Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)

[adinmatty]

Hi all,

 

I went a bit quiet on forum but not at all in my actions... I sent petition from to both BPF CEO and Marlin, than I involved my MP who pointed out they failed to comply with CCA 1974 and sent CEO letter on my behalf too. I also challenged double record with Experian. So far... Experian defended themselves and refused to remove anything, apparently they cant without consent of creditor, but they removed BPF record as BPF agreed?... So its swap to Marlin one for me. I sent harsh letter to Marlin as they already returned some accoutns back to BPF afer being challenged and pointed out all crap with those loans. Marlin is now "investigating" whether they can return my file too. So I sent them another putting more pressure and stating that I knew they already did it for others.

Today I am posting another letter to CEO asking to respond to my and MP letters. Fingers crossed.

Ah one more: BPF kindly gave last letter saying they've got nothing else to add and aware I could go legal route. BEWARE BPF. We wont stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Oldgel_48]

Hi all,

 

I went a bit quiet on forum but not at all in my actions... I sent petition from to both BPF CEO and Marlin, than I involved my MP who pointed out they failed to comply with CCA 1974 and sent CEO letter on my behalf too. I also challenged double record with Experian. So far... Experian defended themselves and refused to remove anything, apparently they cant without consent of creditor, but they removed BPF record as BPF agreed?... So its swap to Marlin one for me. I sent harsh letter to Marlin as they already returned some accoutns back to BPF afer being challenged and pointed out all crap with those loans. Marlin is now "investigating" whether they can return my file too. So I sent them another putting more pressure and stating that I knew they already did it for others.

Today I am posting another letter to CEO asking to respond to my and MP letters. Fingers crossed.

Ah one more: BPF kindly gave last letter saying they've got nothing else to add and aware I could go legal route. BEWARE BPF. We wont stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I sent 2 letters to Barclay Group CEO - Antony Jenkins - but he didn't reply personally. See post above yours.

That's a few of us now who have gone straight to him - I wonder if he's getting fed up yet? He'd been in touch with BPF - they told me. I got the call direct from BPF Managing Dir. office. I've given them to the end of next week to sort it out.

 

I haven't had a peep form Marlin since I wrote & threatened them with legal action so that seems to be the only way - give them a dose of their own medicine.

 

You're right - must keep up the pressure!

 

Regards.

[blade325]

Hi Oldgel, thanks for the info. Will be sending my second letter off to Barclays new CEO tomorrow, hopefully that will get him a bit more flustered. Have been reading through old case law to see if it is legally binding to accept a breach of contract remedy or if it can be rejected. Have come across a case that seems to say that you do not have to accept a contract breach remedy especially if there has been significant delay in the application of the said remedy. Will keep you all posted once I have read through the entire case fully.

[adinmatty]

Thanks a lot blade, that be game changing for most of us I guess.

[Kraken1]

Hi Oldgel, thanks for the info. Will be sending my second letter off to Barclays new CEO tomorrow, hopefully that will get him a bit more flustered. Have been reading through old case law to see if it is legally binding to accept a breach of contract remedy or if it can be rejected. Have come across a case that seems to say that you do not have to accept a contract breach remedy especially if there has been significant delay in the application of the said remedy. Will keep you all posted once I have read through the entire case fully.

 

This provision is also essentially included in the supply of goods and services act - in the absence of a contrary intention a contract must be concluded within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time will be a question of fact. And much debate....

[skyblue dave]

They've finally pressed the button! Let battle commence! Mortimer's Solicitors (acting on behalf of Marlin) have taken me to court. The amount is £1000 higher than the amount disputed plus £190-00 Court fee and £100-00 Solicitir's fee. I have the option to 'accept all', 'accept part', or 'contest'. I fully intend to 'contest'. I have 14 days to prepare my defence, although, at firt glance, it seems I can ask for more time. I remember Fuzzbutt technically won her case. (Although the sum she was refunded was derisory). Nevertheless, the court found in her favour, and this gives me reason to be optimistic. Is anyone else in the same situation?

[adinmatty]

Skyblue,

 

Have you hassled Marlin with all you could? There is/was petition on with over 330 signatures to be sent to them, you challenge them for CCA, send them quick overview about the alleged debt cicumstances, inform them about planned court action against them / BPF for damages, non compliance with CCA75 and so on... Just asking.

As with all of that done, and a bit more (hassling them with emails, requesting response, sending quite harsh letters, where I dont chose the wording carefully anymore and so on) I got them to the point where they consider returning my files to BPF. And than still I sit on them with weekly reminder email, which gets more and more harsh. I just dont give a damn anymore.

Also send all of that to Barclays CEO and managed to do the same by my MP. And so on.

 

So just wondering whether you were just quiet and they decided you were good target to mess with or they just dont care anymore?...

 

Also everyone, there is possibility again for group action as another lawyer is interested... Please check facebook group guys!!!

[Oldgel_48]

They've finally pressed the button! Let battle commence! Mortimer's Solicitors (acting on behalf of Marlin) have taken me to court. The amount is £1000 higher than the amount disputed plus £190-00 Court fee and £100-00 Solicitir's fee. I have the option to 'accept all', 'accept part', or 'contest'. I fully intend to 'contest'. I have 14 days to prepare my defence, although, at firt glance, it seems I can ask for more time. I remember Fuzzbutt technically won her case. (Although the sum she was refunded was derisory). Nevertheless, the court found in her favour, and this gives me reason to be optimistic. Is anyone else in the same situation?

 

I'd certainly ask for more time. Did you send SAR to BPF and Marlin?

 

I wrote to Marlin - see previous post - and have heard nothing from them since.

 

I also sent SAR to BPF and received documents from them today. There is no Deed of Assignment to Marlin just an electronic reference. Nor was there a copy of the letter from January which was supposedly from BPF and supposedly informed me that the debt had been sold to Marlin. Interestingly, there was a copy of a letter supposedly from a previous DCA but it was printed on Barclays headed notepaper. The only references to any other DCA were elctronic notes. They were also very selective about records of telephone calls made to me - omitting any that may have reflected badly on themselves. Oddly there were no records of phone calls I made to them. There was a letter dated 8/4/13 telling me an additional charge of £22 has just been applied to the account!

 

This seems to indicate that they still own the debt and therefore the matter is still in dispute - so did they in fact sell the debts on as Marlin claim?

 

One of the things we disputed was that I was entered as the loan applicant when in fact I had been told I was the guarantor only. We also never received any confirmation of my son's application and therefore were given no 'cooling off' period. Sure enough, in the bundle I received, there was a letter addressed to me confirming the success of the application. However, the letter was dated 4 DAYS BEFORE MY SON EVEN MADE HIS APPLICATION! At that time we had never even heard of Barclays partner finance! We have never seen this letter before. There also are several other missing items that BPF have not provided copies of so I guess I'll be writing to the ICO to say they have either lost documents or they are concealing information.

 

What I'm saying is, it's worth taking a little more time to ensure you have absolutely everything and give yourself time to go through it all with a fine tooth comb. Be sure, they will do that, if they haven't already.

 

Best of luck & don't forget to ask for help here!

 

 

PS. BPF still have not sorted out our dispute - almost a month after being asked to do so by the CEO of Barclays Group Antony Jenkins. No surprise there then! He will be getting yet another letter this week - and every week until they give in!

[Oldgel_48]

Hi Adinmatty,

 

Good to hear about the lawyer. Unfortunately, our dispute is not about an advent course but an Access2Trades course, although the principle is the same.

 

As for Marlin, after being bombarded with phone calls which I just hung up on, I simply twice said, once on the phone & once in writing, that I refused to communicate with them in any way until they provided incontrovertible legal proof that they had any connection with me of any kind. I also threatened to report them to the FSA (now has another title I think), Trading standards & my MP. I guess they did not have that legal proof as I have not been bothered by them any more. In fact I'm now wondering if that means I have just cause to sue them for illegal harassment!

 

I hope the facebook lawyer action materialises for you.

 

Will keep all posted as to any progress I make with BPF etc.

 

Regards all.

[blade325]

Hi all I see the BPF/ Marlin hoodlums are still at it. It is a complete disgrace what they have been allowed to get away with. I am still reading about past cases in relation to repudiated contracts and contract breach remedies. I remember many of us sent letters shortly after Advent went out of business to BPF stating that if a remedy did not occur within 4 weeks of Advent breaching our contracts we would consider the contracts as coming to an end. BPF's replacement came 3 months later. See Charles Rikards V Oppenheim (1950), Also Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd (1996). There are many more examples out there. My second letter to the new BPF chief will be sent off tomorrow.

[skyblue dave]

I have presented my defence (in writing) to the County Court. My defence is, basically, that I signed up for a Course with Advent and did not accept Computeach as an alternative provider. As far as I was concerned Computeach had a poor reputation, which is why I did not go to them in the first place. There are also various like-for-like issues - which I also raised.

 

I have had an immediate response from the Court administrators. They wrote to me stating that they had received my defence and had forwarded onto Marlin for their consideration. They stated that Marlin may try to contact me to try and settle the matter informally. Marlin have 28 days from them receiving a copy of my defence to decide if they wish to proceed with Court action.

 

Does anybody know whether the actions of the court are 'normal'? Is this what always happens? Or should I read anything positive or negative from what has happened?

 

Any input would be appreciated. I will keep everyone informed as to how my case develops.

[blade325]

Hi Skyblue Dave, there are one or two things that you might want to add to your defence. I don't know if you remember writing to BPF when Advent first went into administration? the initial letter was to find out what was going on, then we all got letters back from BPF stating that they were looking into a resolution to the matter. We then sent letter to BPF stating that if the matter had not been resolved within a 4 week period we would consider the contract to be breached and therefore rescinded. Essentially the time that BPF took to deal with the matter was un-reasonable (3months). Regardless of the fact that they offered an extra 3 months if we went to Computeach. You need to make a big play about time being of the essence, .i.e you had made plans that were un-movable in terms of your study time, and the extra 3 months would be of no use to you. I have seen a couple of cases that might help. If you want I can pm you the documents.

[Kraken1]

the court's actions are normal. you may even get an invitation to court sanctioned mediation.

[Oldgel_48]

Just a small concern.

 

Couldn't Marlin say that the matter of your course is nothing to do with them but is something you should take up with BPF?

 

Did Marlin present you with any documentary proof that they really did buy the debt? I ask this because when I challenged them to prove it, I never heard from them again and I now have a letter from BPF saying they have applied a charge on 8th April 2013 - what's more, they didn't send any documents referring to Marlin when I sent SAR. It seems they have magically taken back ownership of the debt - if they ever sold it on legally!

 

Just a thought.

 

Regards.

[skyblue dave]

Thanks for the reply Kraken. Thanks also Blade. Yes I would like a copy of the documents you refer to. Not sure how we go about this.

[skyblue dave]

Just a small concern.

 

Couldn't Marlin say that the matter of your course is nothing to do with them but is something you should take up with BPF?

 

Did Marlin present you with any documentary proof that they really did buy the debt? I ask this because when I challenged them to prove it, I never heard from them again and I now have a letter from BPF saying they have applied a charge on 8th April 2013 - what's more, they didn't send any documents referring to Marlin when I sent SAR. It seems they have magically taken back ownership of the debt - if they ever sold it on legally!

 

Just a thought.

 

 

 

Regards.

 

I take your point that Marlin may well argue that the issues with the Course are not their problem. Not sure where I stand if they take that stance.

 

Obviously, a key point is whether Marlin have legally 'purchased' the debt off BPF or are acting on behalf of BPF. I have been bombarded with so many different Companies - Mercers, Apex, Sanclare, Moorcroft, Marlin - that I'm a little confused by it all.

[Keith_rb]

Just a small concern.

 

Couldn't Marlin say that the matter of your course is nothing to do with them but is something you should take up with BPF?

 

As far as my understanding goes, if you purchase a dept, you not only purchase the rights to that debt, but also the responsibilities and duties as well.

 

I recently had an interesting conversation with a Marlin rep about this, and was told that I should take up the matter of my non existant course with Advent. I pointed out that this was a bit like trying to talk to a dead person.

[Oldgel_48]

I take your point that Marlin may well argue that the issues with the Course are not their problem. Not sure where I stand if they take that stance.

 

Obviously, a key point is whether Marlin have legally 'purchased' the debt off BPF or are acting on behalf of BPF. I have been bombarded with so many different Companies - Mercers, Apex, Sanclare, Moorcroft, Marlin - that I'm a little confused by it all.

 

Hi skyblue dave,

 

Have you asked BPF for any documents at all? They should provide you with a properly formatted letter assigning the debt to Marlin- not just the one that was sent in the same envelope as the Marlin letter back in January. As 10 pack and the others have all noted, that letter had the wrong reference number and was not correctly signed. If you look at all the letters you've had from Barclays they were signed and had a printed name and department with telephone numbers etc. This one did not. Also, they were required to give adequate notice of their intention, which they did not do. I looked all this up to make sure - I'll find the relevant legal requirements I found and send it to you if you like.

 

It would be worth getting some advice on that because if the 'transaction' was not properly conducted by BPF and Marlin then you don't owe them (Marlin) anything. As I said before, when I challenged Marlin to provide incontrovertible legal proof that I owed them anything, they stopped phoning and writing to me. When I asked BPF to provide the documentation for it they didn't and I just got a letter about the additional charge which showed they had not sold the debt on. Also, as many others have posted, if the matter was still in dispute with BPF, and if you can prove that it was, they cannot sell a debt on to any other body without giving you adequate notice.

 

This leads me to believe that whatever took place, it wasn't legally binding - just like all the previous attempts by the debt collectors you have named. I did the same with them and never heard from any of them again. I'm now considering whether to take Marlin to court for illegal harassment, since they never provided the legal proof that they owned the debt.

 

As I said before, it might be worth trying to get a bit more time to make sure you have all the information you need. I was advised by trading standards to get absolutely every piece of documentation, letters, post records, phone records etc. before even thinking about going to court.

I'm not a lawyer but my son does have a law degree and has been advising me on how to interpret the various laws surrounding this. My advice is to seek some advice first - there are lots of reputable firms who will give you a free opinion.

 

It really is worth sending a SAR to both BPF and Marlin. They have 40 days to respond to your request and that would be a legitimate reason for you to ask for a delay. When I got my bundle of documents from BPF - as I posted previously, I found a document which casts doubt that I ever had a contract with them in the first place. So it is worth it.

 

Sorry it's a long post but I'd hate to see you go to court unprepared.

 

Regards & good luck.

[Oldgel_48]

That's a really interesting point. Logically speaking, if that is the case, (and I do not doubt you!) shouldn't Marlin have then made an offer to find an alternative course for Dave, as a way of resolving the dispute, before trying to rush him into court? Therefore, if they have not made any attempt to honour those responsibilities, then Dave's won his case. However, if they did that, wouldn't they be admitting that the matter is still in dispute, in which case, BPF couldn't sell the debt on, could they? Now I'm confused! I thought that BPF could only sell a debt on when there was no longer any dispute so, therefore, Marlin would not be liable since the matter was no longer disputed. Does that make sense?

[Oldgel_48]

That's a really interesting point. Logically speaking, if that is the case, (and I do not doubt you!) shouldn't Marlin have then made an offer to find an alternative course for Dave, as a way of resolving the dispute, before trying to rush him into court? Therefore, if they have not made any attempt to honour those responsibilities, then Dave's won his case. However, if they did that, wouldn't they be admitting that the matter is still in dispute, in which case, BPF couldn't sell the debt on, could they? Now I'm confused! I thought that BPF could only sell a debt on when there was no longer any dispute so, therefore, Marlin would not be liable since the matter was no longer disputed. Does that make sense?

 

Sorry Keith! that was for you!

[Keith_rb]

That's a really interesting point. Logically speaking, if that is the case, (and I do not doubt you!) shouldn't Marlin have then made an offer to find an alternative course for Dave, as a way of resolving the dispute, before trying to rush him into court?

 

They would probably just say that BPF sorted out an alternative and the matter is resolved

 

Therefore, if they have not made any attempt to honour those responsibilities, then Dave's won his case. However, if they did that, wouldn't they be admitting that the matter is still in dispute, in which case, BPF couldn't sell the debt on, could they?

 

Essentially yes.

 

Now I'm confused! I thought that BPF could only sell a debt on when there was no longer any dispute so, therefore, Marlin would not be liable since the matter was no longer disputed. Does that make sense?

 

That depends on whether BPF still considered the matter in dispute or if they just dismissed it. Basically a matter of opinion.

 

Off to work now.

[skyblue dave]

Hi skyblue dave,

 

Have you asked BPF for any documents at all? They should provide you with a properly formatted letter assigning the debt to Marlin- not just the one that was sent in the same envelope as the Marlin letter back in January. As 10 pack and the others have all noted, that letter had the wrong reference number and was not correctly signed. If you look at all the letters you've had from Barclays they were signed and had a printed name and department with telephone numbers etc. This one did not. Also, they were required to give adequate notice of their intention, which they did not do. I looked all this up to make sure - I'll find the relevant legal requirements I found and send it to you if you like.

 

It would be worth getting some advice on that because if the 'transaction' was not properly conducted by BPF and Marlin then you don't owe them (Marlin) anything. As I said before, when I challenged Marlin to provide incontrovertible legal proof that I owed them anything, they stopped phoning and writing to me. When I asked BPF to provide the documentation for it they didn't and I just got a letter about the additional charge which showed they had not sold the debt on. Also, as many others have posted, if the matter was still in dispute with BPF, and if you can prove that it was, they cannot sell a debt on to any other body without giving you adequate notice.

 

This leads me to believe that whatever took place, it wasn't legally binding - just like all the previous attempts by the debt collectors you have named. I did the same with them and never heard from any of them again. I'm now considering whether to take Marlin to court for illegal harassment, since they never provided the legal proof that they owned the debt.

 

As I said before, it might be worth trying to get a bit more time to make sure you have all the information you need. I was advised by trading standards to get absolutely every piece of documentation, letters, post records, phone records etc. before even thinking about going to court.

I'm not a lawyer but my son does have a law degree and has been advising me on how to interpret the various laws surrounding this. My advice is to seek some advice first - there are lots of reputable firms who will give you a free opinion.

 

It really is worth sending a SAR to both BPF and Marlin. They have 40 days to respond to your request and that would be a legitimate reason for you to ask for a delay. When I got my bundle of documents from BPF - as I posted previously, I found a document which casts doubt that I ever had a contract with them in the first place. So it is worth it.

 

Sorry it's a long post but I'd hate to see you go to court unprepared.

 

Regards & good luck.

 

Many thanks for taking the trouble to make these points.

 

The Court have put the ball back in Marlin's court. They have 28 days to respond to my defence. The court letter to me stated that Marlin had the option to try and contact me and resolve the matter out of court. (I won't entertain any compromise at this stage. I expect this to go all the way).They could also just decide to proceed with court action.

 

Either way, if thye do nothing after 28 days, the court put a 'stay' on the case. (ie suspend the case). Not really sure what this means in practical terms.

 

I really appreciate the posts that have been submitted since I mentioned the Court case. The two key things I will pursue aggressively if they decide to proceed are:

 

1. Have Marlin got the paperwork to support their claim (Deeds of Assignment). Although shouldn't I expect the Court to ask this. It seems to be a fundamental point.

 

2. The timeline between Advent ceasing to exist and the offer from BPF regarding an alternative provider. As has been suggested, this timeline - what was it, about 3 months? - is arguably too-little-too-late.

 

I will add these points on to my main defence. My main defence is that I researched prior to taking the IT Course and my research indicated that Computeach had a poor reputation for student care. This was only heresay and anecdotal, but was enough to pursuade me that I did not want to sign up for Computeach. I chose Advent instead.

 

If I sign up for a Peugeot, I expect a Peugeot. If I'm offered a Ford instead, surely I'm entitled to say 'No'. A Ford carries out the same functions as a Peugeot, but I specifically signed up for a Peugeot.

 

Our situation is actually even worse than that. Not only have we been offered an alternative product, but the very product we (or,at least, I, went out of my way to avoid in the first place!).

 

My defence is not very sophisticated, I admit. I t is based on one simple notion - WE HAVE BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY.

[blade325]

Hi all, does anyone no if it is possible to upload word and PDF documents to this site?? im trying to pm someone a couple of documents and cant find a way of doing it. Ps it's relating to this case.

[Keith_rb]

If I sign up for a Peugeot, I expect a Peugeot. If I'm offered a Ford instead, surely I'm entitled to say 'No'. A Ford carries out the same functions as a Peugeot, but I specifically signed up for a Peugeot.

 

Our situation is actually even worse than that. Not only have we been offered an alternative product, but the very product we (or,at least, I, went out of my way to avoid in the first place!).

 

My defence is not very sophisticated, I admit. I t is based on one simple notion - WE HAVE BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY.

 

Although I don't know if this applies to your specific case, it does to me, but may help:

 

• Advent course sold as an unlimited time course, replacement was not.
  
• Initial replacement Computeach course may not have been the same as you were on, although they did try to create ad-hoc courses several months later. (A little to late I'm afraid).
  
• Unlimited resits were part of the Advent deal, Computeach didn't offer this.
  

Hope this helps with your arguments.

[skyblue dave]

Although I don't know if this applies to your specific case, it does to me, but may help:

 

• Advent course sold as an unlimited time course, replacement was not.
  
• Initial replacement Computeach course may not have been the same as you were on, although they did try to create ad-hoc courses several months later. (A little to late I'm afraid).
  
• Unlimited resits were part of the Advent deal, Computeach didn't offer this.
  

Hope this helps with your arguments.

Thanks Keith. Yes, this is useful I think the like-for-like issues are a key to this case, The more I can show the differences, the better. Unlimited study time is a big difference. Also, Advent had a dedicated Career's service, which Computeach could not match.