Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later the your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. So if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place and park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and then unload the children followed by reloading the children getting seat belts on etc before driving to the exit stopping for cars, pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)Info and discussion thread


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3933 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

agreed it is a con to try and get us to accept,

 

Once we sign up they will just follow their standard complaints procedure which is poor, and given all the bad reports from Computeach who in their right mind would sign up with them in the first place. In addition to this i have not received anything from Barclays in writing about this (has anyone?) so it is over eight weeks.

Edited by Mustard2243
error again
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I think you guys are right there. Once you've said yes to Computeach Barclays will wash their hands of you and if you have cause for complaint later they'll say it was your choice, tough.

I think refusing from day one and contesting their right to force this upon us must be legally justifiable (though waiting to hear that actually confirmed by a solicitor now). If my wall was being rebuild by Bloggs & Co, who went bust, but Barclays arranged for some bloke I'd never heard of to turn up and knock it up for me, would that be acceptable? Especially considering the money we all paid out!

They can shove it and I'll contest it in court if I have to.

 

I think they'll make idiots of themselves if the FO tells them to refund everyone. Be interesting to see what tactic they used with other companies they helped finance through BPF and then pulled out of, such as Red driving school. Wonder what action their students took?

Link to post
Share on other sites

BPF will have to get us to sign to agree to the new course which i know i won't be signing, also they will have to set up a new direct debit as when our accounts are frozen they had to cancel the direct debit in order for the money not to come out. I won't be signing for that to happen either, the only thing i'm worried about is if they send the big boys to my door.... What then???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

 

This is my first post, I have read over the post threads to try and get an idea of what i need to do to get this mess dealt with. Does anyone know what the first step is?

 

Some positive news though, a friend of mine who was on the course wrote to Hitachi capital (twice) and they have now offered him a £2600 refund. this was calculated by dividing the total cost of the course by the number of modules then subtracting the cost of the modules which had been completed for started. had anyone else had this offer?

 

As for me, I paid half the loan to Anglo Capital, then transfered the remainder of the loan to Hitachi Capital. What do I do first!!! Help!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had a letter from BPF saying that the alternative training provider for those of us going through Access2Trade Careers is OLCI Construction Training.

 

I also have received a letter from that company asking me to call them to discuss etc, etc.

 

Has anyone else had this? I'm not going to act on it just yet, going to sit on it for the weekend and see what I can find out about the company first...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

 

This is my first post, I have read over the post threads to try and get an idea of what i need to do to get this mess dealt with. Does anyone know what the first step is?

 

Some positive news though, a friend of mine who was on the course wrote to Hitachi capital (twice) and they have now offered him a £2600 refund. this was calculated by dividing the total cost of the course by the number of modules then subtracting the cost of the modules which had been completed for started. had anyone else had this offer?

 

As for me, I paid half the loan to Anglo Capital, then transfered the remainder of the loan to Hitachi Capital. What do I do first!!! Help!!

 

Hi TurboPants,

There is another thread that all the guys with Hitachi are on and you're in a better position than us at least they're refunding you'll likely need to haggle a bit. I think it would help you if you had a look there too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daily Mirror investigators confirm it's Computeach...how did they know before we did?

 

Advent Computer Training and Access 2 Trade Careers shut up shop - Investigations

 

(See small paragraph at bottom of article)

 

And they must know what they're like too bet they've investigated them at some point. makes you wonder they could at least have put a subtle remark in there.

Lot of good points in your letters. plenty food for thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boosh No big boys will come round you can't get the jail for debt the worst that'll happen is a wrecked credit rating, a county court judgment or debt collection agency and there's a ton of help on here with that. OR we WIN and get it wiped /cancelled/refunded No more worries. smiles all round

When i said big boys, i meant debt collection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When i said big boys, i meant debt collection.

 

That looked worse than I meant it Boosh sorry as mustard said if it goes to court

we have a good counter claim. after all Advent have ceased to trade the contract is breached and the Trading Standards lady told me when BPF find a new provider then we have a legal right to refuse that if we find the new provider is not suitable which Computeach is not

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok thanks, sounds like if we all stick together we might have strength in numbers, I guess we just have to wait untill we get the letter and go from there, after reading what people are saying on here, computeach don't sound like their up to the standard that bpf are hoping for, we just need to prove it

Link to post
Share on other sites

False Sales

 

Falsely stating that a product will only be available for a very limited time, or that it will only be available on particular terms for a very limited time, in order to elicit an immediate decision and deprive consumers of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice.

 

Have you seen any local shops which seem to display permanent signs claiming that they only have a few stock items left?

 

If it's untrue then its unfair

 

from the office of fair trading

 

check out this CT have already been taken to the oft by TS

http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/consumer-regulations/traders/1140/1/

 

 

Advent rep said there was limited places and to hurry and sign to be sure of getting a place

Edited by Bluedo
Link to post
Share on other sites

from the original email:

 

Our aim is to provide guidance and information to enable you to make a fully informed decision before pursing a future career in IT. Any offer of a place on an Advent Training Programme would only be made after your initial meeting as enrolment numbers are limited and based on a selection process.

 

 

lol they saw me coming

Link to post
Share on other sites

computeach, don't make me laugh they were one of the first i disscounted when looking for a provider. they make the exam marks so high for a pass they just leave you hanging arround. found out that they want a 80% to 90% pass on the mocks before they allow you to take the real exam. just found out that with prometric the pass mark is 56%. whats their game, the longer you try to pass their mock the more frustrated you become and the more you pay untill you finally give up. money and time wasted. going to refuse computeach when the letter comes and let a4rons solicitor deal with it. can not see us losing the case. what bfp going to do if everyone refuses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mantaxi wondered where you'd got to your right it's a joke did you see the guy jim that posted he'd worked for Computeach and they were told to keep peeps back to make them pay more.

I have no intention of going with them and I'm in loads debt now but I can't pay for that it'd feel like I was agreeing to be mugged I think I'll be joining you all with A4ron's lawyer cos not heard from Hausfeld but I think if we have a mass group action it'll have more weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Computeach has already been investigated and found wanting by the Ombudsman (nice find Bluedo)!

Waiting for that letter now. What a bunch of jokers BPF are. Maybe they're anticipating a lot of people saying no but are trying their hand anyway, just to see how many don't really look into this and go for it.

The BF woman on the phone tried to tell me they are a 'major company with a good reputation' when I called. Hmmmm.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want some solid information to refuse computeach as a provider and why they are unsuitable and go to the FO about this to have a strong argument against them. I already researched some local courses and for the field I want to enter in IT I only need a couple of solid qualifications which my local college offers. It costs me under 1k to take them both and I would rather do that then the MCSE which I signed due to being told this is a special offer with limited spaces and would definately gaurantee me a job which they will find me 6 to 8 months into the course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got my generic letter today (with free spelling mistakes) informing me that I should speak to Computeach.

 

I will do no such thing - what a joke. I looked into CT before I chose Advent and they were uninteresting in what I was asking. Why on earth would I want to take a step backwards on this.

 

I've not had a response to my S75 letters yet apart from they are investigating it and I will be due an answer on 1st of April.

 

I get the feeling the that I'm going to be made a fool of on that date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This means that if the supplier makes representations of fact during negotiations (which the consumer relies on) and they cause her to enter into the agreement then the 1974 Act states that it will be as though the finance company has made the same promises. This means that a consumer has a potential claim to resind the contract (essentially cancelling it) for misrepresentation (subject to her proving there was a statement of fact, which she relied on and then entered into the agreement) or, if she has lost her right to rescind, claim damages for misrepresentation from the the finance company.

 

The Student Law Journal: Consumer Credit: Misrepresentation & Negotiations

 

Savarok The reply to my complaint was a demand for payment

Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent had anything yet maybe Monday.

 

So then I will call BPF when I get it, and so do I tell them I do not wish to again be a computeach student.. I wonder what they will tell me then?

 

Can I ask who has got the furthest with their solicitors? and what are their thoughts to being offered training by a company we have not chosen?.

I have been out of work now for over half a year I dont have the money to pay a solicitor to fight this, I really thought I would be in a position to go for interviews by now and that would pay for my loan.

 

I will not willingly enrol with a company I do not wish to have dealings with and one that I know will only delay my training for a job . :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

from the original email:

 

Our aim is to provide guidance and information to enable you to make a fully informed decision before pursing a future career in IT. Any offer of a place on an Advent Training Programme would only be made after your initial meeting as enrolment numbers are limited and based on a selection process.

 

 

lol they saw me coming

 

2 good points Mustard "enrolment is limited "and 2ndly" Based on selection process."

I think there's something about the OFT rules that students should be vetted for their capabilities and not just sold the most expensive qualifications hoping to tie us into an agreement we may not be able to complete.

Personally no-one came to see me it was all arranged on the phone and emails and post.

 

10 pack if we can get a no win no fee with a solicitor then if we win you would be refunded so be able to pay if we lose no fee

Edited by Bluedo
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3933 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...