Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • I forgot to say he keeps trying to make me feel bad as well about it being his mums money that went into the house saying he should be entitled to more of a share because it was his mum who left us the money that done the house up
  • 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

FOS have to have regard for the law. This means that they need to take account of any relevant legislation, law, decided cases etc.

 

"the whole foslink3.gif is a farce, they essentially support the banks in the majority of the cases that they deal with."

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that FOS don't make mistakes, but this statement is not supported by the evidence - FOS publish their stats on the percentage of cases they find in favour of the banks and claimants. On average they decide in the claimants favour more often.

 

It is also possible that they consider Fuzz's case to be one that Barclays won. Barclays probably see it like that.

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

I would not say that FOS find in favour of banks or claimants in general, but what I would say is that in the case of Advent they seem to have found in favour of Barclays more often then they have in respect of the claimants that is the only statistic that matters to me and my family. FOS have shown themselves to be completely inept in the cases I have read about, for instance in the case that I am acting on behalf of my wife they asked us to produce proof that Barclays and Advent had scammed us? When companies or governments [problem] you they do not send you a letter to confirm that they have scammed you, for in my wife's case is mis-selling pure & simple and reading of other similar cases only proves it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may also be of interest that in the case of Fuzz, that case was found in favour of the claimant by the court, it was the award that lacked justice and I believe that any lawyer who reads the facts of that case will perhaps see a way to increase the awards

Link to post
Share on other sites

am I missing something here, but how can Barclays say that they have won the case that Fuzzbutt brought against them. The only thing that they got away with on their part was that they did not have to make a whole or part refund. The fundamental point of do they have a right to force Computeach on us was lost by them. So if the Fos are basing their rulings on legal events/ cases, surely this means Barclays have to either give us an option for choosing a different provider or cancel the contracts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only thing that they got away with on their part was that they did not have to make a whole or part refund."

 

Exactly. When the dust settles they have a judgment saying they only needed to pay a few hundred quid and they get to keep the other few thousand, and they don't even have to sort out a replacement course. I think that is a 'win'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that is a 'win'.

 

In financial terms, yes.

Fuzzbutt paid out nearly £5000.

Judgement wise, did the judge not agree with Fuzzbutt? And award in her favour.

Or at least was applying section 75 [as he viewed it]

Financial win for Barclay's yes, legal win maybe not.

At the moment it seems Fuzzbutt has been awarded in her favour, someone else a couple of pages back, not in their favour.

With a few more coming up soon it might all become clearer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree it was a win for Barclays. In my case I had only been with Advent for 6 months, so thats just over £600 paid. For me the judgement reads that Barclays cannot impose computeach on us. If you say that based on the courts judgement that they do not have to even find alternative providers, that surely means the contract is at an end? also if they truly believed that they had a favourable judgement as you put it, surely we would all have had letters from them threatening court dates or got their DCA's onto us by now? afterall the judgement was just shy of 3 months ago.

Ps I stopped paying in March 2010 and have consistently told Barclays and their collection agencies to take me to court. I was a forensic scientist, so going to give evidence in court does not faze me in the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that it was a legal win in FAVOUR of Fuzzbutt the actual award was a disgrace and would also advocate that individuals planning cases against Barclays should look seriously into obtaining a solicitor to act on their behalf. There are various ways that this can be done, firstly by looking at the offers made by trade unions and the fact that some of them would offer legal services to represent members, secondly is through their home insurance which often offer legal services and finally research your local area for not for profit advice groups which in some cases have solicitors working with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can think what you like. Personally, it seems to me that because I am a negative voice here, and am trying to sound a realistic note of caution some folk think that I am dodgy.

 

Also note that I said:

 

"It is also possible that they consider Fuzz's case to be one that Barclayslink3.gif won. Barclays probably see it like that."

 

 

"Although a financial win would of been preferable in Fuzzbutt's terms, but in the main picture it is the legal win that matters for more people will win because of that"

 

Errr... no. Completely irrelevant for any other cases as it is not precedent setting. The only relevance is for how Barclays see it, or how folk like FOS treat further cases because of it. From the Barclays perspective, they probably think that a whole host of decisions like this is cheaper than paying Computeach.

 

And the fact remains that I either have super powers of precognition or I really do know what I am talking about. You decide. You are welcome to ignore my comments. Or read other comments I have made. Maybe I'm secretly the judge in the case?

 

"If you try and argue stuff that has been decided very definitively in higher courts you'll get nowhere. Likewise, don't take a scatter gun approach and throw everything you have at them. this is often a recipe for disaster with litigants in person tripping themselves up. It is designed to be simple, but it is a court and it is your job to prove your case. On an issue like this, it will be tough. I wish you luck, but I hope you are being careful, there is quite a great deal of scope to hash this up. You'll have a better idea where you stand when you get their defence."

 

"the 'course expired' argument isn't bad, but remember that the main remedy in contract is to be put back into the position you should have been in if the contract had been fulfilled. so make sure you are arguing your case carefully or you'll put up two arguments that defeat each other. Either the replacement course isn't the same or you were misadvised when being sold the course - the salesman did not use reasonable skill and care...

As I keep saying - if claiming you need to be careful what exactly you are going to claim, in what way and how you will plead it. This is a complex area, there are a number of irrelevant bits of law being punted around and a bit more research might be needed."

 

"Personally, I think that alot of people do have a claim, and that these claims are almost identical, but that the remedy won't be a full refund, it will be to be put back in the situation they should have been in had the breach of contract not happened. This might be a replacement course, the cost of a replacement course with an identical supplier, and or some compensation on top. "

 

"Their obligation is to provide the same course for the same cost"

 

"No, they need to charge you the same amount for the same product. That is the issue here, whether the product is the same. It doesn't matter if that product costs the finance provider less from another supplier."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have a personal opinion about Kraken for I do not know this person, also in some respects may well be proved correct which is why I do not mud sling against anyone I do not know, there is one point in which I believe Kraken may be correct which may well prove to be the case and that is that it is more likely that the majority of our cases and that is in whether the salesman/woman used reasonable care in the selling of the loan and certainly in my wife's case this is certainly the case in that it was mis-sold

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not have a personal opinion about Kraken for I do not know this person, also in some respects may well be proved correct which is why I do not mud sling against anyone I do not know, there is one point in which I believe Kraken may be correct which may well prove to be the case and that is that it is more likely that the majority of our cases and that is in whether the salesman/woman used reasonable care in the selling of the loan and certainly in my wife's case this is certainly the case in that it was mis-sold

 

 

Agreed.

And in my case, along with some others we were sold a course that does not/ did not exist, According to BPF, and of course Computeach did/could not supply.MCSE - Systems engineer

This was stated in the letter from the BPF legal team to Hausfeld.

But, indeed it is there in black & white on the enrolment forms.[which would also indicate having the course mis-sold]

In my case - BPF have still not responded to the fos about this - but have responded with they have a judgement in their favour,

and of course forgetting to mention that they have had a judgement against them [Fuzzbutt]

Edited by lowdown
Link to post
Share on other sites

I to do not have pre-conceived ideas about any one on this forum, at the end of the day we are all trying to get some kind of justice. I also think that the sale-people did not use reasonable care when selling the course to many people and in some cases they blatantly told lies. So if you do decide to pursue the legal route and if you think that mis-selling is the best route then go for that, also if you can get some form of legal representation that might just make the differnece between winning and loosing. If you have had no formal legal training the court can be a very intimidating place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not really, one is based on the supply of goods and services act and one is based on the misrep act. the key difference is that they have different remedies and you can't really really have the two claims at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Guys

can anyone tell me.. have you recieved your latest yearly statements showing how much you owe/ have paid?

 

I dont remember receiving one this year.

 

I ask because I was chatting recently with one student who had recently phoned bpf about his case and was told bpf had written off his loan and passed it to a dca.. he knew nothing about it until that time.

 

 

 

its been over a year now since I had any bother from a dca.. has anyone else heard anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Guys

can anyone tell me.. have you recieved your latest yearly statements showing how much you owe/ have paid?

 

I dont remember receiving one this year.

 

I ask because I was chatting recently with one student who had recently phoned bpf about his case and was told bpf had written off his loan and passed it to a dca.. he knew nothing about it until that time.

 

 

 

its been over a year now since I had any bother from a dca.. has anyone else heard anything?

 

They of course, will be back in the future.

 

I suspect however that Barclaycard, (whom you are dealing with), will show a strange reluctance to take serious enforcement action,as in court, on the alleged debts.

 

There is no 'burden of proof' as such in civil cases but you need to show on the 'balance of probabilities' that your case is just. If they are taking action against you, they need to show that, not you, so the boot is on the other foot. Don't take it as written in stone but they don't seem to keen to take 'iffy' issuse to court for the stated reasons.

 

They will of course default the account, which will stay on your record. Be aware however that BC have a habit of issuing default notices through Mercers which are not that clever legally. However the date of default runs from the date that default should have been satisfied, not what they post some time in the future. The ICO will support that.

 

David

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
They of course, will be back in the future.

 

I suspect however that Barclaycard, (whom you are dealing with), will show a strange reluctance to take serious enforcement action,as in court, on the alleged debts.

 

There is no 'burden of proof' as such in civil cases but you need to show on the 'balance of probabilities' that your case is just. If they are taking action against you, they need to show that, not you, so the boot is on the other foot. Don't take it as written in stone but they don't seem to keen to take 'iffy' issuse to court for the stated reasons.

 

They will of course default the account, which will stay on your record. Be aware however that BC have a habit of issuing default notices through Mercers which are not that clever legally. However the date of default runs from the date that default should have been satisfied, not what they post some time in the future. The ICO will support that.

 

David

 

 

 

Have already had default notice in 2010 and mercers was the first dca they set on me.. while I was communicating with bpf.. this was supposedly while they suspended action while they investigated my compalaint.. mercers letters would arrive in same post with same date marks.. I know mercers is barclays.

 

have had 3 other dca's on my back since that time.. last one was over a year ago.

 

the 6 year time limit.. is that from time of default notice.. or from when my account went into dispute?.. or from when I should have completed paying off the loan? this date should be at end of this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have already had default notice in 2010 and mercers was the first dca they set on me.. while I was communicating with bpf.. this was supposedly while they suspended action while they investigated my compalaint.. mercers letters would arrive in same post with same date marks.. I know mercers is barclays.

 

have had 3 other dca's on my back since that time.. last one was over a year ago.

 

the 6 year time limit.. is that from time of default notice.. or from when my account went into dispute?.. or from when I should have completed paying off the loan? this date should be at end of this year.

From the time limit of the default notice, pay x by date stated on it.

David

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
[/color]

From the time limit of the default notice, pay x by date stated on it.

David

 

 

I dont understand what you mean.. the default notice basicly told me because I have not paid into my loan and am in arrears I am in default of the loan.

I will have to dig it out to see exact wording though.

 

I had this notice of default about 6 months from date I stopped paying them money, that would be in the March 2010 when they sent letter to tell us the wonderful news they was dumping us on computeach.

I immediately phoned bpf and told them there was no way I wanted anything to do with that company and informed the rep I was cancelling my direct debit and would not make payment until they come up with another option... rep told me they did not care if I did not want computeach.. I still had to keep paying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, a default notice is a formal document that states that your account is in arrears and it will state what you need to do to correct the situation.

 

It will state that you are breach of the the agreement and tell you what you must do to correct the situation. This will be to pay a sum of money, (the arrears), which wil be stated on the document and state a date which you must pay it by. If you fail to do so the account will be defaulted - the date of the default should be the date that you had to pay, stated on the form.

 

Barclaycard have 'form' for churning out default notices through Mercers as a threat, but were never acted upon. If you ignored this they would eventually issue their own Barclay default notice again with a payment date. If not paid then this is the default date that would be registered.

 

If they defaulted you after six months I would strongly suspect that previous to that they issued a mickey mouse Mercers notice, (if you can find it, it has a red letterhead). Despite the dubious legal quality of the Mercers notice, the Information Commissioners Office will support the view that a notice had been issued and that the default date on that notice is the one that shoud be registered, not the date on any later notice.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, a default notice is a formal document that states that your account is in arrears and it will state what you need to do to correct the situation.

 

It will state that you are breach of the the agreement and tell you what you must do to correct the situation. This will be to pay a sum of money, (the arrears), which wil be stated on the document and state a date which you must pay it by. If you fail to do so the account will be defaulted - the date of the default should be the date that you had to pay, stated on the form.

 

Barclaycard have 'form' for churning out default notices through Mercers as a threat, but were never acted upon. If you ignored this they would eventually issue their own Barclay default notice again with a payment date. If not paid then this is the default date that would be registered.

 

If they defaulted you after six months I would strongly suspect that previous to that they issued a mickey mouse Mercers notice, (if you can find it, it has a red letterhead). Despite the dubious legal quality of the Mercers notice, the Information Commissioners Office will support the view that a notice had been issued and that the default date on that notice is the one that shoud be registered, not the date on any later notice.

 

David

 

Ok will dig that one out also, I seem to remember them (mercers) threatening me if I did not pay within 7 days of receipt of the letter they would take court action.. I sent them challenge letter stating my account was in dispute and they again threatened me so I reported them to trading standards.. they did not reply to them or bother me again after that.. that was when next dca wrote.

 

so the date of the default notice is that the start of my 6 year wait for when the loan is legally dissolved?

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...