. The law does not allow individuals or companies to evade responsibility for false endorsements or defamatory statements by claiming that they were repeating someone else’s statement. As a case in point, MIS attempted to blame an unspecified “marketing company” for its use of false endorsements when defending a claim brought by one of its customers, Gary Davies (claim 0RT00489 in Rotherham County Court). Judge Corkhill struck out MIS’ defence, stating that "Pursuant to CPR34 the defence is struck out as it discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim".

In addition to the above points, there is also evidence that company officers of MCT and Skillstrain (a trading name of MIS) are very closely connected.

  1. Companies House records show that Multimedia Computer Training Ltd was previously called Metropolitan Computer Schools Limited (a name remarkably similar to Metropolitan International Schools Limited).
  2. In 2006 MIS (t/a Skillstrain) tried to blame MCT for alleged false endorsements. The BBC quoted MIS as saying "If it turns out Multimedia Computer Training Ltd and or its advisor have broken this policy, we will take this very seriously and take further action against them." If MCT were to blame in that instance then surely MIS would have stopped using MCT “marketing” services from that point, or at the very least would have double checked any future marketing materials created by MCT to ensure they did not contain false endorsements. But two years later MIS were found to be using false endorsements again (BBC Watchdog followed by my own investigation) and again attempted to blame MCT in their refund letter to me.
  3. As part of its libel claim against me in 2012, MIS described MCT as its “subsidiary”, but then contradicted itself in a letter to my solicitor dated 10th Oct 2012 by stating that “The Claimant and MCT are trading partners in that MCT provides a marketing and promotion service for the Claimant. The corporate structures are entirely different. Each of the companies have different shareholders, directors and officers."
  4. The refund letter that was sent to me by MCT in response to my Trading Standards complaint against MIS does not include the name of the person writing the letter. It only contains a squiggle as a supposed signature. Who wrote my refund letter from MCT? The unspecified author of the letter also admits "liability", but does not specify what the liability refers to.
  5. MIS and MCT appear to be directly linked via two individuals. Neklan Herold is a director at MCT and Jan Telensky was the CEO of Skillstrain UK (MIS was trading under the name Skillstrain when it sold me a course). Both Mr. Herold and Mr. Telensky hold, or have held, positions at Multimedia (UK) LTD and Scheidegger Training Europe Ltd S.R.O. The following companies, all of which have been registered at 80-88 Collingdon St in Luton, have included either Telensky or Herold as company officers - Reboot Training Ltd, Multimedia (UK) Ltd, Training4work Ltd, Yardstick Media Ltd, Skillstrain UK Ltd (details of these companies are available at the Companies House website)
  6. MCT’s website was registered on October 13th 2009, which was over two years after an MIS representative presented me with literature containing false endorsements. The MCT website itself contains several supposed quotes of endorsement regarding computer course products as if it was selling those products itself rather than just marketing them. I have seen no evidence of MCT engaging in any marketing activities for any other company. One would expect a “marketing company” to have many clients and for information to that effect to be available online, as is the case with Odyssey UK.