Jump to content


Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)


HSBCrusher
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2397 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Thanks for that feedback, Kraken. I'll take a re-look. If it goes to court now I'll have a chance to fine tune, I guess.

 

 

Hi Fuzzbutt,

I don't believe I have mentioned this before. Mainly used for

credit cards etc..

Unfair relationships OFT Guidance

Enforcement action under Part 8 of the

Enterprise Act 2002

1.1 The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (the 2006 Act) amended the Consumer

Credit Act 1974 (the 1974 Act). One of the principal changes was the

introduction of the concept of an unfair relationship.

 

I look in particular at this point

4.24 As a result, the consumer may not have entered into the transaction in

full knowledge of the facts. He may also have had, in the circumstances,

no real choice as to acceptance of the particular terms, or may have

been subject to aggressive marketing.

Maybe you may want to add this where you were missing some point in evidence

but do check it out I'm not a lawyer.

Can send you the PDF but you can get it of their site anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi Fuzzbutt,

I don't believe I have mentioned this before. Mainly used for

credit cards etc..

Unfair relationships OFT Guidance

Enforcement action under Part 8 of the

Enterprise Act 2002

1.1 The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (the 2006 Act) amended the Consumer

Credit Act 1974 (the 1974 Act). One of the principal changes was the

introduction of the concept of an unfair relationship.

 

I look in particular at this point

4.24 As a result, the consumer may not have entered into the transaction in

full knowledge of the facts. He may also have had, in the circumstances,

no real choice as to acceptance of the particular terms, or may have

been subject to aggressive marketing.

Maybe you may want to add this where you were missing some point in evidence

but do check it out I'm not a lawyer.

Can send you the PDF but you can get it of their site anyway

 

Thanks Rob - I'll follow that up too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rob - I'll follow that up too.
Guess what I am having a look at this again. Just got a letter from Barclays saying they have instructed a specialised Debt Recovery Agency (Mercers I'd bet).Thought that had shut up until it had at least finished the process with the FOS.Seems they don't want to abide by that now.Proper little loan Sharks aren't they
Link to post
Share on other sites

Appalling - I ripped into their lawyers letter in my letter to MD of BPF. Also the lies told to the 'ONE Show', such as 'most Advent students are happy with Comuteach!!' Not very much evidence of that when over 600 people out of the estimated 2,000 Advent students signed up to the protest group with Hausfeld within a couple of months of it starting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a polite letter from Apex debt collectors asking for money

they mentioned they have been apointed because other agencies have failed to collect the money owed blah blah..

 

have barlclays told them the whole facts I wonder? or just that there is money owed see if you can get it?

 

I thought it had gone quiet had nothing from DCA's since last year

Edited by 10pack
Link to post
Share on other sites

Appalling - I ripped into their lawyers letter in my letter to MD of BPF. Also the lies told to the 'ONE Show', such as 'most Advent students are happy with Comuteach!!' Not very much evidence of that when over 600 people out of the estimated 2,000 Advent students signed up to the protest group with Hausfeld within a couple of months of it starting!
Unfair relationships OFT Guidance

Enforcement action under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002

I would really like the OFT to take a look at this in regards to our treatment.This is exactly what these guidelines are for.To stop people being forced into contracts via subterfuge and coercion by lenders.Changing Terms and Conditions during the course of the contracts, and generally acting in a unfair manner. I offered them a chance to engage properly and they told me take it to the FOS which I have done but still they want me to pay for what ? I don't know they wont tell me. Now that is just unfair

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barclays will deny it but they must surely be complicit in the way these debt collectors are acting - I can't believe they're not aware this is being done in their name, especially Mercers as their in-house agency, and they don't know about it.

 

I hope that your letter makes it to the boss of barclays, but I would think that his secretary opens his mail and weeds out letters he would not be bothered to read.

In the company I used to work for.. when I was working.. the director never opened his own mail.. and if you wanted to just walk in to see him.. his secretary would stop you unless you had an appointment.

 

in the letter bpf send me last year they admitted that mercers was a part of barclays group.. not just bpf

 

apex I think are the 5th dca they bpf have set on me.

 

not once has bpf asked how they can help me or what do I want, they just dumped on us and expect us to pay them

 

has anyone had a DOA sent to them by any debt collection agency involved in all this??

 

Apex hinted that this would be the last opportunety to pay before action will be taken.. this was similar wording to other agencies.

 

I assume I just ignore apex unless they produce a doa? the last companies when I sent them the letter off the student site about producing the doa with payment.. they did not reply and kept my money.. thats theft?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that your letter makes it to the boss of barclays, but I would think that his secretary opens his mail and weeds out letters he would not be bothered to read.

 

 

If you want a boss or MD to read any letter - smear a womans fragrance on the envelope, no secretary or PA in the world would dare to read it. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

who are the letters from? and how do you hear all this.. do you meet at the local and discuss things?? maybe I should start drinking and I can be there also :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that your letter makes it to the boss of barclays, but I would think that his secretary opens his mail and weeds out letters he would not be bothered to read.

In the company I used to work for.. when I was working.. the director never opened his own mail.. and if you wanted to just walk in to see him.. his secretary would stop you unless you had an appointment.

 

in the letter bpf send me last year they admitted that mercers was a part of barclays group.. not just bpf

 

apex I think are the 5th dca they bpf have set on me.

 

not once has bpf asked how they can help me or what do I want, they just dumped on us and expect us to pay them

 

has anyone had a DOA sent to them by any debt collection agency involved in all this??

 

Apex hinted that this would be the last opportunety to pay before action will be taken.. this was similar wording to other agencies.

 

I assume I just ignore apex unless they produce a doa? the last companies when I sent them the letter off the student site about producing the doa with payment.. they did not reply and kept my money.. thats theft?.

 

Bet you 50p Apex won't produce a DOA either, 10pack. So far as I know, no one has been taken to court yet by any of these debt agencies - despite their threats to do so (against OFT guidelines of course!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent the standard unresolved complaint letter from this site to Apex and got a letter back saying their complaints department were looking in to it then a day or 2 later another letter apologising adiving they would close my account and refer it back to Barclays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent the standard unresolved complaint letter from this site to Apex and got a letter back saying their complaints department were looking in to it then a day or 2 later another letter apologising adiving they would close my account and refer it back to Barclays.

 

It seems they are all doing this [DCA's] - they do not want to get involved. Barclays possible option would be to bring court action [but it seems this is not their policy]

The most likely outcome, unless students win their small claims in court [or fos appeal] would be for Barclays to sell the debts in bulk to a DCA at some point. The DCA's will have the same problem and be in a similar situation.[but they are to dumb to see this]

It will be very interesting to see how all this fiasco BPF have created pans out.....

Edited by lowdown
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems they are all doing this - they do not want to get involved. Barclays only option will to be bring court action [they will not do this because it is not their policy]

The most likely outcome, unless students win their/fos claim would be for Barclays to sell the debts in bulk to a DCA company at some point. The DCA's will have the same problem and

be in a strange situation.[but they are to dumb to see this]

It will be very interesting to see how all this fiasco BPF have created pans out.....

 

Well, if they had actually asked students what we would like to have done when Advent went under instead of trying to pull a fast one, I doubt we would all be in this mess!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been doing a bit of research, thanks to Kraken and Rob's pointers. See what you guys think - is this stuff we can use?

 

S140A of the Consumer Credit Act. The Consumer Credit Act 2006 notably amended the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and one of the principal changes was the introduction of the concept of an unfair relationship. The Act enables borrowers to challenge credit agreements in court on the grounds that the relationship between the parties is unfair. The new 'unfair relationships' test replaces the current concept of extortionate credit bargains.

 

S140A: “The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following -(a) any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;© any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).”

 

Unfair relationships - The Office of Fair Trading guide published in May 2008 (‘Unfair relationships: Enforcement action under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002’) states that it considers an unfair relationship “in our view, category © would include, for example, pre-contract business practices (such as advertising) and post-contract actions not based on a right (such as demanding sums of money the consumer has not agreed to pay). Relevant omissions might include failure to provide key information in a clear and timely manner (or at all), or to disclose material facts. Category © would also encompass acts or omissions which are non-commercial.”‘

 

'Failure to provide key information in a clear and timely manner’ would be relevant in my case, considering the failure of Barclays to communicate the new course arrangements in good time in order for me to properly consider the option before the Advent agreement ran out.

Paragraph 4.24 goes on to say “As a result, the consumer may not have entered into the transaction in full knowledge of the facts. He may also have had, in the circumstances, no real choice as to acceptance of the particular terms, or may have been subject to aggressive marketing.”‘

Subject to aggressive marketing’ is relevant in my case regarding the original Advent sales tactics and sign up.

 

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 Act section ‘Misleading actions’ states:“5.-(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph -(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.(3) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph if -(a)it concerns any marketing of a product (including comparative advertising) which creates confusion with any products, trade marks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor; or(b)it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—(i)the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and(ii)the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational,and it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise, taking account of its factual context and of all its features and circumstances.”

 

Advent engaged in the above with its misleading promises of work placement, supposed ‘limited places’ and unrealistic timescale given to me to finish in.

 

The Act also states: Aggressive commercial practices“7.(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances—(a)it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and(b)it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.(2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of—(a)its timing, location, nature or persistence;(b)the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour;©the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product;(d)any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and(e)any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken.(3) In this regulation—(a)“coercion” includes the use of physical force; and(b)“undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.”

 

Again, this directly covers the Advent sales technique in the letter which urged me to sign up within 14 days or lose my place, stressing the urgency to act now.Sorry this is long - hope the formatting and paragraph breaks work this time!

Edited by Fuzzbutt
remedy formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many points also apply to the people that took up with Computeach. The fact many off us belived we had no other choice as a result by being misinformed.Being to told sign up when we didn't know what we were signing up to.Some of these were wrong at the time and that is quite self evident now as a result of the FOS rulings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe inforcement of this is down to the Office of Fair Trading.As individuals we can't get the OFT to investigate this but the FOS can instigate this. Certainly I would suggest that Barclay's through their subterfuge and coercion are trying to make me enter into or pay for an unfair contract.I will point this out if and when I get my initial adjudication.Hopefully I may have already given them the hint to do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe inforcement of this is down to the Office of Fair Trading.As individuals we can't get the OFT to investigate this but the FOS can instigate this. Certainly I would suggest that Barclay's through their subterfuge and coercion are trying to make me enter into or pay for an unfair contract.I will point this out if and when I get my initial adjudication.Hopefully I may have already given them the hint to do this.

 

Exactly, Rob. CT would not release details of the course to me unless I 'verified my details' on their website, thereby agreeing to continue studying with them. That's clearly laid out in the 1 April letter CT sent to everyone, far from being 'alleged' as Hogan Lovells solicitor patronisingly put it in their last letter! When I also phoned for details of the course as I wanted to compare them to back up my arguments against like-for-like they refused to put anything in writing (Ingrids advice on the insistence of a blind sign up is on my website - basically don't do it without evidence of what exactly you are signing to).

 

The lack of clear, open course info communicated in a timely fashion was completely lacking from both CT and BPF. For many that put us at a disadvantage and meant our agreements expired/wasted at least 4 months while we were trying to argue our case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, Rob. CT would not release details of the course to me unless I 'verified my details' on their website, thereby agreeing to continue studying with them. That's clearly laid out in the 1 April letter CT sent to everyone, far from being 'alleged' as Hogan Lovells solicitor patronisingly put it in their last letter! When I also phoned for details of the course as I wanted to compare them to back up my arguments against like-for-like they refused to put anything in writing (Ingrids advice on the insistence of a blind sign up is on my website - basically don't do it without evidence of what exactly you are signing to).

 

The lack of clear, open course info communicated in a timely fashion was completely lacking from both CT and BPF. For many that put us at a disadvantage and meant our agreements expired/wasted at least 4 months while we were trying to argue our case.

Threatening and abusive behaviour.Multiple DCA's in some cases forcing us to accept we had no other choice than to take Computeach's offer.As a result also a mid term price variance if we accepted Computeach.As I have said :- Advents costing towards £6000 and Computeach costing towards £2000. In principle Advent supplied largely more classroom time, which I received none of this from them, receiving 4 days classroom teaching from Computeach, as they normally supply is all that I have received. If in principle I have only been given an opportunity or services, in this time which abide by a Computeach contract never an Advent contract.

My main grievance in not wishing to continue paying for the the training, I was offered no choice with the demise of Advent, and being forced to use this alternative supplier, with no re negotiation of a new contract, is not being addressed. I have therefore cancelled my direct debit,and I wish a copy of my original contract from Advent, and a new contract from Computeach (under it's terms), before payments are re-instated. I will also require a new loan agreement with reduced payment terms, that reflects the difference and quality of both services and course material as supplied by Computeach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point - no new contracts were issued to people, no refunds of the difference between cost of courses. All very secretive and underhand. I suspect BPF are chewing their fingernails now all this is slowly creeping out and being questioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point - no new contracts were issued to people, no refunds of the difference between cost of courses. All very secretive and underhand. I suspect BPF are chewing their fingernails now all this is slowly creeping out and being questioned.

I certainly would urge those that are appealing their FOS decisions to ask them to refer this to the Office of Fair Trading under

Unfair relationships OFT Guidance Enforcement action under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. They could rule and take action

based on :-

 

1. The unfairness of the original Advent contracts.

2. The unfairness of the Computeach contracts.

3. The coercion and subterfuge that’s taking place to force us to pay or take up potentially unfair contracts.

 

I believe Barclay’s are relying on the smoke screen created of how varied every persons case is and not treating every individual on the merits.

Being Barclays instigated this being it lawful or unlawful at the moment they bear the ultimate responsibility for treating the consumer fairly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just arrive in the post - a reply from BPF to my letter before court action - HA HA HA!

Predictable reply, just stating that "I acknowledge that you remain dissatisfied with the alternative course provided.....we strongly believe that we have fulfilled our obligation to our customers under the CCA 1974".,,,"the FOS has conducted an independant investigation blah blah and found in favour of Barclays Bank." (signed on behalf of Ronnie Denholm, who appears to be their new Managing Director now).

 

Only because the FOS adjudicator disregarded most of my evidence and bought Barclays lies! The end date entered by the rep on my agreement was the key reason she did so and wouldn't agree my course was open-ended, unfortunately, totally disregarding the other details I gave about Advent's mis-selling. FOS are failing the majority of us badly!

 

Looks like this arrogant bank is relying on FOS to cover it's back though. Although it's a bit daunting I'm going to small claims and will represent myself. The unfair relationships/contracts issues I wasn't aware of when I put my argument forward to BPF, or FOS, but I'm amending my case outline for court to include that now.

 

THIS IS WAR NOW! SEE YOU IN COURT BARCLAYS! YOU CAN KISS MY (FUZZ)BUTT!

 

:-x:rant::rant::frusty:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...