Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I Submitted my defence last weekend,. In short, denying all allegations and requesting that the claim be struck out as claimant has no documents to support their claim and  have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that any monies are owed to them by me and I considered it an abuse of process.   I have now received their directions questionnaire where they are championing 'Mediation over the telephone'   Should I agree to mediation once I receive the questionnaire from the court bearing in mind the dispute is about the existence of the alleged account and the lack of documents to prove it exists/ existed?   All I can say in mediation is that I've never heard of the account...... Do Lowell have to provide documents to the mediator?    Thanks in advance for any advice offered and sorry if the answers can be found elsewhere, but I'm not sure where to look 🤓   Spam 
    • Thank you all for the comments.. I hope to get a transcription of the recording, but I don't know if that's possible. I have asked the Court so will see what comes back. This is an overview and may not be exact wording..    I'll add the highlights from what I understood.. [both Judge & Mr D were well into the legal jargon].. some of the more technical discussion was lost on me..   Opening Statements.. VCS......Events from Incident to Court summons.. pretty much the WS opening Me........Night time, bad weather, bad visibility, children in danger walking on the road so "Signs" were not very clear VCS......Pictures on their WS were in daylight. Picture of the car we very blurry due to the rain. VCS agreed it was bad.. Me........Kangaroo Court - Every drop down on the appeal site is an admission of some sort of guilt. Needs to be an "Other" in case your situation doesn.t match Judge...Asked for clarification on POFA from VCS  VCS......Explained POFA in his terms and what he understood Judge...Was it a Parking event? VCS......No, it was a Stopping event Judge...Asked VCS who owns the land.. he didn't know so I told him Southend Council owns the freehold of the airport, but it has been leased since 1994 to London Southend Airport Company Limited Judge...Surprised VCS didn't know that Judge...Asked VCS if the Contract is relevant? VCS......Yes,  Judge...Still not clear VCS......Quoted VCS v Ward & Idle..  Me........That's not in your WS so is it admissible? Judge...That's not relevant in this case.. he had a quick look. Judge...Is the land relevant VCS......No real valid response, referred to VCS contract with the airport. Me........Why is Mr Wasi the paralegal not here as he may know? Judge...Section 46 refers to Parking/Waiting. Me........It all refers to Parking.. and I was not parked or waiting.. ## I expect Simple will see this as a loophole so may change it ##   Closing Statements: Me........VCS are aggressive in all their actions, as you can see by the Letters in their WS.. I also went through all the Arguments at a high level, such as Bye-Laws, Road Traffic Act [Public access etc.., the POFA discussed Parking, not Stopping, PO Box on the Signs, no address. VCS......Pretty much same as the Opening statement as far as I remember..    Judge...   Car was stopped for 30 seconds Multiple Signs The Driver "did" enter into a Contract as they entered the airport But.... Does POFA apply Needs distinction Stopped not Parked Only applies to Parking Judge referred VCS to Jopson v Homeguard 👍  Defendant wins the case & is not obliged to pay VCS any Fines   Judge to VCS... do you want to Appeal VCS.. Yes Sir................... but after 20 seconds he changed his mind to No Sir, no appeal at this time..  Judge to VCS... you have 3 weeks to appeal if you change your mind.   So.. VCS may appeal, but I had a feeling that he may have been tapped on the shoulder and advised to say No.. at the time..     ### As far as I can remember, this is how it went down ###.
    • Let us know when the hearing date has been set and then we will try to help you sort out your arguments and your documents. You will need to submit a court bundle. Please follow the court bundle link
  • 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 1948 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

Kraken is right, I understand, on the issue of mitigation.

 

I can't appeal as such as I have won the case and could only appeal if a) I thought the judge had made the wrong decision and ignored legal issues (he's applied S75 to the letter, it seems) or b) there had been some procedural failure in the way the court was run.

 

What IS unfair is the amount, from my perspective, which I can query and demonstrate a reason why I disagree with the award, so I believe.

 

I have been awarded costs (don't know how much yet until I get the court letter) but I shall certainly be writing to Barclays with a letter of disgust, national press and OFT (who asked me to let them know outcome).

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

Kraken is right, I understand, on the issue of mitigation.

 

I can't appeal as such as I have won the case and could only appeal if a) I thought the judge had made the wrong decision and ignored legal issues (he's applied S75 to the letter, it seems) or b) there had been some procedural failure in the way the court was run.

 

What IS unfair is the amount, from my perspective, which I can query and demonstrate a reason why I disagree with the award, so I believe.

 

I have been awarded costs (don't know how much yet until I get the court letter) but I shall certainly be writing to Barclays with a letter of disgust, national press and OFT (who asked me to let them know outcome).

 

Bet after your judgement... they will try to use the judgement as it stands so that barclays only have to pay for any cheaper options.. book tokens for waterstones perhaps.. while still paying back a loan for thousands for a product not received

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I am not a lawyer, and English is not my first language so pls bear with me but I guess what I was referring to is close to "expectation damage" in Brit legalese speak; in other words, by not being provided with the service as promised and paid for, Fizzbutt has suffered a damage - wasting time, upset career plans etc. Isn't this a very viable argument that the court should have taken into consideration? Unless you are criminally young (joking! :razz:) and don't care much about time wasted, time is a critical factor for those of us who are just too old to afford making a mistake (trying to avoid saying the number).

 

Besides, shouldn't people have a choice whether to accept a refund, or a suitable replacement - and if they don't want the replacement for whatever reason (I don't see why you should give a reason at all), it is their right to decide?

 

P.S. Are there any provisions in theoriginal contract about what happens if the course provider goes bust?

Edited by fractal
Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately I am not a lawyer, and English is not my first language so pls bear with me but I guess what I was referring to is close to "expectation damage" in Brit legalese speak; in other words, by not being provided with the service as promised and paid for, Fizzbutt has suffered a damage - wasting time, upset career plans etc. Isn't this a very viable argument that the court should have taken into consideration? Unless you are criminally young (joking! :razz:) and don't care much about time wasted, time is a critical factor for those of us who are just too old to afford making a mistake (trying to avoid saying the number).

 

Besides, shouldn't people have a choice whether to accept a refund, or a suitable replacement - and if they don't want the replacement for whatever reason (I don't see why you should give a reason at all), it is their right to decide?

 

P.S. Are there any provisions in theoriginal contract about what happens if the course provider goes bust?

 

yes time was also an issue with me.. I am over 50 and to think that I had years of study in front of me was not the best thing I could think of doing at this time, but I wanted to be a microsoft qualified programmer.. and I did complain to advent rep as to why I need to to a technicians course.. he said it was a foundation course.. I did not see the point, I can build computers with my eyes closed

Link to post
Share on other sites
what I was referring to is close to "expectation damage" in Brit legalese speak; in other words, by not being provided with the service as promised and paid for, Fizzbutt has suffered a damage - wasting time, upset career plans etc. Isn't this a very viable argument that the court should have taken into consideration?

 

There is a principle of expectation loss in English law. This is useful: http://www.gillhams.com/articles/394.cfm. I think you are perhaps really alluding to 'reliance loss' akin to anglia tv v reed. Either way, it is all still related to a loss and that needs to be quantified. 'Non pecuniary losses', whilst awarded, are usually nominal. The primary aim is to get you what you contracted for. There are even instances of the court awarding reasonable amounts of money to allow someone to get what they paid for. Ruxely Electronics is a good example of the too-ing and fro-ing that can go on. If I buy a certain car for 20k, and then the dealership fails to deliver, but I can get the same car from another dealership for 25k, then I can claim the extra 5k it cost me. If it is the same car for the same cost, I can't claim. If I buy it and realise that paying 20k for a Chevvy Matiz was a poor move, then I can't do anything about it. There is no law against making a bad bargain.

 

With these claims it is partly about the service, but also about the outcome. Arguably, it is more about the outcome. The ends justify the means as it were. A well delivered degree course, with excellent teaching and fantastic facilities is worth nothing without the award at the end of it. You need the letters after your name for any of it to be worth anything. Also the court would ask what has caused the delay - is it Barclays sodding around (a three month delay before trying to provide an alternative) or the delay taken through litigation and dispute? If the latter then a claim is questionable. That is why, all along the key question has always been is it the same course and qualification?

 

I don't want to sound negative, but you'll see from all my comments on this and the other thread that I've taken this view all along. I first came across this when asked for help with the problem. I didn't suggest fighting because of all these problems - it all comes back to breach of contract and how that can be fixed. It is also partly due to the fact that advent were fairly rubbish to start with I think. I'll fight to the ends of the earth if I think I stand a chance, but on this I advised settling. They took the CT option in the end I think. Not sure how it all turned out for them. I think they finished the course, but it didn't help them get a job.

 

To use Fuzz's analogy:

 

"If I'd bought a car on loan and the dealership had collapsed before they were able to deliver it and the bank had sent me round a second-hand bike instead, would I have been treated the same way?"

 

I think what happened is that people bought a second hand bike for £5000 and so then this is what was delivered. After all, if Advent had been any good, why'd they go under? I know Barclays pulled the plug on them, but they must have had a reason. The cynic in me feels that it was a commercial decision - it was cheaper to deal with this mess than the fall-out if they'd carried on. Paying out for a couple of years of students must be better than regularly paying out every year?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the links (and patience), Kraken. I suppose I might have been alluding to non-pecuniary Expectation Loss as well as Restitution (acc. to the gillhams link).

 

Hopefully one day someone will write a Survival Guide to Law for Dummies.

 

Good luck, Fuzzbeat (and all other Advent-urers)!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've posted my court letter with an update explanation here on my website. Please feel free to refer to it (case ref number is on the letter).

 

http://adventstudents.webs.com/courtverdict.htm

 

Thanks for posting the letter Fuzz I feel for you, if you don't mind me saying it's a complete disgrace. I understand you were highlighting the absurdity of the cost of the courses and exposing the rip off. I wouldn't have seen that coming either,that they would use it as a settlement is galling. Did he not understand the point being made.also the bigger picture, I thought at least you would have a substantial refund.if not full refund as the end result was not achieved, OK at least you've shown that Computeach can't be forced on us that's a big win btw. but it's from start to finish been a complete disaster.Brick wall after Brick wall jeez makes you mad what you've went through and the work you done has not went without gratitude here and on FB so Thank You Fuzz. I'm also disgusted at the amount of regulatory bodies out there have not done anything to help, not one has called Barclay to account. Where is the Justice here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But to play devils advocate, the reg bodies like trading standards and the like can't make law, they can only apply the law that is there. If this is what a court says then what can they do? The people to harass must be the law makers, not enforcers, surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fuzzbutt thanks for the letter, it will come in handy for many of us on this forum, especially for those that are either still dealing with the FOS or those that wish to go down the small claims route.

I totally agree with your planned follow up strategy of writting to the OFT, Trading Standards and the head of Barclays board. I think we should all follow suit and do the same. Is it worth getting some kind of template letter together? so that it is apparent that we are all complaining about the same thing?.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for posting the letter Fuzz I feel for you, if you don't mind me saying it's a complete disgrace. I understand you were highlighting the absurdity of the cost of the courses and exposing the rip off. I wouldn't have seen that coming either,that they would use it as a settlement is galling. Did he not understand the point being made.also the bigger picture, I thought at least you would have a substantial refund.if not full refund as the end result was not achieved, OK at least you've shown that Computeach can't be forced on us that's a big win btw. but it's from start to finish been a complete disaster.Brick wall after Brick wall jeez makes you mad what you've went through and the work you done has not went without gratitude here and on FB so Thank You Fuzz. I'm also disgusted at the amount of regulatory bodies out there have not done anything to help, not one has called Barclay to account. Where is the Justice here.

 

Thanks Bluedo for your kind words. Yes, I'm disgusted at the underhand tactics used by the Hogan Lovells lawyer. I won, yet financially I'm the loser!

I am challenging the amount awarded as I can ask for that to be reviewed within 14 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But to play devils advocate, the reg bodies like trading standards and the like can't make law, they can only apply the law that is there. If this is what a court says then what can they do? The people to harass must be the law makers, not enforcers, surely?

 

I agree, Kraken, but I'm at a loss of who to complain to in honesty (I thought directly to Barclays Board)? Can you suggest any authority please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Fuzzbutt thanks for the letter, it will come in handy for many of us on this forum, especially for those that are either still dealing with the FOS or those that wish to go down the small claims route.

I totally agree with your planned follow up strategy of writting to the OFT, Trading Standards and the head of Barclays board. I think we should all follow suit and do the same. Is it worth getting some kind of template letter together? so that it is apparent that we are all complaining about the same thing?.

 

I may put one up on my website once I've had a reply from the court about the amount, depending on what they come back with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuzzbutt, apologies for butting in again, just hope to be able to help as I am also digging into CIW issues, although with a different provider.

It is not clear how they came up with that compensation figure; the cost of self-study kits from CIW certified distributors as sold in the UK is considerably higher; there are 3 providers, and the costs are online (source: http://www.ciwcertified.com/store/uk_distribution.php)

 

Best of luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuzzbutt, apologies for butting in again, just hope to be able to help as I am also digging into CIW issues, although with a different provider.

It is not clear how they came up with that compensation figure; the cost of self-study kits from CIW certified distributors as sold in the UK is considerably higher; there are 3 providers, and the costs are online (source: http://www.ciwcertified.com/store/uk_distribution.php)

 

Best of luck!

 

Thanks for that, Fractal. Very useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done to you Fuzz.

 

I have a quick question though, will the court send you a detailed break down of the judges decision related to the issues you raised, or is that rather brief letter all you get? I only ask because the former would be like a silver bullet for the rest of us in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well done to you Fuzz.

 

I have a quick question though, will the court send you a detailed break down of the judges decision related to the issues you raised, or is that rather brief letter all you get? I only ask because the former would be like a silver bullet for the rest of us in court.

 

I don't think they do for small claims, Keith. That was all I got, the short letter posted on my website, which is a shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think they do for small claims, Keith. That was all I got, the short letter posted on my website, which is a shame.

 

You could see if you can get a transcript but you'd have to pay. http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=161

 

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
  • 2 weeks later...

My ruling at Bristol Court proves -

 

BARCLAYS PARTNER FINANCE HAVE NO RIGHT TO ENFORCE COMPUTEACH. WHAT THEY HAVE DONE MAY BE LEGAL BUT IT IS MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!

 

I'm in the process of writing to the Board of Shareholders at Barclays, OFT, MP and of course all major press, BBC Watchdog and the One Show (who supported us in the past). Suggest all of you get your heads over the parapet now and charge, do the same! Together we have a BIG voice. Don't whine, DO!!!

 

Barclays, like all banks, do not like BAD PUBLICITY IT HITS 'EM WHERE IT HURTS - THEIR POCKET- so make sure you give 'em some!

Edited by Fuzzbutt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fuzzbutt would like to do the same, in an earlier post I suggested a template letter so that we were all singing from the same hym sheet?? what do you think? or should we all do individual letters?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Kraken will continue with the letter that I had already started. It will essentially focus on the point that BPF had no right to try and force us all to go to Computeach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and.... suggest a solution? A more acceptable alternative provider? No sense bemoaning a problem without also arguing for what you want. That said, I suppose in doing that you need to be writing to the people that can do something. Probably no point in writing to the OFT or Trading standards, they will just stick to the law that Fuzz has helped clarify. Barclays is a punt I suppose. The media folk I think will need some sort of story or angle. Not sure what that would be though. Worth thinking about before investing in a stamp I'd have thought.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...