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

[alf man]

Hi is it true that some people have loans with 0% interest? Mine is 29.8% but if it was 0% then I would be paid up.

Regarding the debate between gfunkasaur and feedme you are both entitled to your opinions and they are both valid points but please try and remember that Advent and barclays put everyone in this position and banding together is the only way to get a good result for us, and not paying is the individuals choice.

[10pack]

Hi is it true that some people have loans with 0% interest? Mine is 29.8% but if it was 0% then I would be paid up.

Regarding the debate between gfunkasaur and feedme you are both entitled to your opinions and they are both valid points but please try and remember that Advent and barclays put everyone in this position and banding together is the only way to get a good result for us, and not paying is the individuals choice.

 

Yes its true my loan was 3 years interest free

and yes I agree with you about the debate you mention.. though I cant help feeling that Feedme is not who she says she is.. we have in the past had bank opos pretending to be members just to feed in their information.. I am not saying that feedme is such a person.. its just a feeling I got while reading her posts

[Fuzzbutt]

Yes its true my loan was 3 years interest free

and yes I agree with you about the debate you mention.. though I cant help feeling that Feedme is not who she says she is.. we have in the past had bank opos pretending to be members just to feed in their information.. I am not saying that feedme is such a person.. its just a feeling I got while reading her posts

 

Have to say I was suspicious too, 10pack.

Insisting and foot stamping 'I am right' is a little different to objectively pointing out by way of discussion that there is an obligation to continue paying off a loan, and defaulting on that puts the customer in the wrong, which is, technically, true.

I understand that from our lawyer, and that if you continue to pay you will be able to reclaim it back when the case is won (so some may want to play safe and stick to that, which is fair enough).

 

But I can't honestly see how any authority can penalise someone stopping payment on a loan that is being challenged by legal means and possibly mis-sold in the first place (by Advent)?

And that is key, I think, that the Advent course was mis-sold with false promises, and the new provider is not any substitute (replacing rubbish with more rubbish), therefore there is a breach of the contract. Period.

 

Barclays are on shaky ground but unfortunately until they either admit that and sit down with Hausfeld to resolve the issue, or stick to their guns and then have to explain themselves in court to a judge who will be considering points of LAW (not their say-so!) we are a bit up in the air.

 

Edited to add - from Hausfeld's letter to BPF (bold emphasis by me)...

 

"3. We are instructed by students of both Advent and Access (“Our Clients”) to advise on claims against BPF arising in relation to the following (further details of which are set out in this letter):

 

(a) misrepresentations made by Advent and Access, on which students relied in enrolling for the course and taking out funding with BPF (for which BPF will be liable under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”));

 

(b) breaches of contract by Advent and Access both prior to and as a result of their entry into administration (for which BPF will be liable under Section 75 CCA); and

 

© claims by students directly against BPF in respect of the loan arrangements including unfair contract terms in breach of Section 140A of the CCA and/or obligations to treat customers fairly under Rule 6 of the FSA Principles of Business."

Edited July 3, 2010 by Fuzzbutt

[lowdown]

explain themselves in court to a judge who will be considering points of LAW (not their say-so!)

 

 

The only free legal advice i have had since this all started...

was exactly that.I was also told, no financial establishment will hold

their hands up until taken into court [ or maybe a few days before court proceedings]

They work on the lines of the person filing the dispute can not afford to take them on with the fear of losing. [costs etc]

 

Of course this could have been a solicitor hoping i would engage her.

But it does have a smell of truth about it.

 

Barclays will drag it out - not because they possibly think they are right....

But because internally they are incompetent - we can all testify to that

with all the unconvincing letters, telephone conversations and replys we all have had.

Edited July 3, 2010 by lowdown

[Fuzzbutt]

I have a sneaky suspicion this will have no option but going to court now. Hausfeld were hoping to resolve this for us without that, as court proceedings can be slow and costly.

But think you're right there, Lowdown. They will only act if forced to do so reluctantly.

[10pack]

Have to say I was suspicious too, 10pack.

Insisting and foot stamping 'I am right' is a little different to objectively pointing out by way of discussion that there is an obligation to continue paying off a loan, and defaulting on that puts the customer in the wrong, which is, technically, true.

I understand that from our lawyer, and that if you continue to pay you will be able to reclaim it back when the case is won (so some may want to play safe and stick to that, which is fair enough).

 

But I can't honestly see how any authority can penalise someone stopping payment on a loan that is being challenged by legal means and possibly mis-sold in the first place (by Advent)?

And that is key, I think, that the Advent course was mis-sold with false promises, and the new provider is not any substitute (replacing rubbish with more rubbish), therefore there is a breach of the contract. Period.

 

Barclays are on shaky ground but unfortunately until they either admit that and sit down with Hausfeld to resolve the issue, or stick to their guns and then have to explain themselves in court to a judge who will be considering points of LAW (not their say-so!) we are a bit up in the air.

 

Edited to add - from Hausfeld's letter to BPF (bold emphasis by me)...

 

"3. We are instructed by students of both Advent and Access (“Our Clients”) to advise on claims against BPF arising in relation to the following (further details of which are set out in this letter):

 

(a) misrepresentations made by Advent and Access, on which students relied in enrolling for the course and taking out funding with BPF (for which BPF will be liable under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”));

 

(b) breaches of contract by Advent and Access both prior to and as a result of their entry into administration (for which BPF will be liable under Section 75 CCA); and

 

© claims by students directly against BPF in respect of the loan arrangements including unfair contract terms in breach of Section 140A of the CCA and/or obligations to treat customers fairly under Rule 6 of the FSA Principles of Business."

 

I phoned BPF this morning because of their latest threatening letters and rep refused point blank to accept that my account is in dispute or was willing to put my account in dispute... despite have written to them and phoning before about it.

 

I told her then since I felt that BPF was in breach of S75.. computeach was not a suitable alternative.. I had no other option but to inform her I would be taking legal proceeding againts BPF.

 

She said I can do this but my account will not be on hold and I will still get the letters and that someone from mercers would call at my home, I replied that I knew mercers are part of barclays and that its just the barclays way of getting around the legal requirements that barclays cant harrass their customers, so any action from mercers I deem to be from barclays.. and if anyone turns up I am within my rights to refuse entry and shut the door on them.

Edited July 3, 2010 by 10pack

[lowdown]

I phoned BPF this morning because of their latest threatening letters and rep refused point blank to accept that my account is in dispute or was willing to put my account in dispute... despite have written to them and phoning before about it.

 

I told her then since I felt that BPF was in breach of S75.. computeach was not a suitable alternative.. I had no other option but to inform her I would be taking legal proceeding againts BPF.

 

She said I can do this but my account will not be on hold and I will still get the letters and that someone from mercers would call at my home, I replied that I knew mercers are part of barclays and that its just the barclays way of getting around the legal requirements that barclays cant harrass their customers, so any action from mercers I deem to be from barclays.. and if anyone turns up I am within my rights to refuse entry and shut the door on them.

 

You really are only wasting your time speaking to BPF or Mercers on the phone...they are only BONUS hunters and TARGET achievers from call centers with no powers at all, and door step collectors have as much power as the milkman.If you need to speak to them put it in writing, then you can use their reply [ or none reply - even better] as evidence of nonsense and idiotic practice of not holding an account in dispute - More stuff to send off to the fos.

[Fuzzbutt]

Good for you! That's appalling! Have they no comprehension of the codes of conduct they agreed and signed up to.

I don't think we can complain to the Lending Standards Board as individuals but I hope if this gets to court action their behaviour can be raised by our lawyer with Financial Standards Authority and Lending Standards.

There must some some body that can discipline banks like this, as the Financial Ombudsman obviously has no teeth!

[Fuzzbutt]

You really are only wasting your time speaking to BPF or Mercers on the phone...they are only BONUS hunters and TARGET achievers from call centers with no powers at all, and door step collectors have as much power as the milkman.If you need to speak to them put it in writing, then you can use their reply [ or none reply - even better] as evidence of nonsense and idiotic practice of not holding an account in dispute - More stuff to send off to the fos.

 

Good point - all evidence. I'm sure Daily Mirror's Nick Sommerlad would be interested too as he contacted me and has spoken to our lawyer. He's hoping to run another feature on this next week if people can contact him with their evidence and stories of what's going on now..

email removed

Edited December 31, 2010 by IdaInFife
email removed

[gfunkasaur]

Your right Fuzz, the courts are the only people who are able to hold these theiving shifty barstewards to rights and the sooner a court date is pointed at Barclays the better I reckon. Partly as that is probably when barclays fold.

I think with 500-1000 people, all with the same case against Barclays, may make the FSA and LSB sit up and take notice though. The FOS obviously have a vested interest in erring on the side of the banks judging by what a few folks are saying on here, so it really does look like court be the only way.

Alfman you're quite correct, it is entirely up to the individual whether or not they continue to pay. Each to their own I say. Feedme is totally right in that if barclays win, then not paying is not going to look particularly good on the customers part, however, that is not going to happen is it? The CCA is on our side and it even says that on our contracts with Barclays. There really is no argument that they can use to avoid this.

[mantaxi]

did you know that if you are given a bad credit rating by bpf you can reply on the site as to why you withheld payment. with what we have to say about bpf and thier methods should make your credit rating a lot better reading to others.

[pigwig]

Incredible isn't it!?

Man banks are such a-holes!!!

I haven't got to the Mercers part yet but if and when I do...this will definately help!

Thanks, once again, Fuzzy!!!

[gfunkasaur]

If this person is a former barclays employee, I wonder if someone could track them down and get them to stand up in court.

Ms. Keating is probably intentionally unaware so that barclays can use the good old plausable deniability tactic. This would let stall some more while Ms.Keatings department investigates anything which arrises.

[Mustard2243]

I highly doubt this person/people will reveal their identities as they will probably be bound by a confidentiality clause in their employment contract with BPF for a period of time after their employment ceases. What is achievable is getting a sales rep from advent to write a letter for us seeing as advent no longer exist any confidentiality stuff maybe void so there will be no repercussions .

[HSBCrusher]

this thread has become very ill tempered in places, and I have had to edit and remove some posts. I have also removed a post with lots of names and possibly libellous material.

 

Can I suggest that anyone who might be unclear about the forum rules please read them before posting further.

[10pack]

Hey what happened to the link for the open letter from ex BPF employees

it is good reading and in no way liable.. its fact!!

[Fuzzbutt]

I highly doubt this person/people will reveal their identities as they will probably be bound by a confidentiality clause in their employment contract with BPF for a period of time after their employment ceases. What is achievable is getting a sales rep from advent to write a letter for us seeing as advent no longer exist any confidentiality stuff maybe void so there will be no repercussions .

 

If this and above post seem a bit random, google 'Sona Norris' and 'Barclays' to see what article I posted that people are referring to (removed by site admin - apparently libellous).

 

Sorry, 10pack already said that.

[Fuzzbutt]

Yes that is a good link.. why has CAG removed it?

from what I can make out its written from more than one ex emplyee to us students

 

The CAGbot telling off I got said it was libellous. I can see their point as names are named and if that results in court action from those shamed and named then I guess CAG could be seen as complicit and not impartial, just because it was on their site.

 

But this is publicly available elsewhere, on Facebook (Sona has posted it there where I found it) and on her own hub page.

[lowdown]

Just read the article - perhaps we should put together a template and send it off to the head at Barclays [The lady mentioned in the article]

 

Another thing when this maybe is done and ended.

A Petition to the Prime Minister,regarding the practice of fos when mediating. They also have a blatent disregard for S75, and just take BPF's word for everything. It seems fos are ok for getting a £12.50 charge back.

Anything more and they cack their pants - to scared to open a can of worms.

 

On another note just googling BPF and Mercers is starting to look like a horror show.With luck all this fuss now comming to attention may help in the future with unsuspecting folks taking out loans and insurances with BPF.

 

removed

Edited July 4, 2010 by lowdown

[Eagle1905]

Hey all Got yet another text message from 00 stating if I fail to pay Barclays will refer my account to a Debt collections Agency. Theres me thinking thay had already done that with all the phone calls I get. Oh yeah and Im still ignoring every phone call but in the process Im getting a nice little spreadsheet together stating dates and times of every call. By the way Im one of the people who is still not going to pay. People always tell me there is always a choice well ive always believed that so what makes Barclays any different.

[lowdown]

Hey all Got yet another text message from 00 stating if I fail to pay Barclays will refer my account to a Debt collections Agency. Theres me thinking thay had already done that with all the phone calls I get. Oh yeah and Im still ignoring every phone call but in the process Im getting a nice little spreadsheet together stating dates and times of every call. By the way Im one of the people who is still not going to pay. People always tell me there is always a choice well ive always believed that so what makes Barclays any different.

 

 

They can take you to court and try and recover the money....

' Well its like this me lord.......We [bPF] have not abided by S75 of the

consumer credit act, can you help us out and get us the money we are not legally owed'

 

Inviting trouble, and they know it - hence all the endles threats from BPF and the clowns from the Mercers Circus to get you to cave in.

 

You are not a criminal - you are involved in a dispute.

[lewis2]

hi all just a quick update i've got no phone calls since or texts since i received the letter saying they were investigating my complaint on Thursday!

[feedme]

If people think I work for Barclays that's just laughable, if only they knew the dealings I've had with them in the past. (one example) I had a loan with them @ £250/mth for 3 years which I ended up not being able to afford. I renegotiated the loan with them and all they offered me was £230/mth for 5 years. I had to take it cos I needed to save the £20/mth. I ended up refusing to pay and in the end my £6000 pound loan cost me £12000. I got a loan from somewher else and paid £220/mth for 7 years.

 

So no I do not work for Barclays. I 'kin hate Barclays and I want to cost them as much money as possible. Problem is the laws says I have to mittigate their costs so if I go round racking up their costs unduely they can reclaim those costs and that means I get less of my money back and they get to keep more of it. But if I keep their costs to a minimum, they can't reclaim them, therefore I get all of my money back and they get to keep none of it ergo it costs them the most.

 

I hope we all get our money back but it is my opinion that some people, by their actions, are making it harder for themselves. I understand why people are angry and refusing to pay, I've done the same thing myself and it only caused me more stress and more problems. When I started playing by the rules I got what I wanted. My conclusion therefore is that that is the best way forward.

 

My original claim against Barclays was that Advent failed to deliver the course and I wanted a pro rata amount of money back. Barclays told me though that as I was outside the 2 years as per the agreement there was nothing they could do and gave me a final decision.

 

Since then I have changed my claim against them and asked for all of the money back and told them I have evidence to support my claim. They have reopened my complaint and are reviewing the evidence I gave them.

 

FOS so far have been quite helpful, basically told me to watch out for Barclays lies and alerted me to some of the tricks they play (they didn't quite say it like that).

[cashins]

Since then I have changed my claim against them and asked for all of the money back and told them I have evidence to support my claim. They have reopened my complaint and are reviewing the evidence I gave them.

 

fos so far have been quite helpful, basically told me to watch out for Barclays lies and alerted me to some of the tricks they play (they didn't quite say it like that).

 

Errrrrrr...... good luck.

 

David

[a4ron]

I used to check this forum every day as it was quite useful, however I think this forum has stopped been productive and is now full of petty comments.

 

Why dont we all just try posting INFORMATION & FACTS, and stop posting our thoughts of how we hate BPF.

I want money back too, but trawling through everyones spin to bpf is not a productive measure on this forum.

 

Come on guys I know this is a terrible time, but the more information we provide the better it will be for everyone.

 

If anyone would like contact with the solicitor I and a small group has formed please contact me and I will try to help.