Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/
    • I called my GP surgery and offered to jump in car and turn up at no notice if they got no shows and was told 'thats simply not happening' When I pointed out that the BBC had raised the issue I was quite bruskly interrupted (unusual at my surgery) and told the media is spouting rubbish which is helping no-one.   I do know that hospital/vaccination center staff are/have been given doses from failed attendances. presumably managed locally   We need to understand that patients can call again, but the vaccination doses are and will remain for some time limited and waste (including relying on others turning up after one failure to turn up) is to be avoided at all costs   There is also the issue of managing the second dose (errr) for those who are given one out of sequence. Let alone any questions regarding that being 'approved'     Personally I would be happy getting one dose early whatever happened later.  (one different vaccine, two matching, no other, whatever)  
    • A cross-party group of 70 MPs are pushing for buy-now-pay-later firms to be regulated within three months View the full article
    • Slightly off topic , just a quick question    another debt with Capquest - been ignoring for ages as refuses to supply signed docs and statement of account    finally supplied a list of transaction they say is from original creditor , but just an excel list of 29 transactions , no title , no account number ,  no headings   literally just a list of numbers on a Capquest paper - with Capquest small print in the footer .   obviously , I can see there is nothing to tie this list of numbers to me -    im looking for a good paragraph to send back    like *   Thanks for a list of numbers you have typed with no references , titles, account numbers or anything to show this is an original creditors statement , this is not my statement , and has not been provided by the creditor on creditor paperwork I j the format of a statement -  please provide as required the original statement as required by ..........     can you help ?
  • Our picks

    • 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
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1909 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...