Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
    • Thank you for posting their WS. If we start with the actual WS made by the director one would have doubts that they had even read PoFA let alone understood it. Point 10  we only have the word of the director that the contract has been extended. I should have had the corroboration of the Client. Point 12 The Judge HHJ Simkiss was not the usual Judge on motoring cases and his decisions on the necessity of contracts did not align with PoFA. In Schedule 4 [1[ it is quite clearly spelt out- “relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—(a)the owner or occupier of the land; or (b authorised, under or  by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land; And the laughable piece of paper from the land owners cannot be described as a contract. I respectfully ask that the case be dismissed as there is no contract. WE do not even know what the parking regulations are which is really basic. It is respectfully asked that without a valid contract the case cannot continue. One would imagine that were there a valid contract it would have been produced.  So the contract that Bank has with the motorist must come from the landowner. Bank on their own cannot impose their own contract. How could a director of a parking company sign a Statement of Truth which included Point 11. Point 14. There is no offer of a contract at the entrance to the car park. Doubtful if it is even an offer to treat. The entrance sign sign does not comply with the IPC Code of Conduct nor is there any indication that ANPR cameras are in force. A major fault and breach of GDPR. Despite the lack of being offered a contract at the entrance [and how anyone could see what was offered by way of a contract in the car park is impossible owing to none of the signs in the WS being at all legible] payment was made for the car to park. A young person in the car made the payment. But before they did that, they helped an elderly lady to make her payment as she was having difficulty. After arranging payment for the lady the young lad made his payment right behind. Unfortunately he entered the old lady's number again rather than paying .for the car he was in. This can be confirmed by looking at the Allow List print out on page 25. The defendant's car arrived at 12.49 and at 12.51 and 12.52  there are two payments for the same vrm. This was also remarked on by the IPC adjudicator when the PCN was appealed.  So it is quite disgraceful that Bank have continued to pursue the Defendant knowing that it was a question of  entering the wrong vrm.  Point 21 The Defendant is not obliged to name the driver, they are only invited to do so under S9[2][e]. Also it is unreasonable to assume that the keeper is the driver. The Courts do not do that for good reason. The keeper in this case does not have a driving licence. Point 22. The Defendant DID make a further appeal which though it was also turned down their reply was very telling and should have led to the charge being dropped were the company not greedy and willing to pursue the Defendant regardless of the evidence they had in their own hands. Point 23 [111] it's a bit rich asking the Defendant to act justly and at proportionate cost while acting completely unjustly themselves and then adding an unlawful 70% on to the invoice. This  is despite PoFA S4[5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9[2][d].  Point 23 [1v] the Director can deny all he wants but the PCN does not comply with PoFA. S9 [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 only quotes the ANPR arrival and departure times which obviously includes a fair amount of driving between the two cameras. Plus the driver and passengers are a mixture of disabled and aged persons who require more time than just a young fit single driver to exit the car and later re enter. So the ANPR times cannot be the same as the required parking period as stipulated in the ACT. Moreover in S9[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; You will note that in the PCN the words in parentheses are not included but at the start of Section 9 the word "must" is included. As there are two faults in the PCN it follows that Bank cannot pursue the keeper . And as the driver does not have a driving licence their case must fail on that alone. And that is not even taking into consideration that the payment was made. Point 23 [v] your company is wrong a payment was made. very difficult to prove a cash payment two weeks later when the PCN arrives. However the evidence was in your print out for anyone to see had they actually done due diligence prior to writing to the DVLA. Indeed as the Defendant had paid there was no reasonable cause to have applied for the keeper details. Point 24 the Defendant did not breach the contract. The PCN claimed the Defendant failed to make a payment when they had made a payment.   I haven't finished yet but that is something to start with
    • You don't appeal to anyone. You haven't' received a demand from a statutory body like the council, the police or the courts. It's just a dodgy cowboy company trying it on. You simply don't pay.  In the vast majority of these cases the company deforest the Amazon with threats about how they are going to divert a drone from Ukraine and make it land on your home - but in the end they do nothing.
  • 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

I know its just waste of time, but i did contact computeach to get so called dedicated course structure according to bpf..they replied with the following:

"Your contract remains with Barclays we will continue to support you under our terms and condition which can be found at www.computeach.co.uk/terms. The course we have you enrolled upon is Support Professional with Microsoft Database Administrator.

 

We will supply course materials and resources including tutorial support up until your contract end date of which has been extended via Barclays of 3 additional months your end of contract date. If you disagree with the contract end date please send a copy of your enrolment form with terms and conditions that states that there was no end date or the end date was different to your contract and we will investigate with Barclays.

We will also supply all exam vouchers required within this time period including re sits, you are able to attend our in centre training days held at our centre in Dudley in the West Midlands, if however you are unable to make these days we can supply exam vouchers for you to sit the exam at a local testing centre to yourself.

We also have a dedicated Careers time that can help you find jobs and help with CV writing and interview techniques, you can register on our student website to use this services as soon as you become a Computeach student.

Should you wish to continue to study after your contract ends we able to continue your training via our Computeach learning plan. This is an initial contract for a minimum of 12 months and can be paid monthly at £139.95 per month. After the initial 12 months you can continue on a month by month basis paying £139.95 monthly."

So where is the point for like wise training when they are asking for monthly payments after the end date..in my enrolment form there was no end date at all.

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"Your contract remains with Barclays we will continue to support you under our terms and condition which can be found at . The course we have you enrolled upon is Support Professional with Microsoft Database Administrator.

 

There you go, Computeach will only take you on under their T & C's. [And not Advents]

Thats not What BPF are saying is it.

 

Fuzzbutt might want to see that reply from Computeach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its just waste of time, but i did contact computeach to get so called dedicated course structure according to bpf..they replied with the following:

"Your contract remains with Barclays we will continue to support you under our terms and condition which can be found at www.computeach.co.uk/terms. The course we have you enrolled upon is Support Professional with Microsoft Database Administrator.

 

We will supply course materials and resources including tutorial support up until your contract end date of which has been extended via Barclays of 3 additional months your end of contract date. If you disagree with the contract end date please send a copy of your enrolment form with terms and conditions that states that there was no end date or the end date was different to your contract and we will investigate with Barclays.

We will also supply all exam vouchers required within this time period including re sits, you are able to attend our in centre training days held at our centre in Dudley in the West Midlands, if however you are unable to make these days we can supply exam vouchers for you to sit the exam at a local testing centre to yourself.

We also have a dedicated Careers time that can help you find jobs and help with CV writing and interview techniques, you can register on our student website to use this services as soon as you become a Computeach student.

Should you wish to continue to study after your contract ends we able to continue your training via our Computeach learning plan. This is an initial contract for a minimum of 12 months and can be paid monthly at £139.95 per month. After the initial 12 months you can continue on a month by month basis paying £139.95 monthly."

So where is the point for like wise training when they are asking for monthly payments after the end date..in my enrolment form there was no end date at all.

 

They don't make sense. Did they write to you with a new contract at all, Raj, with anything in writing about the extended 3 months promise? Though I guess if you had no end date originally that's irrelevant. In that case how can they know when your study time expires if there was no end date?

What's the betting they'd start charging you anyway!

 

I tried contacting the 'Legal Action against Computeach' FB group but no one has replied to me. It appears they are currently trying to gather enough students to make a mass complaint to Dudley Trading Standards about the quality of their courses. CT have already been found against by TS back in 2006 when students complained then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

did anyone just get an email from someone claiming to be an advent student it came from email removed

Michal sent you a message on Action for Advent and Access 2 Trade students!

Yes I did yesterday. As follows:

--------------------

Subject: hi

 

Hi.

About a month ago i made a complain to Ombudsman on BPF and all that situation with Advent etc. Yesterday i recevied an answer from them.They wrote that tere's nothing they can do becouse BPF found a replacement Provider (Computeach) for me, and they think that I'm wrong and should accept it.I'm a little bit confused becouse Mercers keep sending me a letters sayin that if i wont pay someone will come to my house to collect the money.I'm getting stressed and don't really think what to do.Is there anyone who is in the same situation???What is your advice?Do you think that we have a chance to win?

Michal

--------------------

 

To reply to this message, follow the link below:

external link removed

 

I'm not going to answer it.

Edited by IdaInFife
web and email removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just added a new letter template for those now being approached by second debt collection agencies as well as Mercers (see latest news and 'Letter Templates' page). This is in response to latest developments people are reporting. I'm trying to keep the student website up to date as events happen.

 

On the case, negotiations are moving slowly forward. Don't forget if you have any evidence (especially on the loan and Advent course being mis-sold) please forward them to Hausfeld. Ensure you are also copying all of your evidence to FOS as our lawyer suspects, having spoken directly to some people who have had rejections so far, that people have only sent basic information to their adjudicator. The adjudicator can only go on what you tell them, so she stresses be clear and thorough and outline all the issues with as much detail/evidence as you can (even if that's just your account of the sales meeting word of mouth, it's still relevant to your case). There is a slightly amended summary of points you can use on the bottom of the home page of my site. Hope that helps.

Edited by Fuzzbutt
Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't make sense. Did they write to you with a new contract at all, Raj, with anything in writing about the extended 3 months promise? Though I guess if you had no end date originally that's irrelevant. In that case how can they know when your study time expires if there was no end date?

What's the betting they'd start charging you anyway!

 

I tried contacting the 'Legal Action against Computeach' FB group but no one has replied to me. It appears they are currently trying to gather enough students to make a mass complaint to Dudley Trading Standards about the quality of their courses. CT have already been found against by TS back in 2006 when students complained then.

 

 

As far as I can make out, BPF have asked Computeach to match the Advent terms as much as possible. (ie Free re-sits, take exam at your nearest centre etc). Hopefully, our legal team can prove that Computeach is an inadequate replacement. (Advent's 'study at your own pace' being a key difference).

 

Also, as far as I make out, Computeach have accepted BPF's request and made a few concessions to Advent students. They seem very guarded about revealing these concessions. (Advent students are, apparently, directed to a specific part of the Computeach web-site. They are reluctant to admit anything in writing, and so on). Clearly, the bigger picture is that Computeach are scared that by revealing the concessions they have made to Advent students , they will further alienate their existing students.

 

I suggest, therefore, that Computeach's students are made fully-aware of the situation. Maybe, if we can link up with them in some way, our position can be strengthened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all. Received a letter from Barclays collection department. Basically told me my arrears balance is now critical and if I dont contact them they will refer my account to an external debt collection agency. I thoughty they had already passed my details on as I was getting calls from mercers. Anyway I phoned them up to talk to them, told them the usual that im not paying and not happy with the replacement. The lady said ok I understand i will stop the calls for another 13 days. Their saying they need to hear summat from legal team or I will have to ring customer relations department.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys!

It seems to me, that mercers and BPF are trying to get some money out of us before it gets to court. Mercers "advised" me today to start my payments regardless the dispute, so I won't have to pay extra interest on it, if I get turned down by the FOS.It is clear to me that they try to collect as much money from us, as possible, before it gets to court, and simply file clyesdale for bankruptcy.

Dont forget that Barclays Partner finance is only a trading name for Clydesdale financial services ltd, one of hundreds of companies owned by Barclays plc.It is just too easy for them to do it, they won't have to pay you back a single penny, even if you would win in court.

Go on the website, read it, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, and complain to the authorities!

It's not gonna go away by just registering and reading forums.In fact the more complaints made to the more different government bodies, the better the chance barclays will back down.They know that they are in the red

 

 

Ps: How do you record mobile conversations when mercers calls?

Can you use your phone's call log records as proof of harrasment?

Any ideas?

 

Fuzz, you are a star!Thank you and all the others for the hard work!

 

Hi Guys

recording phone conversations on your mobile..

 

There is a website with some software its costs money but it works.. even records without the bleeps in the background, do a search for "Killermobile" phone recorder.

I had it my Nokia N91 before I lost it, I dont know all of the models the software works with.

what it does is automatically start recording as soon as you either receive a call or make one, its saves the file to your phone or memory card with the mobile number and date and time.

 

Hope this is helpful to anyone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could anyone outline some more reasons not to pay Barclays even if we'll win this case?

what I mean is: We all know the risks of not paying! What about the risks of paying? there could be one just above. Are there any others? If there are, then they would make sens why Barclays is so aggressive in making us pay even if we win in court. maybe if we win Barclays will find a way not to pay us back. Other thing is: wouldn't it be better for Barclays to just sit confortable back and let us not pay and so go into interest period and so get penalties?! IT just would be more money for them. Instead they assault us in every way they can to just make us give them more, and this is maybe because they know that once we pay we won't get it back!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can make out, BPF have asked Computeach to match the Advent terms as much as possible. (ie Free re-sits, take exam at your nearest centre etc). Hopefully, our legal team can prove that Computeach is an inadequate replacement. (Advent's 'study at your own pace' being a key difference).

 

Also, as far as I make out, Computeach have accepted BPF's request and made a few concessions to Advent students. They seem very guarded about revealing these concessions. (Advent students are, apparently, directed to a specific part of the Computeach web-site. They are reluctant to admit anything in writing, and so on). Clearly, the bigger picture is that Computeach are scared that by revealing the concessions they have made to Advent students , they will further alienate their existing students.

 

I suggest, therefore, that Computeach's students are made fully-aware of the situation. Maybe, if we can link up with them in some way, our position can be strengthened.

 

Well, I suggested on their FB page they contact me as it could also benefit them too when we win our case. Ball's in their court now really, Skyblue Dave.

Our lawyer has pressurised BPF's lawyer to give her a written out line of these 'bespoke courses' but I suspect, as you say, they will just state they will match Advent's terms.

Good news is a former Advent rep and one of the Advent students who did opt for CT (and has since regretted it) has been in touch with me and passed on to our lawyer, so that strengthens our case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what I mean is: We all know the risks of not paying! What about the risks of paying? there could be one just above. Are there any others? If there are, then they would make sens why Barclays is so aggressive in making us pay even if we win in court. maybe if we win Barclays will find a way not to pay us back. Other thing is: wouldn't it be better for Barclays to just sit confortable back and let us not pay and so go into interest period and so get penalties?! IT just would be more money for them. Instead they assault us in every way they can to just make us give them more, and this is maybe because they know that once we pay we won't get it back!

 

If we win, Malchus, I can't see how they will wriggle out of not paying us back if a high court judge orders them to do so as they will under S75 of CCA, I'd assume. That is a legal point. Barclays are not above the law, even if they like to think they are. They will be responsible for all court costs and Hausfeld's too, plus compensation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do post it - FOS are toothless and incompetent.

You could join our group legal action if you haven't already.

 

 

Hi Fuzzbutt, I am already included in the group legal action, but thanks for the offer. I will send the info through a e-mail to you if you like so ingrid can look at it, see what they make of what Barclays and the FOS have to say over the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just realised that Barclays haven't taken my money this month. I'm one of the few that have continued paying because I can't afford to risk my credit rating being affected. I wrote to Barclays to complain about a number of things (again) and told them I'm involved with the group action, but never actually requested my account be put on hold. They received my letter on the 26th. They should have taken payment on the 28th and I even received the usual text message to confirm this on the 23rd. Maybe they're voluntarily putting accounts on hold if they know they're involved with the group action now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they're voluntarily putting accounts on hold if they know they're involved with the group action now.

 

I dont think thats the case - its BPF, the fact that they are just very incompetent. We have already established that.

Give it a few days and you will have all the moranic bonus hunters on the phone with their threats. And of course it will be all your fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think thats the case - its BPF, the fact that they are just very incompetent. We have already established that.

 

Ah! but it's a new set of incompetents.

 

Having dispensed with the shambles at Glasgow, as you may be aware BPF have been merged with another Barclaycard 'shining light' 1st Plus Financial. On the back of heavy TV advertising, this outfit specialised in offering secured loans to people who were already up to their ears in debt. No great suprise that 1st Plus closed for new business in 2008, as you will see below.

 

You will also see that the MD of 1st Plus was...................Neil Radley.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7495511.stm

 

In view of level of incompetence already remarked upon, you could suppose that as soon as Radley takes charge, anyone with half a brain looks for another job.

 

David

Edited by cashins
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! but it's a new set of incompetents.

 

Having dispensed with the shambles at Glasgow, as you may be aware BPF have been merged with another Barclaycard 'shining light' 1st Plus Financial. On the back of heavy TV advertising, this outfit specialised in offering secured loans to people who were already up to their ears in debt. No great suprise that 1st Plus closed for new business in 2008, as you will see below.

 

You will also see that the MD of 1st Plus was...................Neil Radley.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7495511.stm

 

In view of level of incompetence already remarked upon, you could suppose that as soon as Radley takes charge, anyone with half a brain looks for another job.

David

 

Quote from the neanderthal man himself.

 

Neil Radley, managing director of Firstplus, said: "In the past year we have tried a whole range of activities to develop our business but the market demand simply isn't strong enough"

 

After looking at his track record, one activity he might consider - make himself redundent, and quitely slip away.

But then he will manage to self emplode with that option i should imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys,

Just a quick update about the things happening to me.

 

I had a letter from Barclays saying they were passing my details onto "Sanclare Financial". Which I thought was odd as most of you had Mercers. That was 20th August.

 

I yesterday had a business card posted through from a company called "Resolvecall ltd." It was posted in a brown envelope with my name and "URGENT.DO NOT IGNORE" written on. So they had been to my house. On the business card, it says " I called today for the 1st time regarding your account(s). Please contact (name) on (tel no.) or our office qouting reference Barclays Partner Finance." This was all in handwriting. Including the envelope.

 

Who are these companies and has anybody else had to deal with them? I also thought they couldn't come to your house and pressurise you. Or was that they just couldnt come in. What shall I do now? Just send the letter saying that the account is in dispute? Is it worth mentioning the outlines that they cannot harass me as mentioned on the website?

 

Cheers Guys

 

P.S I've just had a look at the number (0844 257) and it costs 4p per minute not including connection charges. I dont have a house phone so this would cost more i guess from my mobile. Not that i'm going to call them but, would this fall under the unfair practise of 'asking or instructing debtors to make contact on premium rate telephone numbers' or is 4p not premium. I'm really not sure. lol.

Edited by Robtroll
Added Tel No. Info.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys,

Just a quick update about the things happening to me.

 

I had a letter from Barclays saying they were passing my details onto "Sanclare Financial". Which I thought was odd as most of you had Mercers. That was 20th August.

 

I yesterday had a business card posted through from a company called "Resolvecall ltd." It was posted in a brown envelope with my name and "URGENT.DO NOT IGNORE" written on. So they had been to my house. On the business card, it says " I called today for the 1st time regarding your account(s). Please contact (name) on (tel no.) or our office qouting reference Barclays Partner Finance." This was all in handwriting. Including the envelope.

 

Who are these companies and has anybody else had to deal with them? I also thought they couldn't come to your house and pressurise you. Or was that they just couldnt come in. What shall I do now? Just send the letter saying that the account is in dispute? Is it worth mentioning the outlines that they cannot harass me as mentioned on the website?

 

Cheers Guys

 

P.S I've just had a look at the number (0844 257) and it costs 4p per minute not including connection charges. I dont have a house phone so this would cost more i guess from my mobile. Not that i'm going to call them but, would this fall under the unfair practise of 'asking or instructing debtors to make contact on premium rate telephone numbers' or is 4p not premium. I'm really not sure. lol.

 

 

First of all, go back one page [page 242 - read post #4826 ] If you need a template, its on the legal site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joyhouk, I got the same letter signed by a Mr Andy Hughes. I plan to reply/ respond to the treats in this letter in the next couple of days and will upload my response. In my response letter I will state that I have no problems if Barclays want to take me to court as this seems the only way that this whole debacle will come to public prominence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be a good day to watch TV tomorrow evening!!!

 

I have been interviewed for the BBC 1's 'The One Show' 7pm. Hopefully it will be airing tomorrow (Weds).

 

Love to be a fly on the wall of Uncle Neil Radley's front room.....hmmm, what's that? Bad publicity, you say? Such a shame! :lol::lol:

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...