Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The reason that I have indicated that it is the seller who should bring an action against Hermes is not because they are the seller – but because they are the person who suffered the loss. If you haven't suffered a loss then you probably don't have the status – locus standi – to bring a court action. Of course there is a slight problem that you didn't enter into the contract with Hermes – the purchaser did. Until 1999 this would have been a problem and would have prevented you from bringing any kind of action at all – at least on the basis of contract. However, since 1999, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act gives the beneficiary of any contract full third party rights as if they were a contracting party. The only exception to this is that if the contract specifically excluded non-contracting parties – and I'm not aware that Hermes has yet amended their contract to try and prevent this. Of course as usual, Hermes will make a big point about the fact that no insurance was purchased. Hopefully you have been reading around the threads on this sub- forum and you have seen that our view is that it is completely unfair and in fact it is absurd to require a customer to pay money to protect Hermes or any other service provider from the consequences of their own negligence or the criminality of their own employees. Every time this point has been raised with Hermes in mediation, Hermes have settled and we consider that it is because they want to avoid going to court to get a definitive judgement that their insurance scam – is precisely that – a scam. On the basis of what I understand here, this is more than just negligence there is criminality and your bike has been stolen. You've already begun a complaint and you have been knocked back and so I think there's no point in mucking around and I think that you should simply issue a letter of claim to Hermes giving them 14 days to settle in full or else you will begin a court action. Make sure that you have read around the forum about taking a small claim in the County Court. It's very easy but you need to be aware of the steps. If you send the letter of claim, then don't expect that they are suddenly going to refund you your money. They won't. They will force you to issue the court papers and who will then force you to pay the hearing fee. At this point, they will opt for mediation and they will try to knock you down and get your compromise in your claim. You should stand your ground and refused to compromise even a single penny. We will help you all the way. You seem to be a seller and a purchaser here who are getting on very well together and so as you are motivated by a common purpose, you may want to get an agreement where you decide to share the fees of court action – which won't be very much. I haven't checked the court fees for this value claim – but I expect that the whole thing will be only about £120. Of course you will get that back when you win – but bear in mind there is a is a slight risk factor and that means that £120 would be the extent of your risk and would be the maximum that you would lose. It is inconceivable that you would lose. You should be claiming the cost of the bike, the cost of delivery, plus interest which is presently 8% – a very good rate in today's economic climate. Of course you will also claim back your court fees. If you want to proceed then please let us know and let us know also that you have read around the stories and also the steps involved taking a small claim in the County Court and that you understand what you are doing. If you do your basic reading over the next couple of days then we can help you draft a letter of claim on Sunday and you can send it off on Monday. I would recommend that you post your draft letter of claim on this forum so we can check it. Keep it short and to the point.
    • That's what keeps divorce lawyers and mediators in work, I suppose. You think he's being unreasonable and he thinks you are.   My gut feeling is that it would be better to have this agreed in writing so it can't be challenged later, but that's just my opinion. Here's more information from the CAB in case it covers something you haven't already considered.   HB
    • Biden doesn't seem bothered about negotiating a trade treaty to suit the UK government's timetable. I don't suppose they saw this coming, not that the amount of trade involved makes up for what's being lost with Europe anyway.   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-usa-trade-deal-b1807616.html
    • No we haven’t mentioned divorce yet The fair split is I give him half the equity and anything he wants to take from the house  I just feel he is now being unreasonable because I won’t change my mind and take him back 
    • Hi.   Have you spoken to a divorce lawyer or has your husband? Trying to look at this from the outside, it sounds as if it would be better to agree a fair split according to divorce law rather than deciding between you.   Sadly, once money becomes involved things can become more complicated, but I'd have thought a divorce lawyer would be able to advise.   ETA: Here's some advice from the government.   HB
  • 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

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.

 

Totally agree Blade this could have been dealt with respect they have shown they are arrogant and uncaring and have caused people to be ill with the stress of it all. on your other point Blade... they won't take us to court they would have done it before now passing it to debt collectors shows they are unlikely to get what they want in court. I have a couple of points that they would have difficulty explaining Good luck with your case let us know how it goes too if you need support and help, starting a thread of your own here the guys would keep you right and give you pointers.

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

Totally agree and yes, that's it in a nutshell - they went mysteriously quiet when I raised the S75 did not state a company had a right to enforce it's own solution. :-x

 

They know it's game over and I agree Bluedo, if the judge was sure they were right he'd have made his decision there and then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey mate. Just thought (like the others) i'd say that you are a huge inspriration and hope you get the outcome you have been working so hard for over the last 2 years.

 

I salute you :peace:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed all this for some reason had no notice of postings

 

Fuzzbutt I think BPF are trying to get you to sign up to a deal in the hope you will be a one off..

otherwise a rulling from a judge could well start a president that all other cases follow..

its a shame he cant order BPF to stop and sort it all out for all customers.

 

Did you mention that there are many hundreds more in same positions with BPF ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I missed all this for some reason had no notice of postings

 

Fuzzbutt I think BPF are trying to get you to sign up to a deal in the hope you will be a one off..

otherwise a rulling from a judge could well start a president that all other cases follow..

its a shame he cant order BPF to stop and sort it all out for all customers.

 

Did you mention that there are many hundreds more in same positions with BPF ?

 

Yep, mentioned the class action with Hausfeld and I think the judge would take that on board, that I was part of a big group with similar issues.

They certainly did try to get me to sign up to a deal - and I told them to shove it (literally!):tsk::laser:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I missed all this for some reason had no notice of postings

 

Fuzzbutt I think BPF are trying to get you to sign up to a deal in the hope you will be a one off..

otherwise a rulling from a judge could well start a president that all other cases follow..

 

This was what happened in the early days of people reclaiming bank charges. The banks just coughed up to anyone who stood up to them because they didn't want to go to court.

 

Personally I think you may be a bit optimistic expecting a decision in a matter of days, and I also think it's a sign the matter's being taken very seriously by the judge.

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
can anyone refresh me.. what is this LACORS doc.. I dont remember anything about it

 

It's a paper produced by what was the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (now the Local Government Regulation Body) which, while not being a legal document, clearly gives a steer on S75 from them. It states S75 does not give any right for a bank/company to impose it's own preference of alternative provider in a situation such as ours.

 

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

 

Read Sect 3 particularly, 10pack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This was what happened in the early days of people reclaiming bank charges. The banks just coughed up to anyone who stood up to them because they didn't want to go to court.

 

Personally I think you may be a bit optimistic expecting a decision in a matter of days, and I also think it's a sign the matter's being taken very seriously by the judge.

 

I hope so, Caro. I'm hoping it's a good sign.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a paper produced by what was the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (now the Local Government Regulation Body) which, while not being a legal document, clearly gives a steer on S75 from them. It states S75 does not give any right for a bank/company to impose it's own preference of alternative provider in a situation such as ours.

 

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

 

Read Sect 3 particularly, 10pack.

 

yes I remember seeing this document, just did not remember the name of it..

 

when I read it.. it was almost as if one of us had written the document .. the example scenrio, its so close to our situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had email with final report from PKF ...yes the piggys have had the snouts in the trough..

 

they sold our details to computeach for £200,000 .. then they charged £208,000 + some extra incidentals for the pleasure of their services.

 

so by the time the hbos bank had a chance to take anything that was left.. there was sod all left to pay to those poor sods who paid cash up front for their training.

 

what was the point of employing this company that was obviously going to charge a small fortune to mess about for so many hours (years!) and charge £178 an hour for it (how about working for minimum wage guys).

yes another example of how we get shafted after being done over by advent and bpf.

 

they even give an explanation of how you can access their charge costs which frankly do not bear thinking about.

 

They are so matter of fact about it its their right they have earned it and will take everything to make sure they get paid before any students gets a penny.. Just like the banks with their bonus.. they all think they deserve to paid obscene amounts of money!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys this may be useful for those of you planning on a small claims against BPF at a later date. Section 8.1.2 in particular, it more or less tells you that if you have accepted Computeach (as recommended by the FOS) on a trial basis, you have more or less accepted BPF's breach of contract remedy. And any future attempt to claim for breach of contract would be severly hindered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ya Guys My wife has just received the reply from |FOS in regard to her questioning of his previous decision, again he did not believe her truthful claim that the loan was mis-sold, she also claimed again under S75 he did not accept that either nor did he know anything about the recent decision made by another ombudsman therefore he did not see it as being relevant. In essence nothing has changed since May 2011, apart from the fact that he apologised for inferring that he did not believe her, but he did not believe her. So my son for whom she had originally signed as gaurantor is now going to make a claim using the ombudsmans definiton of S75.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys this may be useful for those of you planning on a small claims against BPF at a later date. Section 8.1.2 in particular, it more or less tells you that if you have accepted Computeach (as recommended by the FOS) on a trial basis, you have more or less accepted BPF's breach of contract remedy. And any future attempt to claim for breach of contract would be severly hindered.

 

At the time when BPF offered computeach even though we did not know this.. the general feeling at the time was to not even login to computeach in case it meant we accepted computeach even though we did not want them.

 

I think that was part of their stratagey at the time hoping that in our ignorance we would be our own undoing..

and see.. we are supposed to be their customers.. not their enemy... and all along they was scr*wing with us

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys this may be useful for those of you planning on a small claims against BPF at a later date. Section 8.1.2 in particular, it more or less tells you that if you have accepted Computeach (as recommended by the FOS) on a trial basis, you have more or less accepted BPF's breach of contract remedy. And any future attempt to claim for breach of contract would be severly hindered.

 

I suspected at the beginning they would do that, I never contacted them at all there was no point I wanted nothing to do with them. They have tried everything to get us to go with CT,

There are a few who have went to CT and are not happy and have left and are witholding payment again. So bfp will not be caring as that will be their chance scuppered now their fight wll be with CT That is a scandal to treat people like that Thanks for that link Blade it's very interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
At the time when BPF offered computeach even though we did not know this.. the general feeling at the time was to not even login to computeach in case it meant we accepted computeach even though we did not want them.

 

I think that was part of their stratagey at the time hoping that in our ignorance we would be our own undoing..

and see.. we are supposed to be their customers.. not their enemy... and all along they was scr*wing with us

 

I remember that 10pack we just knew something wasn't right verifying your details was in fact signing up to them and that wasn't right.So glad we never fell for it. To-night I've been looking through the old posts it's amazing how much info is there and refreshes your memory as to all the searching and late nights we had trying to find our way in the maze of legalities.

I watched this last night and it would actually make you puke I thought you may be interested 10packit's about corruption in the banks remembering they are Global and all the same. http://vimeo.com/25491676

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Ya Guys My wife has just received the reply from |FOS in regard to her questioning of his previous decision, again he did not believe her truthful claim that the loan was mis-sold, she also claimed again under S75 he did not accept that either nor did he know anything about the recent decision made by another ombudsman therefore he did not see it as being relevant. In essence nothing has changed since May 2011, apart from the fact that he apologised for inferring that he did not believe her, but he did not believe her. So my son for whom she had originally signed as gaurantor is now going to make a claim using the ombudsmans definiton of S75.

 

Raymondo I am in the same position my father signed the FOS has proved to be a waste of time and not believing your wife is a complete insult

There is a part regarding guarantors in the Lacors document that says financial providers will argue s75 does not apply yet in the fact they offer an alternative provider is proving they do believe it does apply or they would have no need to offer the new provider. It also upholds the 4way contract in court. I don't understand why the FOS has took this stance. Hopefully we will get justice.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...