Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)

[10pack]

Yes they can offer a replacement course, and indeed have.

The problem is that it was not really offered on a 'Like for Like' basis, although BPF have tried to amend this.

But it seems that Computeach [new provider] are or have been finding it hard to keep their end of the deal without trying to add on extra rather expensive course extension costs.

IE - take the computeach course and sign into the extra cost. The course with Advent was supplied as open ended [ or thats what the sales reps indicated]

And in some cases no start and end dates or signatures provided on the enrolment forms/agreements. This is what the fos are looking into with some of the students.

 

It also seems [reading through posts] that DCA's [and sometimes two at a time] have been contacting students seeking to reclaim the loans on behalf of BPF, but BPF have not written to the students and informed them that the debt had been passed over for collection.

Hence other governing bodies other than the fos being contacted.

 

 

But i am sure you are aware of all this, and thanks for your input.

 

Thats correct barclays made no effort to find like for like.

barclays think replacement training companies are easy to find.. just look in yellow pages and find the first company that trains in IT.. simples!!

so why are there so many different bank accounts being offered from the same bank (barclays) if any training provider will do.. why not the first bank account you find?? maybe its not the bank account people dont want.. maybe people do not want to be barclays customers.. what can barclays say about that??

 

Barclays made no effort with computeach.. I would bet good money that it was computeach that aproached barclays and not the other way around.. the way the whole company "computeach" works and trains is not like for like!!

Edited March 29, 2011 by 10pack

[Kraken1]

Can I ask why would any of us need to apply for a DOA?

 

my earlier post was about a Debt Collecting Agency needing a DOA to have the orignal debt assigned to them without it they are just vultures hoping for easy prey.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood, above someone said that "I sent them the challange letter from student site asking for DOA..."

 

DCAs don't need to have a debt legally assigned to them to collect, so they don't need a DOA.

 

I'll look into the 'like for like thing' as everything seems dead at the moment. the 'no end date' thing seems to be worth some further investigation. I'll continue to look in on the threat in the hope that the legal action actually starts soon. If you can win on the not like for like thing it might give some hope.

[nelpin]

I had an interesting letter from moorcroft recently, with it ending "I believe therefore that the most sensible course of action would be for the company to return the account to our client and to cease any further activity with regard to it"

 

So im assuming moorcroft have returned the debt to barclays partner finance, because i recieved a arrears notice the other day from BPF! Confused!!

[nelpin]

I had an interesting letter from moorcroft recently, with it ending "I believe therefore that the most sensible course of action would be for the company to return the account to our client and to cease any further activity with regard to it"

 

So im assuming moorcroft have returned the debt to barclays partner finance, because i recieved a arrears notice the other day from BPF! Confused!!

[Fuzzbutt]

 

It's all been going on a while – when is the law firm going to issue? The longer it takes the worse it will be, surely? What is the delay? Why not just test it all in court? The situation can't be any worse surely? Unless they pull out I suppose.

 

The reason it won't be 'tested in court' yet (for your information and anyone else wondering why no case date has been set yet) is to jump the gun would be foolhardy on Hausfeld's part. If they did not have a cast-iron case they risk losing and then would be liable for all costs, which will be massive. They are collecting up evidence by paperwork, such as FOS decision letters from the signed up group, in order to build a case.

 

THAT is the reason this has not yet gone to court! If you make the effort to read the law firm's letters on my student website (I'm the organiser) you will perhaps grasp why this is such a long process as the case is not black and white, and has so many variables/issues that need to be addressed point by point.

[lowdown]

The reason it won't be 'tested in court' yet (for your information and anyone else wondering why no case date has been set yet) is to jump the gun would be foolhardy on Hausfeld's part. If they did not have a cast-iron case they risk losing and then would be liable for all costs, which will be massive. They are collecting up evidence by paperwork, such as FOS decision letters from the signed up group, in order to build a case.

 

THAT is the reason this has not yet gone to court! If you make the effort to read the law firm's letters on my student website (I'm the organiser) you will perhaps grasp why this is such a long process as the case is not black and white, and has so many variables/issues that need to be addressed point by point.

 

 

Spot on Fuzzbutt - You don't go to court to test things, thats legal Suicide.Time is not an issue, its an advantage, you should use the time to do your homework and groundwork.

[Fuzzbutt]

Spot on Fuzzbutt - You don't go to court to test things, thats legal Suicide.Time is not an issue, its an advantage, you should use the time to do your homework and groundwork.

 

Exactly Lowdown - this is a complex case, I understand from Ingrid, which need to have specific points argued out and will need to stand up against BPF's no doubt highly paid law team who will use every trick to dodge around arguments.

We have good grounds on some issues but others could be legally argued. Work is going on behind the scenes, and I had a message from Ingrid yesterday, to reassure everyone.

[10pack]

Exactly Lowdown - this is a complex case, I understand from Ingrid, which need to have specific points argued out and will need to stand up against BPF's no doubt highly paid law team who will use every trick to dodge around arguments.

We have good grounds on some issues but others could be legally argued. Work is going on behind the scenes, and I had a message from Ingrid yesterday, to reassure everyone.

 

I agree that we need to have much info to counter BPF , one thing I thought of sometime back is that with all the letters BPF have sent to each of us they are doing the same.. collecting information.. checking out our arguments, so they will have answers for when it all does go to court.

This is the reason why BPF have not taken any of us to court yet, at the moment all they have done is hit us with a stick and set their dogs on us to try to scare us into paying up.. yes payup! because BPF do not want to do the honourable thing and ask their own customers what would we want? .. and how can they help their customers?.

(Moorcroft even asked me in a letter what actions I intended to take against their clients BPF.. as if I was going to tell them anything).

 

If I had been offered a choice of training providers, I for one would have concidered that reasonable, and I would have looked and hopefully been able to choose a company I thought would be suited to my needs and would have carried on paying for my training.

But now over a year later and after have had no training at all, I am also still out of work (and out of pocket by over £800) and having lost the chance to have work.. Advent had on site job section ... (not someone who shows you how to fill in a CV like Computeach have) Advent had a job placement(agency) section.

 

And we lost all this because of BPF business decisions that did not take into account their customers needs.. which includes "The Advent computer training company"... we all got screwed!!.

 

I do not want BPF to help me now, I want them to write off my loan and repair the damage they have done to my credit rating (something they was doing even while they was looking into my complaints).

But most of all I want compensation (including a refund of my payments and deposit) for all the trouble they have caused us with their greedy business decisions.

 

And dont talk to me about their shareholders.. I have barclays shares, I got paid princely sum of £1.10 on my shares in total.. balance that up to the £62m bonus the boss of BPF got on top of his wage last year.. where does all that money go??

[Eagle1905]

Ive also had an arrears letter from barclays this morning. I rung them up to ask who was actually dealing with all this to which the customer service assistant replied its all being dealt with by apex. in regards to the arrears letter they are sent out every 6 month apparently by a computer. I ended the phone call at that

[wicko]

hi wicko here not been on for awhile been waiting for final decision from FOS. surprise surprise they have come down on BPF side. i am a guarantor for my son as i thought until we moved and i found his advent enrolment forms in a box after we unpacked. i looked thru it and found to my surprise he had not sent it off and there was three papers, blue copy- student, white copy- office, and pink copy- adviser.not a signature in sight from advent no start date no end date never got to advent. i photo copied them and sent it off to the FOS with all the other data i had but they said this does not proof your son was not enrolled in the course, i am at a lost to understand how they come to this conclusion. they also say that under the credit act they can not find a debtor- creditor- supplier relationship.so there is not a valid claim against barclays for a breach of contract or misrepresentation in this case. where is the money i signed for,i did not get it so who got it? you fight and fight but its like hitting your head against a brick wall. what the hell do i do how. wait for barclays to take me to court and hope the judge sees it how i see it. any ideas. losing my mind.

[arlee]

Hi all. On the adventstudents website I read: "(...) if you were a former student who paid in full just before the collapse of Advent and had no course end date on your Advent enrolment form (the one you signed with the rep - green/blue copy for most people) you may well, based upon recent experience, get at least a 60% refund from the FOS".

Well, I haven't paid the loan back in full before Advent's collapse, but there's also no end date on my enrolment form, nor on any other paper work I've been receiving from either Advent, Claysdale or Barclays. Is anyone in a similar situation?

[arlee]

I want them to write off my loan and repair the damage they have done to my credit rating (something they was doing even while they was looking into my complaints).

But most of all I want compensation (including a refund of my payments and deposit) for all the trouble they have caused us with their greedy business decisions.

 

This is exactly what I'm hoping for. Poor credit rating will destroy us all, disable us from geting a stupid loan, a car on finance and a mortgage, so we and our families could live our lives normally!

[JuiceyBuns]

Had a response from the FOS, basically not willing to review the final decision on my complaint due to mis-selling (I have no start/end dates or specified timeframe) because section 75 does not apply (I'm the debtor, but not the student), even though I was told by the Advent rep that I would be covered by section 75 and therefore signed the agreement under false pretenses.

[Fuzzbutt]

Had a response from the FOS, basically not willing to review the final decision on my complaint due to mis-selling (I have no start/end dates or specified timeframe) because section 75 does not apply (I'm the debtor, but not the student), even though I was told by the Advent rep that I would be covered by section 75 and therefore signed the agreement under false pretenses.

 

That's appalling, Juicy! FOS didn't even take account of mis-selling, despite the rep having given you wrong advice! I think these FOS adjudicators need to take some basic exams in common sense and fair play. They certainly aren't dishing it out to many Advent students!

[Keith_rb]

Got a letter from Midas Legal Services, apparently the *ahem* legal arm of Moorcroft, threatening legal action. I am tired of this crap.

[lowdown]

Got a letter from Midas Legal Services, apparently the *ahem* legal arm of Moorcroft, threatening legal action. I am tired of this crap.

 

If a solicitor signs a letter - it would be followed by his/her Qualifications and legal standing.

IE....

A.N. Other

Diploma in B.U.L.L.sh*te

 

Its the same people/same address.

 

Midas Legal Services Ltd.: Moorcroft Group

Financial Services. Business services

City: Stockport

Address: Moorcroft House , 2 Spring Gardens , Stockport , Cheshire, SK1 4AN

Phone:0161-480-4966

Fax:0161-477-3864

[Fuzzbutt]

If a solicitor signs a letter - it would be followed by his/her Qualifications and legal standing.

IE....

A.N. Other

Diploma in B.U.L.L.sh*te

 

Its the same people/same address.

 

Midas Legal Services Ltd.: Moorcroft Group

Financial Services. Business services

City: Stockport

Address: Moorcroft House , 2 Spring Gardens , Stockport , Cheshire, SK1 4AN

Phone:0161-480-4966

Fax:0161-477-3864

 

From the Office of Fair Trading guidelines on unfair debt collection practices - examples of unfair practice which Trading Standards can prosecute if complaints are raised with a local TO office...

 

False representation of authority and/or legal position

2.3 Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authority

and/or the correct legal position.

2.4 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. falsely implying or claiming authority, for example, claiming to work on

instructions from the courts, claiming to be bailiffs or, in Scotland,

sheriff officers or messenger-at-arms

b. falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when it legally

cannot, for example, referring to bankruptcy or sequestration proceedings

when the balance is too low to qualify for such proceedings or claiming a

right of entry when no court order to this effect has been granted

falsely implying or stating that action has been taken when it has not, for

example, that civil action has been taken or that a court judgment has

already been obtained

e. falsely implying or stating that failure to pay a debt is a criminal

offence or that criminal proceedings will be brought

f. pursuing third parties for payment when they are not liable

[Kraken1]

examples of Unfair practice which Trading Standards can prosecute if complaints are raised with a local TO office...

 

No they can't.

[Fuzzbutt]

No they can't.

 

 

Er, yes they can I believe! At least the OFT can if a complaint to Trading Standards offices is passed to them and they receive enough complaints against a company they decide to look into it (I should clarify that in case it was misunderstood). Of course if I'm wrong I'll happily hold my hands up! From OFT's website.......

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2011/32-11

Quote -

"The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) places a duty on the OFT to ensure that licences are only given to and retained by those who are fit to hold them."

http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/credit-licensing/

Quote "Under the Consumer Credit Act, businesses that offer goods or services on credit or lend money or are involved in activities relating to credit or hire must be licensed by the OFT. The OFT has a duty to protect the interests of consumers by monitoring the fitness of those holding or applying for licences."

 

The DirectGov website advises on harassment by debt collectors...(quote)

" Debt collectors aren't court officials and don't have the same powers as bailiffs. They can't enter your home or seize your possessions. They can only write, phone, or visit your home to talk to you about the debt and how to pay it back.

Creditors and debt collectors must follow OFT (Office of Fair Trading) debt collection guidance. New consumer protection rules came into effect in May 2008. They are designed to stop traders acting unfairly, including the use of what the rules call ‘aggressive commercial practices’.

These rules may help you tackle harassment by your creditors, because the OFT and trading standards now have the power to take enforcement action against creditors. This can lead to fines or even imprisonment if the creditor is found guilty of an offence.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Fuzzbutt

[Kraken1]

that's not what was said though, was it? It was said that trading standards can prosecute. they can't. Nor can the OFT prosecute for a breach of its guidance. Rather than complaining to trading standards and hope that they pass on to the OFT, why not just complain to the OFT? And as noted, the OFT won't prosecute, they can only consider the conduct of the company when deciding whether to give it a consumer credit licence.

 

The prosecution stuff you have quoted above refers to the consumer protection from unfair trading regulations, not the OFT guidance referred to a few posts past. Different rules, different sanctions. It is worth getting it right and being sure why you are complaining and making sure you are complaining to the right people.

[lowdown]

when deciding whether to give it a consumer credit licence.

 

Or renew or suspend the license.

Edited April 10, 2011 by lowdown

[Kraken1]

yep.

[Fuzzbutt]

Ok - cheers. Guess I misread it.

So can these debt collectors be held accountable and prosecuted at all, is my question I guess.

[rphood]

Creditors and debt collectors must follow OFT (Office of Fair Trading) debt collection guidance. New consumer protection rules came into effect in May 2008. They are designed to stop traders acting unfairly, including the use of what the rules call ‘aggressive commercial practices’.

Does this include the reducing of a debtors credit score during the period of dispute that not only effects the ability to obtain credit but also secure employment. Yes lots of recruitment agencies refer to credit records for applicants. So we're kinder screwed don't go with Computeach their stop you getting a job until you start paying for BPF's crap. Time for a judical review on how this is being handled people are having their lives ruined while the FOS and the lawyers pontificate of course their lives aren't ruined. :?:Lawyers :-DCustomers:-(FOS:scared:

[Kraken1]

seems so. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/consumerspending/Laptop-buyer39s-116k-damages-win.6364126.jp