Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, hope you’re all well.   Just an update.    We still have the vehicle, the agreement hasn’t been defaulted or terminated yet (even though we’ve not made any payments since January).    After a lot of back and forth, the finance company agreed to pay for an independent inspection at a main dealer BMW workshop.    Workshop came back and the vehicle has £6,350 worth of urgent repairs, everything from rear brakes being worn to the point there’s no pads left, rear differential bushes are degraded completely, and of course the big one, the timing chain mechanism is defective and needs replacing, technician also stated that it’s best to have a new clutch fitted to the vehicle as the clutch is heavily worn and the gearbox will be detached from the vehicle so it makes sense to put a new clutch into the vehicle to avoid having to do this again in 5,000 to 10,000 miles.    Finance company has been really patronising and has said that they will only pay for the timing chain repair, and this is as a good will gesture without any admission of liability as they are of the opinion £5,000 timing chain replacements are “wear and tear”, even though BMW has admitted it’s defective and are contributing to the repair, I’ve declined this on the basis it’s not “good will” to withhold a repair for 7 months and try to pass it off as “wear and tear”, I want the finance company to admit they were wrong.    Finance company is refusing to put right the rear brakes (which the vehicle cannot be driven unless they’re done because the condition is dangerous, having seen the video of the rear brakes I’m disgusted at the condition they are in), the finance company will not repair the rear differential and will obviously not put a new clutch into the vehicle, expecting me to make £1,500ish in repairs out of my own pocket.    I’m unwilling to pay for any repair to this vehicle as we have had 4 months of use age out of it, it cost £8,000 and already has £6,350 worth of urgent repairs required, this clearly shows it was not fit for purpose, not as described and not of a satisfactory condition.   Finance and supplying dealership are refusing the rectify the poorly done paint repairs that have peeled off both the front and rear bumpers, even though these were pre-agreed and part of the condition of sale.    Financial Ombudsman Service has not yet ruled on our dispute, however I now have an independent report that shows the vehicle was not fit for purpose, and the finance company/dealership should have repaired it when I made the request under s.23 of the CRA 2015 back in November 2021, they acted unlawfully and unfairly in refusing this, and refusing to carry out my rejection in January when they failed to repair the vehicle.    I’ve written back to the finance company refusing their proposal to have just the timing chain repaired, as I disagree with the premise of it being out of “good will” and “wear and tear”, I also believe that they are liable alongside the supplying dealership for other defects that could not possibly have occurred due to my very limited use of the vehicle. 
    • The banking giant has declined to comment on media reports that Stuart Kirk has been suspended.View the full article
    • Are we to assume that the asthma is not new and your employer fully infomed about this. 
    • right so you being abroad or informing SLC you were Abroad as the last address plays no part in this at all, thread title updated. total red herring.   your case is the same as numerous ones here already which you need to READ  type in erudio backdoor CCJ in our enhanced google searchbox. get reading a good few of the threads that search points you too.   your mistake is you returned to the uk, you failed to update your debt owners of a change of address as legally you are obliged too, and you got a backdoor CCJ.    your issue now again is the same as most of the threads you'll read, your SLC loans were last deferred to SLC before the gov't sold them to erudio in 2013. that means that the court claimform was issued more than 6yrs after your last written acknowledgement of the debt and thus was already statute barred.   can't see any point in an SAR to anyone.   just ring northants bulk and quoting the CCJ number from your credit file ask for a copy of the particulars of claim ANd the judgement CCJ by email pdf   dx  
    • and neither can drydens hence their twaddle.  and you need to remember that places like cab and ndl etc are funded by the banks and the DCA's in commission payments for signing people up to dmp's without ever questioning the debts enforceability under the cca 1974.   your n244 already has the background..   The Default Notice was issued dd/mm/yyyy and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.        
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)


HSBCrusher
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2398 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

If you are unemployed and on benefits you will be exempt from court fees. :wink:

 

I dont claim benefits.

 

I walked out the job centre 2 years ago.. i just did not like the way i was being treated after working for 35 years and getting underhand treatment there

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 Ya I may be exempt due to the fact that I am on benefits due to my disabilty, but my wife is working but on a low income, I may not have explained myself earlier but it would be my wife who would take any action, for she was told by Advent that due to our son being unemployed he would need a garauntor otherwise he would not be entitled to a loan and there3fore unable to start the course.

 

We have begged BPF to take court action and begged their debt collectors to do the same and always received the same reply which up to last week has been silence, but last week said they refer the case back to BPF on the grounds that my wife is in dispute in regard to the loan. We are desparate to end this with BPF and that my wife and I are left with the perfect credit rating that we had before we even heard of Advent or dealt with BPF or the financial ombudsman.

 

The only part of this we found amusing was BPF's reply to our MP was that they knew the loan proceedings had been done correctly by Advent was because Advent had ticked the correct boxes? The loan was mis-sold.

 

Raymondo

Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of posts have been removed from this thread regarding requests to PM people for information on solicitors. Please note the site rules regarding touting and remember that this is a self help site. If you think there is a special reason that you should be exempt from this please email full details and ask permission by emailing [email protected] up.co.uk (without the spaces).

 

Please note my signature about help that requires payment.

 

Hi Caro. Apologies if we have broken any rules. I wasn't aware I had to contact the admins first.

 

I/we are not touting in any way. We have been in discussions with a lawyers firm who is looking at representing us against Barclays.

 

I will e-mail the address you have given me with the details.

 

Apologies again. No infraction was meant.

 

P.S - I tried to reply to your PM too but your inbox is full.

Edited by Tricla
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Caro for the information about court fees. I was made redundant over a year ago now, and if I do not have to pay court fees would mean that I can put in a claim against BPF sooner rather than later. Also furhter to my post on the 19th about my chat with the FOS adjudicator. He said to me that I could not make an assesment of Computeach until i joined/ accepted BPF offer only then would I be able to say if there was a breach of contract in relation to the course being different to Advents. What he failed to mention is that once the breach remedy is accepted, it leaves you with very little chance to bring a claim later on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Small claims threshold may change in April to £15000.00

So for students with loans & interest over £5000.00 it looks like you might be able to take on BPF in small claims court

with little or no cost like Fuzzbutt has done.

Go over to Martin Lewis's site...moneysavingexpert.com for the details.

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2011/03/small-claims-limit-could-rise-to-15000

 

With a six year deadline to challenge these things - everyone should still be within the time frame.

Hope someone from BPF is reading this, because if the government gets it's way,

Then we might ALL be coming after you.

Edited by lowdown
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Lowdown for the information, I may just hold on from filling my small claims now as the amount that I intend to claim i.e cost of the course, monies paid plus interest on that comes to over £7000.00.

On a different note I still do not understand how other students from Advent, doing exactly the same courses as us have been treated so differently by their Financial funder (Hitachi). Now im not saying that Hitachi is perfect, but most of their students got most of their money back. How with this in mind can The FOS be so blatantly biased towards BPF stance??. As far as I am concerned the whole idea of the Consumer Credit Act is to help consumers to get justice against financial institutions and not the other way round. A complete travesty if ever there was one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree there, Blade.That's good news too that Small Claims will be opened up to more people to use.

Barclays are really dredging the bottom now. They have supplied a defence document to Bristol Court that consists of basically an attempt at character assasination on me as they have no real evidence and proof of their claims that Computeach are the excellent replacement they claim. I really think they are shooting themselves in the foot now and a judge will see through the bluff and bluster. My day in court - bring it on!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fuzzbutt So BPF think that by character assaination they will get their way??, its a two way street if thats their game. Barclays have had the most customer complaints against them for the last two years, Their chief Ex Bob Diamond pay has been questioned by every top level minister in the UK, Their flagrant disrespect for any customer credit or consumer laws is legendary and you may want to mention PPI when they try to get on their high horse about not being involved in mis-selling in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, you're right there, Blade.I gave back a good volley (copied to the court) so let's see 'em argue that out, with copies of my original letters which showed how their Jonathan Orritt had tried to twist the meaning of my words by taking them out of context to give the impression I'd said I refused to continue my training (I'd actually written I didn't want to continue with an IT trainer chosen by Barclays but would prefer to select my own - very different meaning). Poor shot, shows how unscrupulous they are - and of course the old accussation their lawyer throws out all the time that the people refusing to continue with their Computeach enforcement are just showing 'buyers remorse' - patronising clap trap!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, you're right there, Blade.I gave back a good volley (copied to the court) so let's see 'em argue that out, with copies of my original letters which showed how their Jonathan Orritt had tried to twist the meaning of my words by taking them out of context to give the impression I'd said I refused to continue my training (I'd actually written I didn't want to continue with an IT trainer chosen by Barclays but would prefer to select my own - very different meaning). Poor shot, shows how unscrupulous they are - and of course the old accussation their lawyer throws out all the time that the people refusing to continue with their Computeach enforcement are just showing 'buyers remorse' - patronising clap trap!

 

 

Well my appeal adjudicator has just called me about BPF's reply and to talk about my claim and clear up a few things.

They have told him, that i have never intended to, or shown any intention of taking the provided course by Computeach, and that i am just trying to avoid payment.

He has agreed to send me all of BPF's response when he has reached an outcome.

It looks like this is their defence at the moment [bPF]

With my first adjudication and my appeal, i am now into nearly sixteen months with fos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their tactics are shameful, Lowdown. They have even contradicted themselves (and their beloved Computeach who had already told me in an email I would have to fork out a further £149 a month to continue with them after my end date on the Advent contract) - desperation! Take heart in that! They are clutching at straws now and we are turning the screws.16 months with FOS is really bad. I thought 11 months for a final decision was bad enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought 11 months for a final decision was bad enough.

 

Nearly Sixteen months - and no outcome of yet.

 

On another note - if anyone is part of the Facebook thing going on over Advent/BPF.

maybe they could spread the link about the change in Small Claims threshold ?

Stir the nest up again, i should imagine some people are really fed up and thinking there is know where to go.

But this could open up the flood gates.

Edited by lowdown
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lowdown i've been dealing with the FOS since july of 2010 and have to say for an organisation that is meant to help the consumer get justice it is extremely slow and rather biased towards businesses.

Have just been going through some old emails relating to advent and I have found some information regarding agressive marketing. Not only did I receive 3 letters about limited spaces and high demand for the course, but I also received three emails saying the same thing. On the mis-selling aspect the salesman told me that I would be able to study local to where I live, now considering I live in London, I only found out that all practical classes by Advent took place in Kidderminster when I rang to book a Practical Class. I have since found out that a number of other people were told the same lie about study location.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly Sixteen months - and no outcome of yet.

 

On another note - if anyone is part of the Facebook thing going on over Advent/BPF.

maybe they could spread the link about the change in Small Claims threshold ?

Stir the nest up again, i should imagine some people are really fed up and thinking there is know where to go.

But this could open up the flood gates.

 

Have done, Lowdown. Copied your post there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fuzzbutt, my name is Ray, I am seeking more & more information due to the fact that I am beginning legal action against BPF on behalf of my wife, the court papers are going to be drawn by a solicitor and I am representing her in court. We feel we have a case in respect of mis-selling of the loan and the fact that if my son had taken up the computeach offer he would of had to pay the extra £149 pm. Could you please let me know the name of the Facebook group so I can apply for membership?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ya Fuzzbutt,

 

My wife's case to FOS was turned down in early 2011, part of which included the Advent course being 'open ended' and other parts which included Section75 and the fact that my wife signed up as a garauntor for our son Joseph, when Advent went under we were told by BPF that they did not accept garauntors. So my question is that since that time FOS have ruled in favour on some of the points that I raised on behalf of my can I now go back to FOS on the same grounds?

 

Ray

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fuzzbutt in relation to BPF's assertion that you (and probably all of us) have 'Buyers Remorse' I have come across some online articles were Barclays have been done for Mis-selling. Although not directly related to the whole Advent issue, there is an indirect relationship whith Barclays handling of these cases. On all these cases Barclays had maintained for a long time that they had done nothing wrong and that the products that they were selling were not mis-sold.

http://unfaircontract.co.uk/news/barclays-apology-over-mis-selling-scandal

http://www.stepjournal.org/news/news/secondary_news/elderly_clients_to_get_compens.aspx

I also found a full case summary from the FSA relating to another matter, unfortunately I cant post it here as its in a PDF format. If anyone would like to see it I can PM it to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ya Fuzzbutt,

 

My wife's case to FOS was turned down in early 2011, part of which included the Advent course being 'open ended' and other parts which included Section75 and the fact that my wife signed up as a garauntor for our son Joseph, when Advent went under we were told by BPF that they did not accept garauntors. So my question is that since that time FOS have ruled in favour on some of the points that I raised on behalf of my can I now go back to FOS on the same grounds?

 

Ray

 

I think you'd best speak to your Adjudicator, Ray.The auto speller seems to have 'corrected' the Advent Facebook spelling in my last post. It should read Advent sc***mmed us (rymes with rammed us). Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fuzzbutt in relation to BPF's assertion that you (and probably all of us) have 'Buyers Remorse' I have come across some online articles were Barclays have been done for Mis-selling. Although not directly related to the whole Advent issue, there is an indirect relationship whith Barclays handling of these cases. On all these cases Barclays had maintained for a long time that they had done nothing wrong and that the products that they were selling were not mis-sold.

http://unfaircontract.co.uk/news/barclays-apology-over-mis-selling-scandal

http://www.stepjournal.org/news/news/secondary_news/elderly_clients_to_get_compens.aspx

I also found a full case summary from the FSA relating to another matter, unfortunately I cant post it here as its in a PDF format. If anyone would like to see it I can PM it to you.

 

Nice find, Blade. Interesting article on Barclays mis-selling funds and apologising in the Financial Mail. Let's hope we get an apology pretty soon too and all our money back.Sadly my MP has been pretty useless - don't think I even got a reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lowdown i've been dealing with the FOS since july of 2010 and have to say for an organisation that is meant to help the consumer get justice it is extremely slow and rather biased towards businesses.

Have just been going through some old emails relating to advent and I have found some information regarding agressive marketing. Not only did I receive 3 letters about limited spaces and high demand for the course, but I also received three emails saying the same thing. On the mis-selling aspect the salesman told me that I would be able to study local to where I live, now considering I live in London, I only found out that all practical classes by Advent took place in Kidderminster when I rang to book a Practical Class. I have since found out that a number of other people were told the same lie about study location.

 

I was told I could study in London or Eastbourne. I subsequently found out as you did, that all classes were in Kidderminster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Penny, I intend to use this as part of my mis-selling against Advent/ BPF. This was a blatant lie from the Advent salesperson, and I have found another guy in Maidstone and one in Manchester that where told the same thing. If you need me to coroborate this with either the Ombudsman or Courts let me know, and if you dont mind doing the same for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...