Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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 3934 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

Indeed Mustard I was just about to say that, how can they say that it applies now when good ol' Wilma Thomson mailed out thousands of letters stating otherwise.

 

Looks like the left hand isnt talking to the right hand.

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

Contact Fuzzbutt for any questions about the Action website!!

 

Hey Fuzz,

 

Looks like they have backtracked on the section 75 argument they quite clearly say that section 75 applies. Also they say disclosing how they arrived at Computeach is irrelevant, but they will give us the leaflet LOL!!

 

I think they are stalling for time in a big way!

 

Just reading through now.

They do not mention you will only get the details of like for like,

[or bespoke...lol]from CT when you sign up to another contract again,

clarifying their claim to PKF that they can earn future income from former Advent students [ hence BPF not wanting to disclose how they reached at CT....lol [ do BPF not know we have a copy of the PKF Email?]

Also it seems they want to break it down to a per person claim,

forgeting its a class action.That would possibly be down to damage limitation.[Pay that one off - keep that one]

 

Also they are pretty much saying that most of the students are lying in the

statements about pressure to sign to Advent and mis selling.

 

Get you popcorn in folks - its gonna be a long film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contact Fuzzbutt for any questions about the Action website!!

 

Hey Fuzz,

 

Looks like they have backtracked on the section 75 argument they quite clearly say that section 75 applies. Also they say disclosing how they arrived at Computeach is irrelevant, but they will give us the leaflet LOL!!

 

I think they are stalling for time in a big way!

 

yes thats the impression I got while reading their reply.. I also felt like they were just laughing.. and not taking us seriously.

 

I also note that they seem to think that supplying computeach is it as far as they are concerned they dont need to do more to justify asking us for money.. how can this be.. surely its their definition of supplying a satisfactory alternative.. not mine and as some of you may of noted me write before..

 

I dont want to be a computeach student again!!!!

 

So how do my views come into their argument??? :confused:

 

and its been 6 months now since advent pegged it.. i have lost 6 months worth of study time while BPF have been stalling and taking the ****!!

 

Their claim of equal study time with computeach does not come into it with the amount of my time they have wasted.

 

I want my money back.. all £312 and then they can get lost.. which is basicly what I have already asked for when I have phoned each time before.. they refused me each time?? :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

lovely 32 page stupid letter! isn't it? how can they say things like that..i'm sure they even want to pose more pressure on our lawyer saying that its a premature class action and wants details of individuals. so sick of these b@st***s!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it not eventually get to that? Class action or not?

 

Possibly.

But what does this mean?

"At the outset we note that our client accepts that section 75 of the CCA will apply where there is in fact a debtor-creditor-supplier arrangement in place"

Only to students with a loan in place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting read and mostly expected from Barclays at this stage.

 

Fuzzbutt, it might be worth asking Hausfeld what exactly they need from us to satisfy our claims. ie, a written statement from each student on the misrepresentation and the loss incurred. A template could be set out as I'm sure most people had the same lies told to them.

 

Something like, I xxxxxx, was sold the course on the promise that I could complete the first 2 modules within 3 months and that they would provide employment with a salary of £x which advent failed to provide and now I have financial loss due to the lack of employment. The course was also misrepresented as I was told that there were limited places and I had 14 days to complete my enrollment, when in fact they were recruiting months later for the same course. etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside any question of misselling or failure to deliver on Advent's part (as i believe these are the trickier areas of the case, though no less valid) I just get so ****ed off that there is any argument at all with regard to Barclays being able to say "here's a company, they offer training, thats all we have to do". Personally this is where the fight is for me coz it seems so wrong.

 

Its amazing that in that response, assumin i'm reading it right, they say that Computeach have offered a bespoke course for the advent people and if ya just go sign up with computeach you'll have access to the info to see how exactly the same it all is, just go sign up, it'll all be fine then, blah, blah, blah. If it really is the case why are computeach so evasive and inconsistent when answering our questions and concerns????

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hardest point for people to prove and this is mainly for the people who contracts with Advent that have '' expired '' is that Advent offered everyone open ended training until you passed the final exam. In my particular case I had a email from computeach saying that my contract had expired in June 09 strange because I went to a workshop after that date but I cant find any documentation to prove and I dare bet all files accept contracts were destroyed when advent went bust.

Mis selling is plain to see and as juicybuns say a generic template would be good because we all got spun same load of s**t .

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hardest point for people to prove and this is mainly for the people who contracts with Advent that have '' expired '' is that Advent offered everyone open ended training until you passed the final exam. In my particular case I had a email from computeach saying that my contract had expired in June 09 strange because I went to a workshop after that date but I cant find any documentation to prove and I dare bet all files accept contracts were destroyed when advent went bust.

Mis selling is plain to see and as juicybuns say a generic template would be good because we all got spun same load of s**t .

 

I too received an email from Computeach saying my contract expired in July '09.

I attended a workshop in October '09, I was supplied with a code to take a mock exam in in December '09, took and passed a Microsoft exam in December '09 and received more course materials from Advent in December '09.

As I was "sold" the course as being open ended I didn't ask for an extension so it looks like both Advent and me weren't aware of a two year "term".

I still have all email correspondence that took place between Advent and me after the supposed expiry date of my contract and will be happy to send copies to Hausfeld as and when required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hardest point for people to prove and this is mainly for the people who contracts with Advent that have '' expired '' is that Advent offered everyone open ended training until you passed the final exam. In my particular case I had a email from computeach saying that my contract had expired in June 09 strange because I went to a workshop after that date but I cant find any documentation to prove and I dare bet all files accept contracts were destroyed when advent went bust.

Mis selling is plain to see and as juicybuns say a generic template would be good because we all got spun same load of s**t .

 

Have CT contacted you at any time since Advent went under?

[if your training has expired]

If so and BPF offered you another training provider, they knew the contract was open ended, otherwise why offer you CT? [More money for CT of course]

The offer from BPF to you might be evidence?

Edited by lowdown
Link to post
Share on other sites

What do people think of the letter on the 'Latest News' page of the 'Advent Student's' web site. As far as I can tell, it appears that Hausfield are backing away from the case.

 

Can you explain your reasoning for seeing the BPF response as Hausfield backing away?

 

To me the response seems more like BPF trying to avoid class action by wanting to deal with each case separately rather than in a mass action. Avoiding a large law suit and much unwanted press.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain your reasoning for seeing the BPF response as Hausfield backing away?

 

To me the response seems more like BPF trying to avoid class action by wanting to deal with each case separately rather than in a mass action. Avoiding a large law suit and much unwanted press.

 

 

I'm not referring to the response from BFP. I'm referring to the letter on the 'Latest News' page of the web-site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hardest point for people to prove and this is mainly for the people who contracts with Advent that have '' expired '' is that Advent offered everyone open ended training until you passed the final exam. In my particular case I had a email from computeach saying that my contract had expired in June 09 strange because I went to a workshop after that date but I cant find any documentation to prove and I dare bet all files accept contracts were destroyed when advent went bust.

Mis selling is plain to see and as juicybuns say a generic template would be good because we all got spun same load of s**t .

 

I did eventually get an email back from my salesman confirming they extended contracts. I've forwarded it to the legal team, hopefully that will help a bit!

 

I'm not sure how Barclays expect us to 'prove' the misselling!!...do they expect us to have recorded the conversations or something!!?? Idiots!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not referring to the response from BFP. I'm referring to the letter on the 'Latest News' page of the web-site.

 

Ah, I hadn't seen that. I wouldn't say that they are backing away just from that news, but are ensuring that they can make a solid case against BPF before taking any further action. BPF want some clear details of the breaches for students and want to deal with each student case separately. Hausfield will tell us what they need soon to build up the case if they don't have enough information already.

 

Stay positive! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Juicybuns idea of a template statement is a good one and I'll put that to our lawyer.

 

She's looking at all our docs again and may need individuals to give in-depth accounts and offer to be (on paper at least) a representative. I'll let everyone know. Personally I've said I'm willing to go to court and face these b*****ds in any way I can now. The arrogant tone of that letter from Hogan Lovells is depressing (it's even getting me down, and that's hard to do as I'm a generally positive person). :(

 

If you have ANYTHING in writing or email that could help us out PLEASE send it ASAP to Ingrid (or me to pass on) so she can build an unshakable case. We really need to do this.

We can't let BPF squirm out of this. They are indeed, sneeringly insinuating we are lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how Barclays expect us to 'prove' the misselling!!...do they expect us to have recorded the conversations or something!!?? Idiots!

 

It is indeed hard to prove what someone has said, but when hundreds of people are complaining that they were sold a course on the same promises, I think that is good proof. Nobody expected that to be lies and so we never recorded the sales pitch or got it all in writing. Especially with a 14 day sign up for a limited place course :|

 

Fuzzbutt you've done an outstanding job so far and we are all grateful for your efforts. Don't let BPF get you down, we didn't expect them to fall at the first hurdle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Been reading through the letter from BPF, found it quite annoying. Anyway i was reading the 'misrepresentation alleged to be by advent and access' and our claims that the reps told us it was open ended but on some of our contracts it states 2 years and then they draws your attension to clause 15.8 which basically says if you find anything wrong with the contract to contact them within 30 days'. I only found out AFTER advent went bust and only when i logged on to this forum that there was a 2 year course period. So who do i contact about it!?

I would also love to know what the difference is between our 'bestoke' course and what computeach off as normal. i had a look at the info sent by BPF lawyer but it doesn't mention about the MCSE just the MCSA course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it as a positive Fuzzbutt, It is going to be a long ride but i think we are on to a winner now especially as Hogan Lovells are just trying to stall by asking us for irrelevant details. It will not be long before we are outside a court room chanting Ingrid,Ingrid,Ingrid!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3934 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...