Training provider issue

TrickyDicky101

Yeah and no doubt you'll be warned they have passed on this 'debt' to a debt collection agency before long. That's an equally empty and meaningless threat too (debt collectors are not bailiffs).

If you really want to, write a letter to both the solicitors and the consulting firm denying that you entered into a contract with them and therefore you do not owe them any money. The only way they can 'enforce' such a debt would be to take you to court, which they won't because they will know how baseless their case is.

They are trying to intimidate you into paying. Don't fall for it.

ashleypride

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

Yeah and no doubt you'll be warned they have passed on this 'debt' to a debt collection agency before long. That's an equally empty and meaningless threat too (debt collectors are not bailiffs).

If you really want to, write a letter to both the solicitors and the consulting firm denying that you entered into a contract with them and therefore you do not owe them any money. The only way they can 'enforce' such a debt would be to take you to court, which they won't because they will know how baseless their case is.

They are trying to intimidate you into paying. Don't fall for it.

I completely agree, small claims can be fickle but I cannot see any judge enforcing this alleged contract or debt. Either ignore, or tell them to prove the contract, or shut up and take you to court.

They are unlikely to take it to court as they seem to be just trying it on - but even if they do don't be worried about it. You would just need to tell the facts.

DebiT

You really just need to ignore these people. They wont take you to court, and they can't get any money or send bailifs without a court order.
If they did take you to court, it doesnt sound like they would have much of a leg to stand on. Courts dont favour these sharp practices.

SarEl

DebiT wrote: »

You really just need to ignore these people. They wont take you to court, and they can't get any money or send bailifs without a court order.
If they did take you to court, it doesnt sound like they would have much of a leg to stand on. Courts dont favour these sharp practices.

That's a pretty strong statement considering that not even Consumer Direct are clear that the contract isn't binding! Courts take no stance whatsoever on "sharp practices"; their responsibility is to apply the law objectively regardless of what they think of either party. The OP has had some very good advice, not least of which is to contact CIPD since the advertisement that the OP responded to was on their site, and they have far more clout than the OP does. But ignoring any legal communication is a very bad idea - all legal correspondence should be replied to, and if the OP denies a contract has been entered in to, then that is what the OP should be responding, even if they have done so before.

JanetDoe_2

I did actually contact CIPD and they said that they couldn't do anything unless I raised a complaint against the college, I would then need to wait for a reply from them and if they didn't get back to me, then CIPD could get involved. I don't think I can raise any complaints at this stage though whilst the college are trying to take action against me, it would look a bit reactionary!
When I asked how they could allow colleges like this to advertise on the website they said that they mainly just dealt with accreditation and fairness would be investigated once a complaint was made. Feels like a bit of a Catch 22...

Sambucus_Nigra

You didn't tell them to look at their unfair terms and conditions then? And tell them that this WAS a complaint.

JanetDoe_2

No I didn't! I'll try that though, thank you

saintjammyswine

Are they a college or private training organisation?

You could look into contacting Ofsted if you think it is dodgy rather than just the finance dept. being a bit feisty.

ashleypride

SarEl wrote: »

That's a pretty strong statement considering that not even Consumer Direct are clear that the contract isn't binding! Courts take no stance whatsoever on "sharp practices"; their responsibility is to apply the law objectively regardless of what they think of either party. The OP has had some very good advice, not least of which is to contact CIPD since the advertisement that the OP responded to was on their site, and they have far more clout than the OP does. But ignoring any legal communication is a very bad idea - all legal correspondence should be replied to, and if the OP denies a contract has been entered in to, then that is what the OP should be responding, even if they have done so before.

Why does she need to keep replying? She has only told them her position, and the vendor has already apologized for sending the invoice acknowledging there is no debt, the only thing she needs to reply to is court papers.

ashleypride

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

You didn't tell them to look at their unfair terms and conditions then? And tell them that this WAS a complaint.

Be careful with this, you do not want to acknowledge their was ever a contract between the two parties.