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

[lowdown]

What was the PKF email?

 

It was an email from the administrators [PKF] to all Advent students [and othes] regarding the terms and conditions of the Advent meltdown.If you PM me your Email address, i can forward to you if you do not have a copy.

[CJF09]

Unless i have misread - you might also want to put in the letter, that Hausfeld [the legal team] have a reply from BPF admitting they are in

breach of S75 with students that have a credit agreement.The letter is on the legal site.

 

 

Where to do they admit it - can't see it on the letters?

 

Thanks

Maria

[iNFAMOUS29]

Where to do they admit it - can't see it on the letters?

 

Thanks

Maria

 

Yea, From where you got that info???

[iNFAMOUS29]

Unless i have misread - you might also want to put in the letter, that Hausfeld [the legal team] have a reply from BPF admitting they are in

breach of S75 with students that have a credit agreement.The letter is on the legal site.

 

Upsss! Sorry Lowdown, I got it now...

[iNFAMOUS29]

Upsss! Sorry Lowdown, I got it now...

Uppss, sorry I didn't got it! I'm checking the Site now to see...

[lowdown]

Uppss, sorry I didn't got it! I'm checking the Site now to see...

 

 

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

[iNFAMOUS29]

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

 

Ok, Thanks Low, I got it now

I send my Papers to Fuzz Lawyers, I~ hope we can get to some place with this, I'm sick of BPF.

 

So, that means that maybe that the S75 Apply to BPF????

I also readed...

[lowdown]

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

 

Of course in the eyes of BPF - They have put this right by giving us CT!..

[iNFAMOUS29]

Of course in the eyes of BPF - They have put this right by giving us CT!..

 

Yea, BPF thinks that they did the rigth stuff for Us (Is nothing Rigth About all this stuff....Giving my money to CT, taking my peace away, Future...ARRRG!) yea, yea yea!

[lewis2]

hi guys i sent a letter to bpf along with a copy of the letter from there legal team stating that s75 applys where there is a debtor supplier agreement in place and they replied that they have covered s75 by appointing an alternative supplier ,!

so basicly there saying the same old cr*p all over again!

:mad:

[10pack]

Hi Guys

I mentioned a while back about having my credit marked with late payments (got two so far) and wanted to be able to put a note of correction to state why there is late payment..

 

I have an experian account, and sent a few emails back and forth to them..

they have replied yes I can add this.. but I cant mention any names or third parties by name.. I already wrote my script they turned it down because I mentioned advent by name .. so just need to change some wording and thats what will appear next to barclays/clydesdale late payment markings..

 

so we can fight back guys.. this will help with our credit reports..

let you know when its sorted

[raj4u]

hello guyz, i guess no one had a response for bpf offering to reimburse default charges added to our accounts so far..this is the final response i received from them along with the same crap about computeach..

 

Had also two threatening letters from mercers y'day asking to clear arrears. since bpf cleared all arrears on my account, i sent a letter to mercers with this final response. waiting to see what they are goin to come back with..

[mantaxi]

Hi

 

Did the pushy sales rep tell you to read the terms and conditions on the back of the enrolement form? He didnt with my husband and thats where it clearly says about the length of training lasting 2 years only! So p**d about that!!

 

Did this happen with others? Surely this is mis-selling aswell????

 

Fuzbutt can this be brought up with the group action?

 

 

i have said this before and i'am going to say it again. they seem to point out the terms and conditions when it suits them but did your advent salesperson sign the enrollment form as it says in section 2, 2.1 no signature, no contract

[CJF09]

i have said this before and i'am going to say it again. they seem to point out the terms and conditions when it suits them but did your advent salesperson sign the enrollment form as it says in section 2, 2.1 no signature, no contract

 

There is no place on the enrolement form for the sales rep to sign - just STUDENT SIGNATURE & FINANCE APPLICANT SIGNATURE.

 

Where you refer to the t&c - it says:

No contract exists between you and us for the supply of the services until the completed enrolement form has been signed by both you and a person who has authority to sign the enrolement form on your behalf.... - This means that its either signed by a student or someone else paying the finance or if you cant sign someone else will on your behalf - no signature needed from the sales rep on this form.

[p4dro]

i phoned up for a settlement figure yesterday. they want £8000 off of me. there is a £1500 early payment charge plus interest plus i made them 3 payments so its nearly £9000 all in. absolutely raging about this

[mantaxi]

There is no place on the enrolement form for the sales rep to sign - just STUDENT SIGNATURE & FINANCE APPLICANT SIGNATURE.

 

Where you refer to the t&c - it says:

No contract exists between you and us for the supply of the services until the completed enrolement form has been signed by both you and a person who has authority to sign the enrolement form on your behalf.... - This means that its either signed by a student or someone else paying the finance or if you cant sign someone else will on your behalf - no signature needed from the sales rep on this form.

 

i know what you mean but it says both you and a person who has authority to sign on thier/our behalf no contract exists. the word both means 2 not just 1 signature and our behalf must mean advents. they could of signed in the same box if room to do so, or anywhere on the form if need be. i know it might be a long shot but it could be worth trying this avenue to go down. the part that makes me believe it should have 2 signatures is, form signed by you (student ) and it has been signed by a person who has authority to sign the enrollment form on our (advent) behalf. did advent give us permission to sign the form on thier behalf?

[CJF09]

Yes - after reading again you might be on to something! Should I include that in my response to the FOS? And my letter to BPF/Mercers?

[mantaxi]

Yes - after reading again you might be on to something! Should I include that in my response to the FOS? And my letter to BPF/Mercers?

 

why not got nothing to lose. the response from bpf might make interesting reading.

[CJF09]

Well I will send it off today and as soon as I have a response from any of them I will post it on here. Wish me luck!

[Mustard2243]

nice find CJF another nail in the coffin of this debacle.

[JuiceyBuns]

This has been brought up before and probably lost somewhere withing the last 200 pages. However I have spoken to my adjudicator this morning and raised this question with him. He advised that in the eye's of the FOS, this would not be an issue as the content of the course hasn't changed and we accepted the course and began studies. A court might see it differently as an issue with the contract, but they might also see it the same way.

 

He also advised that CT are looking to implement a system where you can verify your details and see the course etc, without accepting them as a new provider.

 

My claim is still under investigation as they are still waiting for BPF/CT to provide details of the replacement course, which seems to be proving difficult.

[lewis2]

These draft regulations implement Article 15.2. Any consequential amendments necessary to implement Article 15.1 are included in the draft regulations implementing Article 14.

 

The outcome of the consultation did not indicate general support for a different approach to implementing Article 15.2 than that proposed in the consultation document. Section 75 will remain intact and there will be a new section 75A applying to agreements outside the scope of section 75 but within the scope of the Directive to implement Article 15.2. The new section will apply where the cash price is more than £30,000 and the amount of the credit agreement is not less than £160 or not more than £60,260. Liability under section 75A will relate to the amount of the credit agreement rather than the cash price.

 

The substance of the new provision, transposing the right provided by Article 15.2, is contained in Section 75A(2). This applies the provision to debtor-creditor-supplier agreements falling within sections 12(a) and (b) of the CCA; in our view, these categories of agreements are the same as those covered by the term “linked credit agreement” in the Directive. Section 75A(1) and (3) delineate the boundaries of the new section, in relation to the existing section 75 and to large and small credit agreements.

 

Stakeholders may wish to consider whether section 75A(1) is sufficient to ensure that there is no overlap between sections 75 and 75A.

 

We are not proposing to set out in legislation what the consumer must do in relation to seeking satisfaction from the supplier before he approaches the creditor. What is reasonable and appropriate may differ from situation to situation and it would be difficult to cover all situations in legislation. Guidance on the implementing regulations could give an indication what might be reasonable in certain cases.

 

 

 

Amendment to the CCA 1974

 

 

[ ] After section 75 (liability of creditor for breaches by supplier), insert–

 

“75A Further provision for liability of creditor for breaches by supplier

 

(1) This section applies where a debtor does not have a claim against a creditor under section 75.

 

(2) Subject to subsection (3), where goods or services under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(a) or (b)–

 

(a) are not supplied;

(b) are supplied only in part; or

© are not in conformity with the contract for supply,

 

the debtor shall have a claim against the creditor if the debtor has pursued his remedies against the supplier but has failed to obtain the satisfaction to which he is entitled.

 

(3) Subsection (2) shall not apply where the agreement is for credit of less than £160 or exceeding £60,260.”.

 

I found this while checking out section 75 does this make any difference do you think? the last parts interesting any way!

[lewis2]

These draft regulations implement Article 15.2. Any consequential amendments necessary to implement Article 15.1 are included in the draft regulations implementing Article 14.

 

The outcome of the consultation did not indicate general support for a different approach to implementing Article 15.2 than that proposed in the consultation document. Section 75 will remain intact and there will be a new section 75A applying to agreements outside the scope of section 75 but within the scope of the Directive to implement Article 15.2. The new section will apply where the cash price is more than £30,000 and the amount of the credit agreement is not less than £160 or not more than £60,260. Liability under section 75A will relate to the amount of the credit agreement rather than the cash price.

 

The substance of the new provision, transposing the right provided by Article 15.2, is contained in Section 75A(2). This applies the provision to debtor-creditor-supplier agreements falling within sections 12(a) and (b) of the CCA; in our view, these categories of agreements are the same as those covered by the term “linked credit agreement” in the Directive. Section 75A(1) and (3) delineate the boundaries of the new section, in relation to the existing section 75 and to large and small credit agreements.

 

Stakeholders may wish to consider whether section 75A(1) is sufficient to ensure that there is no overlap between sections 75 and 75A.

 

We are not proposing to set out in legislation what the consumer must do in relation to seeking satisfaction from the supplier before he approaches the creditor. What is reasonable and appropriate may differ from situation to situation and it would be difficult to cover all situations in legislation. Guidance on the implementing regulations could give an indication what might be reasonable in certain cases.

 

 

 

Amendment to the CCA 1974

 

 

[ ] After section 75 (liability of creditor for breaches by supplier), insert–

 

“75A Further provision for liability of creditor for breaches by supplier

 

(1) This section applies where a debtor does not have a claim against a creditor under section 75.

 

(2) Subject to subsection (3), where goods or services under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(a) or (b)–

 

(a) are not supplied;

(b) are supplied only in part; or

© are not in conformity with the contract for supply,

 

the debtor shall have a claim against the creditor if the debtor has pursued his remedies against the supplier but has failed to obtain the satisfaction to which he is entitled.

 

(3) Subsection (2) shall not apply where the agreement is for credit of less than £160 or exceeding £60,260.”.

 

I found this while checking out section 75 does this make any difference do you think? the last parts interesting any way!

[lowdown]

 

(a) are not supplied;

(b) are supplied only in part; or

© are not in conformity with the contract for supply,

 

 

I found this while checking out section 75 does this make any difference do you think? the last parts interesting any way!

 

 

I think Fuzzbutt might find that interesting.

Edited August 6, 2010 by lowdown
edit

[lewis2]

on another subject i rang barclays today and moaned about how i had asked repeatedly to have my account put in dispute ,and how i was getting constant calls from mercers and threatening

letters ,the guy on the phone contacted customer relations and after i gave him my complaint reference he agreed to put my account on hold!for how long that lasts is any ones

guess!

I also made him aware of the breach in there database and said that i would not pay for something i have not received nor want from another training company!

I told him that i would consider paying for what i had received but thats all!