Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 'The bluff could be that they haven't filed it at the court by the earlier date, but they hope hope that I submit mine by the first deadline, which I have now done. Gives them a chance to look at my WS, make any changes to theirs and then actually use the later date to file their papers at the court, having had the benefit of looking at my WS     Who knows, these solicitors maybe me smarter poker players than we thinkk lol'     It seems that the claimant solicitors actually outsmarted me. They submitted the first Bundle before on the 1st deadline of 18 of January. I submitted the defence before that date as per court orders.   They then sneaked in the supplementary WS before the second deadline of 1st feb 2021, having benefited from covering any loopholes that I had of them in my defence WS.   So in the supplementary WS, they have produced the contract, they have said that any extra irrelevant signages in their initial set of exhibits were clerical errors and have produced a much tidier crisper WS . I wish I had not now submitted my defence by the 18th of jan 2021, but rather waited till the 1st of Feb 2021. 
    • Can I just suggest one thing   Ask them how the subframe broke and say you would like them to explain how changing a cv joint affects the sub frame   I'm not an expert but I've changed cv joints in the past and never needed to touch the subframe on a car   The axle itself might pass through the subframe but removing the cv joint usually just entails cracking the old one off with a split bar   I can't help but wonder if they've braced it against the subframe and that's why it's broken 
    • it wouldn't have gone to a (your?) local county court as you didn't reply to the claimform. northants bulk would have dealt with it as it was a default judgement.    
    • Thank you so much for the reply. I have tried to call the court (Torbay & Newton Abbot) but they are short staffed so cant answer ;-( Does the discharge mean it has been thrown out?   On the report is is just marked as the court date 10th December 2020 and under that Discharged. Thank you!
    • I need to repair the lead flashing on my side of a firewall on the roof of a Victorian terrace. It will involve hacking off the cement on my side, installing new lead and reapplying cement. Do I have to notify my neighbour under the party wall act before getting this work done? I was under the impression minor work was not notifiable. I would consider this minor work. From the party wall act:   "Some works on a party wall may be so minor that service of notice under the Act would be generally regarded as not necessary. Things like:  drilling into a party wall to fix plugs and screws for ordinary wall units or shelving  cutting into a party wall to add or replace recessed electric wiring and sockets  removing old plaster and replastering may all be too minor to require a notice under the Act."   The neighbour has got wind of what I am doing and has asked for written grantees that I will cover the cost of any impact on his side and is threatening to invoke the party wall act if I don't I don't want to write him a blank cheque as his side of the firewall is probably is as bad a condition as my side.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1947 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Cheers Raymondo, by the end of the week I wil be putting a letter together for the ombudsman, I have now finished with the FOS adjudicators and am now waiting for an Ombudsman. Once the letter is drafted I will write a post here for names of people that where also mis-sold (Location of study) their Advent course by their sales people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ya Blade once again my experience of FOS the ombudsman will send you exactly the same reply as the adjudicators have already done, also their use of Section 75 is very questionable for in the case of miss selling they do not seem to understand that even though you miss sold the product this still leaves you as the consumer, they will rule the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Ya Blade once again my experience of FOS the ombudsman will send you exactly the same reply as the adjudicators have already done, also their use of Section 75 is very questionable for in the case of miss selling they do not seem to understand that even though you miss sold the product this still leaves you as the consumer, they will rule the opposite.

 

Yes, I had an almost word for word copy reply from the senior ombudsman, who seemed to just echo what the adjudicator Megan Webster had written. I really don't believe FOS are competent to rule in many cases and the knowledge and legal experience of many of their adjudicators varies so much it's pot luck who you get.

One FOS adjudicator has ruled however that a PPI student was mis-sold the course and ordered Barclays refund her.http://adventstudents.webs.com/apps/blog/entries/show/8935879-fos-rules-in-favour-of-ppl-student

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ya I read that about the PPI, the one thing about this and and FUZZBUTT's forthcoming court hearing is that what we all need is for one case to win and a ruling by the FOS or court could turn everything into our favour, my wife's Union solicitor feels very confident about her case for it is her who has intimated that one in favour of Advent students, she is also the one who suggested that we take our back to FOS and remind them of Section 75 in respect of my wife for because of Amanda Norcott my wife was a consumer from Advent, which she was not as well as from Barclays.

 

Raymondo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Fuzzbutt thanks for the link, having read through it I decided to to check some old documents that I have from the Advents salesman and on it he had written how much I would be earning once I passed the MCDST. Now I intend to present this to the Ombudsman and if he does not do anything with, then the courts. I also have a letter with his writting on it, so if push comes to shove I will get a hand writting expert to verify it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Report back - well, I gave it my best shot, guys. Got in 1hr ago. To be honest it was pretty daunting and I felt a little out of my depth at times. I think I underestimated the situation as it was a court room situation.

 

Still no verdict though as the judge wanted to study all the material in detail which is a good thing I suppose. BPF sent their 'big guns' from London, 3 members of their legal team and Jonathan Orritt himself (HA HA - guess I should be flattered!)

 

BPF played on the fact I claimed mis-selling but had not raised a complaint at the time with Advent, then that I had insisted on a refund before I knew CT had been the replacement. This, they said, was proof that I had no intention of finishing a course, whoever they found as a replacement. Therefore I had 'buyers remorse' -crafty move. I retaliated with I had no confidence in Barclays finding a decent replacement and had understood that S75 covered us in that Barclays had to refund us automatically when Advent went down. Also raised my evidence that CT was a poor replacement but the judge said my quoting comments from CAG and FB forums was not relevant, only my own experience. I raised the class action, that many others had the same experience of false promises, that CT were slagged off by current customers and had been taken to Dudley Trading Standards for poor service, out of date material and unachievable exam goals - again, I had loads of quotes from various forums but as this was not MY evidence/experience it was very wobbly.

 

The judge, to be fair, challenged a lot of what their solicitor said and cut him short more than once and asked him to qualify his comment. When he claimed 'buyers remorse' nonsense and stated I had proven that I'd had no intention of completiing any course I burst out that BPFs accusations were just supposition and presumption. The judge agreed.

 

I did my best and in my sum up said why did BPF think it was 'fair and reasonable' that they forced Computeach onto me? I cited the LACORS doc and that BPF had no legal right to enforce this company onto me.

 

BPF offered me a deal outside court. The judge asked all parties to take 5 mins to discuss in a recess. The best they had was I could finish my course with CT and I'd never have to pay any more money (goal posts moved again!).

Umm - I didn't want CT in the first pace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
no verdict though as the judge wanted to study all the material in detail

 

This is very unusual for the small claims track. When will you get a judgement? If it is deferred you may also get some decent reasoning rather than a simple 'team a wins. bye'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Report back - well, I gave it my best shot, guys. Got in 1hr ago. To be honest it was pretty daunting and I felt a little out of my depth at times. I think I underestimated the situation as it was a court room situation.

 

Still no verdict though as the judge wanted to study all the material in detail which is a good thing I suppose. BPF sent their 'big guns' from London, 3 members of their legal team and Jonathan Orritt himself (HA HA - guess I should be flattered!)

 

BPF played on the fact I claimed mis-selling but had not raised a complaint at the time with Advent, then that I had insisted on a refund before I knew CT had been the replacement. This, they said, was proof that I had no intention of finishing a course, whoever they found as a replacement. Therefore I had 'buyers remorse' -crafty move. I retaliated with I had no confidence in Barclays finding a decent replacement and had understood that S75 covered us in that Barclays had to refund us automatically when Advent went down. Also raised my evidence that CT was a poor replacement but the judge said my quoting comments from CAG and FB forums was not relevant, only my own experience. I raised the class action, that many others had the same experience of false promises, that CT were slagged off by current customers and had been taken to Dudley Trading Standards for poor service, out of date material and unachievable exam goals - again, I had loads of quotes from various forums but as this was not MY evidence/experience it was very wobbly.

 

The judge, to be fair, challenged a lot of what their solicitor said and cut him short more than once and asked him to qualify his comment. When he claimed 'buyers remorse' nonsense and stated I had proven that I'd had no intention of completiing any course I burst out that BPFs accusations were just supposition and presumption. The judge agreed.

 

I did my best and in my sum up said why did BPF think it was 'fair and reasonable' that they forced Computeach onto me? I cited the LACORS doc and that BPF had no legal right to enforce this company onto me.

 

BPF offered me a deal outside court. The judge asked all parties to take 5 mins to discuss in a recess. The best they had was I could finish my course with CT and I'd never have to pay any more money (goal posts moved again!).

Umm - I didn't want CT in the first pace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is very unusual for the small claims track. When will you get a judgement? If it is deferred you may also get some decent reasoning rather than a simple 'team a wins. bye'

 

I don't know, Kraken.Judge said he will write to me and BPF. I'm waiting to hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fuzz, Good for you Hopefully the judge will see exactly what's going on here. You have been brilliant and whatever happens you tried your best and I for one am grateful for everything you've done.

I read here that as you are defending yourself the court is more considerate . Hopefully the outcome will be in your favour. Boy bet you're exhausted. Will you just get the outcome sent to you? and that'll be the end of it?

Have a good rest you've earned it :grouphug::

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, You're super brave Fuzzbutt. If i'd been confronted with 3 lawyers and stuff i'd have probably wet myself. Well done on seeing it through. Whatever happens you've helped out a lot of people over this and I for one am very grateful for all your time and investigations and everything. Here's hoping you still get the answer you (we!!) need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys - I really appreciate your supportive words.

 

Hopefully I'll know by end of the week. The judge did speak of a telephone conference option with BPF in London when he's reached a verdict.

 

I mentioned the LACORS doc and included it in my evidence pack. I got a chance to question Mr Orritt in court as he was dragged up as Barclays witness and when I challenged him why did he think Barclays had the right to enforce CT he couldn't answer. Judge would have noted that I hope as he remarked 'that is exactly what I have to decide on now'. The lawyer, Mr Duffy, was pretty smug but all he had on me really was a claim of 'buyers remorse' and a lot of supposition.

 

I felt I didn't get a chance to make a lot of my points strongly enough as the lawyer kept going back to the supposed 'bespoke' issue, which I pointed out I knew nothing of and CT refused to give me anything in writing when I called, no terms and conditions or course breakdown etc - which Ingrid at Hausfeld had said we should at least have before signing up. He kept clutching at straws he could not prove so I think they were rattled. He couldn't look me in the face at one point.

 

Fingers crossed, eh? :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Fuzzbutt you have been an inspiration to us all. Regardless of the judges decision I will be filing court papers around April. Im sure BPF have already got their letters about taking us all to court already typed up, but that will not be stopping me. The use of the term 'Buyers Remorse' is a complete insult to all consumers, and the laws that govern consumers choice. They are making a complete mockery of Section 75.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wandering that since BPF were able to bring a witness would that also apply to us? and if it does it might be the way to approach any future cases against BPF in future. We could ask ex Computeach students to be witnesses for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well done Fuzzbutt you have been an inspiration to us all. Regardless of the judges decision I will be filing court papers around April. Im sure BPF have already got their letters about taking us all to court already typed up, but that will not be stopping me. The use of the term 'Buyers Remorse' is a complete insult to all consumers, and the laws that govern consumers choice. They are making a complete mockery of Section 75.

 

Thanks, Blade - and yes, I agree, Barclays are making a complete mockery of S75 and insulting their own customers.

 

I think the last offer at court by them (upping the offer from just 'we will arrange with CT you can take as long as you like' to 'and not pay any more at all' shows how desperate they were that a judge does not make a ruling on this as they KNOW they are on shaky ground. I'm sure it was not made as a 'gesture of goodwill' but a panic not to let this go further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been on shaky ground from the very beginning. Had they done the morally right thing as opposed to the corporate greed one, then everyone here would have had the choice to carry on or leave without the near two years of aggrevation. In my case I will definetly be calling a fingerprint expert as witness.

Link to post
Share on other sites


. I got a chance to question Mr Orritt in court as he was dragged up as Barclays witness and when I challenged him why did he think Barclays had the right to enforce CT he couldn't answer. Judge would have noted that
:-(

 

He would normally have answered that with honouring s75 that's been their warcry but couldn't do that spin in a court so shows the rubbish they been telling us.The bespoke is a smokescreen they invented and are hiding behind I hope it gets blown away. They wanted all us to sign up to a company blindly without any thought or consideration just obey them shut up and pay up :!: sussed that out at the start.

 

I will be very surprised if this goes against you Fuzz as if it had been straightforward you'd probably have been told there and then I imagine. Hope you get your good news soon this has been a long haul.

When this started BRW here advised we get a folder and keep every letter and send any letters recorded delivery and he said 6 months from now it would be useful if we went to court, WELL I thought WHAT? 6months I thought it'll be sorted out in a couple weeks haha was I wrong!:oops:! 2years later we are still here and if they raise the small claims threshold to £15.000 I might be able to do something but until they do that I'm stuck in limbo.or I'll just ignore them for 3 or 4 more years. :lalala:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...