Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)

[Keith_rb]

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.

 

Don't forget the promise of a guaranteed job through the HUGE number of companies Advent were connected with, earning £20,000-£25,000 on completion of the Comptia A+ modules. Seriously still can't believe I was so sodding naive to trust a damn word from that salesman.

[blade325]

Hi I would base my defence on the length of time that it took BPF to come up with an alternate provider. That shows that it was un-reasonable to expect any one to wait that long to come up with an alternative as time was of the essence. I think if you go down the unlimited re-takes routes, it plays into BPF hands as they would say they gave you an extra 3 months to catch up with your studies. You can then go on to the choice of alternate provider being unsuitable in many ways .i.e. reputation, quality of material etc.

[Oldgel_48]

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.

 

Hi Dave,

I've just found some interesting opinions about creditors trying to insist you have to take the alternative they offer. It's part of a paper written by Local Government Regulation 2 years ago, but unfortunately they no longer exist! However, it is specifically about the problem we all face with Barclays. I thought it might give you some ideas for your case. If you want the whole article I can e-mail it to you.

 

Basically, what it's saying is that Barclays are wrong when they insist that you had to take the alternative course they offered. Apparently, where Section 75 is concerned - and this is the section Barclays and FOS seem to have quoted to everyone - you are not obliged to take the course they insist on.

 

Section 75:

" does not give a duty or responsibility for the creditor to provide an alternative, neither does it provide any right for the creditor to impose their preferred solution. If finance companies are able to offer alternative remedies to consumers with valid Section 75 claims and insist that the consumer accepts, then this has a major impact on this valuable piece of consumer legislation. Just because this is the cheapest solution for the creditor, does not mean it is right."

 

"There may be cases where the consumer would wish to accept the alternative course offered, (and in cases where they are near the end of their course that might be worthwhile) but they should not be obliged to."

 

"There are many reasons why the proposed alternative course may not be an acceptable remedy including cost, quality, standing of course provider, location and the time it has taken to appoint the alternative provider. The time taken to appoint the alternative provider may lead to a change in the consumer's circumstances, which means an alternative provider is not acceptable."

 

"If the proposed alternative course is not acceptable, we recommend that the consumer should be able to demonstrate that they have acted reasonably, and specify all the grounds to show that the proposed alternative course was not a realistic option."

 

"However, the claimant may wish to bear in mind that they may need to demonstrate that they have attempted to mitigate their losses. In effect "the claimant cannot recover damages for any part of his loss consequent on the defendant's breach of contract which the claimant could have avoided by taking reasonable steps" (Chitty on Contracts 29th Edition para 26-092) and "Wherever the innocent party, following the defendant's breach, is able to find substitute performance from a 3rd party, the mitigation rules give him a strong incentive to accept the substitute" (Chitty, para 26-093)."

 

"On receipt of the FOS adjudication, if the consumer receives an adjudication, which goes against them, they can apply for a FOS Ombudsman to decide. The FOS decision does not prevent the consumer taking court action, but they would need to demonstrate that they are not being unreasonable in not accepting the alternative course."

 

Hope this is helpful.

 

Regards.

[dx100uk]

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.

 

 

you cannot PM any attachments

 

post then here

 

set your default scan page size to A4 less than 300DPI [150 will do]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc using paint program

but leave all monetary figures and dates.

*********************************************************

{DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

try www.pdfescape.com TO BLANK STUFF,

*************************************************************

or

DO IT IN MSPAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites ...

http://freejpgtopdf.com/

if you have multiple scans/pics

put them in a word doc FIRST and convert that to PDF

or use www.pdfmerge.com

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

 

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

though dont use full bank names or CAG in the title

i'e Default notice dd-mm-yyyy TSB

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

.

dx

[skyblue dave]

Hi Dave,

I've just found some interesting opinions about creditors trying to insist you have to take the alternative they offer. It's part of a paper written by Local Government Regulation 2 years ago, but unfortunately they no longer exist! However, it is specifically about the problem we all face with Barclays. I thought it might give you some ideas for your case. If you want the whole article I can e-mail it to you.

 

Basically, what it's saying is that Barclays are wrong when they insist that you had to take the alternative course they offered. Apparently, where Section 75 is concerned - and this is the section Barclays and FOS seem to have quoted to everyone - you are not obliged to take the course they insist on.

 

Section 75:

" does not give a duty or responsibility for the creditor to provide an alternative, neither does it provide any right for the creditor to impose their preferred solution. If finance companies are able to offer alternative remedies to consumers with valid Section 75 claims and insist that the consumer accepts, then this has a major impact on this valuable piece of consumer legislation. Just because this is the cheapest solution for the creditor, does not mean it is right."

 

"There may be cases where the consumer would wish to accept the alternative course offered, (and in cases where they are near the end of their course that might be worthwhile) but they should not be obliged to."

 

"There are many reasons why the proposed alternative course may not be an acceptable remedy including cost, quality, standing of course provider, location and the time it has taken to appoint the alternative provider. The time taken to appoint the alternative provider may lead to a change in the consumer's circumstances, which means an alternative provider is not acceptable."

 

"If the proposed alternative course is not acceptable, we recommend that the consumer should be able to demonstrate that they have acted reasonably, and specify all the grounds to show that the proposed alternative course was not a realistic option."

 

"However, the claimant may wish to bear in mind that they may need to demonstrate that they have attempted to mitigate their losses. In effect "the claimant cannot recover damages for any part of his loss consequent on the defendant's breach of contract which the claimant could have avoided by taking reasonable steps" (Chitty on Contracts 29th Edition para 26-092) and "Wherever the innocent party, following the defendant's breach, is able to find substitute performance from a 3rd party, the mitigation rules give him a strong incentive to accept the substitute" (Chitty, para 26-093)."

 

"On receipt of the FOS adjudication, if the consumer receives an adjudication, which goes against them, they can apply for a FOS Ombudsman to decide. The FOS decision does not prevent the consumer taking court action, but they would need to demonstrate that they are not being unreasonable in not accepting the alternative course."

 

Hope this is helpful.

 

Regards.

 

This looks really useful and, Yes, I would like you to send me the article. How do I get my email address to you without going public with it?

 

BTW, Marlin have just over a week to let the court and me know if they wish to proceed with the case. Will keep everyone up-to-date as I'm sure my case will have significant implications for a lot of people.

[Oldgel_48]

Dave,

 

I haven't a clue how to send an e-mail on here! I've lost the original link and the article is not on the lacors.gov website as far as I can see. Will investigate - quickly! If no other alternative will have to put whole article here.

 

Regards.

[Oldgel_48]

Hi Dave,

 

Found the link!

 

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=24854

 

If you have trouble with that try key words: ' training courses where trader ceases trading'.

 

Regards.

[Oldgel_48]

Dave!

 

Sorry that should read: 'Training courses where provider ceases trading'

 

Regards.

[skyblue dave]

Dave!

 

Sorry that should read: 'Training courses where provider ceases trading'

 

Regards.

 

Got it. Many thanks.

[Keith_rb]

BTW, Marlin have just over a week to let the court and me know if they wish to proceed with the case. Will keep everyone up-to-date as I'm sure my case will have significant implications for a lot of people.

 

Any news yet, the deadline has to be up by now!

[skyblue dave]

Any news yet, the deadline has to be up by now!

 

I've not heard anything. According to the letter I had from the County Court, Marlin had 28 days to consider my defence and either contact me directly to see if we could settle out of court, or tell the Court they wished to proceed with the case. I received that letter on the 12th April. So, allowing for a couple of days for admin, I think the 28 days are now up.

 

I am writing to the Court later today to find out what the situation is. Here is the exact quote from the Court: "Where he (claimant) wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After this period had elapsed, the claim will be "stayed". The only action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the "stay"."

 

I don't want to jump the gun, because, a letter may drop through my door any day. But, if Marlin don't proceed, I want the Court to tell me exactly what a '"stay" means. I assume it becaomes harder for Marlin to proceed with the action. But, does anyone know, if Marlin throw it back to BPF, and BPF pass it on to yet another Collection Agency, does the "stay" also apply to them, or does the "stay"only apply to Marlin?

 

when I hear back from the Court I'll let you know.

[blade325]

Hi all hope this works I am attempting to upload some files for people to read, they are quite informative and should help everyone better understand contracts and contract breaches.

[blade325]

Here are the last lot.

[skyblue dave]

Just to let everybody know - I've heard nothing from The County Court or from Marlin's solicitors.

 

They had 28 days to contact me to try to settle out-of-court, or to contact the Court with a view to proceeding with the case.

 

We are now,at least, 10 days past the point at which the 28 days expired (the clock started ticking on April 12). I wrote to the Court over a week ago and emailed them about 5 days ago. I am yet to get a reply. I want clarification about where we are with this. Is there now a 'stay' on the case, and, if so, what does that mean?

 

As soon as I receive a reply, I will post it here.

 

I'm not sure what to think at this stage.

 

Have Marlin decided that my defence (based around the shabby way we were treated, the inadequacy of Computeach as a credible like-for-like, the bullying tactics of the various debt collection agencies that Barclays have sent our way, and so on) is strong enough to win the day if it went to Court?

 

Have Marlin gone away to re-think their strategy before proceeding?

 

I've no idea. Again, until I know exactly what a 'stay' is, it's hard to work out where we are. If a 'stay' means it becomes harder for them to proceed with the case, then, the fact they've possibly allowed it to get to this stage must mean they are backing away mustn't it?

[blade325]

I guess they might be re-thinking their tactics. We shall continue to fight and show the world what BPF think of their customers. We as far as they are concerned are just a commodity. They also underestimated the backlash that they would get from their unscrupulous tactics.

[skyblue dave]

I received the following email from the Court today:

 

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your email.

I confirm that we have received and processed your Defence to this claim on 12-Apr-2013. I also confirm that the case has been automatically ‘stayed’ on 16-May-2013 due to no action from the Claimant.

A stay puts a bar on the case so the claimant is unable to proceed with the claim without a formal application to the District Judge.

I hope this assists you with your query, but should you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

[blade325]

Hi all, I finally got a letter back from BPF in response to the 2 letters that I sent to their new chief Executive. The letter is from Ronnie Denholm - managing director for BPF and in effect the new guy is exactly the same as his predecessor.

 

He states in his letter that BPF absorbed the cost of finding a new provider, as well as giving us all a further 3 months for the time that we had no provider so that our studies were not impacted (he forgets that time was of the essence for many of us). He also stated that Computeach offered the same syllabus, the same student support and the same qualifications that Advent offered. The best bit in his letter was his assertion that many other Advent student have successfully continued with their studies at Computeach. His last bit of advice was that I should contact Marlin to arrange payments to them as they were sold my account in February 2013.

 

My next step is going to be that of writing a letter to Mr Denholm asking him if he/ BPF were that convinced that they were doing the right thing? why did they not take us to court instead of using multiple DCA's????. I will also ask him how Computeach provided a like for like service when they have had to make numerous changes to their courses when us ex Advent students pointed the discrepancies out.

[Oldgel_48]

Hi Blade,

 

I also got a response from Denholm. He's been the CEO at BPF for a while and I've already corresponded with him through my MP. Be warned! He will not admit that BPF were at fault in any way. He does however make mistakes! Amongst the many errors, he says BPF sold the debt in February but we all got letters at the beginning of January!

 

I got a bundle of documents from BPF in response to my SAR - they threw up some very interesting questions since there were some very important omissions - including no docs at all about the selling on of the debt which, if they ever existed, BPF were legally obliged to supply copies of. There was a letter dated April in which BPF had applied a charge which is strange since they claimed to have sold the debt on three months previously.

Their records of phone calls was also very selective - none of the ones where BPF employees were very rude for example! Nor the calls where I asked them to stop phoning me when I was nursing my dying mother but they still carried on phoning me anyway.

 

In fact there were so many inconsistencies, I wrote again to A Jenkins, sent him copies of all the disputed documents and told him I did not trust BPF to investigate anything and that he really should look into it himself. I still await his response.

I challenged Marlin to come up with legal proof that they had any dealings with me and they just sent the same old letter as in January. They no longer phone me though.

 

I wonder if they backed out of taking Dave to court because they realise they are on shaky ground?

All these banking bodies & their DCAs seem to have rather incestuous relationships - I'm sure I read somewhere that the current head of Marlin used to be the CEO at BPF before Ronnie Denholm took over so it looks very much as though they're covering each other's backs.

 

Just keep applying the pressure - one of us will make a breakthrough and then hopefully the floodgates will open.

 

Regards.

[blade325]

Hi Oldgel_48, Looks like we are all being given this Denholm fellow who is either clueless or has a high level of arrogance, I think the latter in our case. I will send another letter to Mr Jenkins and one to his lackey with different questions being asked. Mr Denholm question will start along the lines of if he cant even get the date when our account was supposedly sold correct? I do not believe that an investigation took place and that he has just sent out a letter to act as if he has done one.

[Oldgel_48]

Hi Oldgel_48, Looks like we are all being given this Denholm fellow who is either clueless or has a high level of arrogance, I think the latter in our case. I will send another letter to Mr Jenkins and one to his lackey with different questions being asked. Mr Denholm question will start along the lines of if he cant even get the date when our account was supposedly sold correct? I do not believe that an investigation took place and that he has just sent out a letter to act as if he has done one.

 

Hi Blade,

 

Did you send a SAR to Barclays? I had a few surprises when I got the bundle back from them which I think would help me should I have to go to court. Speaking of Denholm - I think you could be fairly accurate in your assessment! he tends to state inaccurate 'facts' and is a bit too self satisfied in his assumptions that his company can do no wrong. Oh well, as they say, 'pride cometh before a fall'. I know they couldn't have carried out any real investigation because of some of the things they missed in the docs I got. However, most important is what they did not send copies of.

 

Regards.

[horne3754sg]

Hi All, well I never thought I would be back here.

 

It has been 3 years and now Marlin are claiming I owe them debt.

 

However the fact is, in that 3 years, neither barclays, computeach or marlin have attempted to make contact.

 

I have sent them an email stating their legal obligations to provide me with documentation, I have also asked them to provide me with full accounts of all alleged attempts to me contact with me in the last 2 - 3 years.

 

I have made it clear, it was not me that ceased communications, but in fact Barclays themselves.

 

Will keep you all posted on the outcome.

[blade325]

Hi Oldgel_48, no I have not sent a SAR yet, was planning on doing that once I had written to Mr Jenkins and Denholm. As my previous post said I have a few questions for Denholm relating to his alleged investigation. Also planned to include to both of them a copy of the section 75 CCA relating to linked loans.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1010/regulation/25/made

I think that they both need to read it properly and see what it says about the debtor: (4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a debtor is to be deemed to have obtained satisfaction where he has accepted a replacement product or service or other compensation from the supplier in settlement of his claim.

I want to see what they say about that part of the legislation, as it does not say anywhere within it that the Debtor has to accept that which is offered.

[blade325]

Hi all I'm about to send a SAR request to BPF, can anyone kindly tell me what I need to do??

[Oldgel_48]

Hi all I'm about to send a SAR request to BPF, can anyone kindly tell me what I need to do??

 

Hi Blade,

 

I used a template from the ICO website and just adapted it. Here's the link

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/personal_information.aspx

 

There is useful step-by-step information about what you must do.

 

Good luck with it. don't forget to ask if you need more help.

 

Regards

[dx100uk]

or just click the sar here!!

 

dx