Training provider issue

SarEl

ashleypride wrote: »

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.

Largely because your description of what the OP said, isn't what the OP said!

The vendor may have apologised - they did not say that there was no debt. The OP assumed that there was no debt, and assumed that this was the end of the matter, but it wasn't. The OP then had another invoice and replied saying that she wouldn't be attending and therefore wouldn't be paying. Again the OP assumed the matter closed. But the fact of the terms, which the OP hadn't read, was that in applying for the course the company say that a contract was formed and the course had to be paid for. Now I don't know whether that contract is binding on both parties or not because I haven't read it - but there are certainly provisions in law for such contracts and it isn't unusual for contracts to exist in which people are committed to payment whether they use a service or product or not. The cooling off epriod for the contract had passed, and the the OP did not comply with the conditions for cancelling her place within the specified period. The fact that she was unable to do so because she was on holiday is not relevant. When you enter into a contract you are respnsible for reading the terms of the contract, and not knowing them is not adefence.

It is therefore alleged that there is a debt by the vendor, and the OP actually seems to confirm that the terms of the contract indicate that she does owe that debt. I am not commenting on whether I think those terms are fair, or whether they are enrforceable in law, because I haven't read them. But the facts of the terms are not in dispute.

The matter is now in the hands of lawyers and it they who are writing to her. You do not ignore letters from lawyers or debt collectors, regardless of whether you have already disputed something previously or not. You always respond and you keep a papertrail of those responses so that if the matter goes to court you have the evidence to show that you were not ignoring (i.e. sticking your head in the sand) the situation, but disputed it throughout.

JanetDoe_2

So I wanted to see what I'd written in my original application (which I couldn't find) so I asked the provider to forward it to me which they did this afternoon. And it turns out that I didn't actually sign the form! It specifically says on the application to sign if I accept their TOB so the fact that I didn't do so hopefully means that I'll be ok... ?

SarEl

JanetDoe wrote: »

So I wanted to see what I'd written in my original application (which I couldn't find) so I asked the provider to forward it to me which they did this afternoon. And it turns out that I didn't actually sign the form! It specifically says on the application to sign if I accept their TOB so the fact that I didn't do so hopefully means that I'll be ok... ?

I wouldn't depend on that, but it may help. Electronic communications are slightly different (and when I did contract law many years ago - there weren't any!) in that they do not require signatures because you can't sign them. There is no dispute that you sent the form - it came from you, with your details on it and from your works address. I think the best thing is to keep arguing if you receive anything from them, and to contact CIPD. But I would not ignore them - I had a look at them and they actually appear to be a rather reputable company, so I will be very surprised if their contractual terms aren't legally checked. Notwithstanding that, you may be better off with a reputable company - they are more likley to want to avoid bad publicity. Incidentally, it may be just a coincidence, but when I was checking them out today, their site was unable to complete the link to the page that contains their terms and conditions... So I wasn't able to read them.