Firstly the dishonest broker issue. Regulation is in place to deal with them via ASA and trading standards. This is apart from the criminal law, of course.
This does NOT get my money back, or the money of possibly hundreds of people, both prospective trainees and trainers.
The dishonest co’s have many ccj’s unpaid and I would guess that you Peter are aware of that.
mkb600:
Firstly the dishonest broker issue. Regulation is in place to deal with them via ASA and trading standards. This is apart from the criminal law, of course.
This does NOT get my money back, or the money of possibly hundreds of people, both prospective trainees and trainers.
The dishonest co’s have many ccj’s unpaid and I would guess that you Peter are aware of that.
True it probably will not get you your money back but it will be another downfall for them and will surely eventually lead to their demise and not letting others get sucked in.
To get your money back you have to be proactive about your own case and take them to court. Enforce any court order that is not adhered to and keep at them until it is repaid (ensuring you pass any legal costs to them)
dar1976:
To get your money back you have to be proactive about your own case and take them to court. Enforce any court order that is not adhered to and keep at them until it is repaid (ensuring you pass any legal costs to them)
The problem is that the dishonest brokers typically enter some sort of insolvency procedure, leaving those with CCJs as unsecured creditors getting at most a few pence in the pound. They can even finish up losing money, as their legal costs exceed what they eventually recover.
If you do get a CCJÂ against a broker who is not yet insolvent, pursue it assiduously (using the court bailiffs if necessary) and add all the legal costs to the debt.
Don’t forget that individuals paying or part-paying by credit card for something with a cash value between £100 and £30k can recover what they are owed from the card provider under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The card company are jointly liable, though you cannot recover in total more than you were originally owed (so if you get some money back from the broker, you can only recover the remaining amount via s. 75, not the entire amount). Section 75 usually does not apply if someone else paid using their card - read the Act for more details.
It is always worth using a credit card if you have one - section 75 can be very useful if things go wrong.
Certain brokers will do all they can, with stalling tactics, to extend the period in excess of the 120 day chargeback limit.
If the company closes down there seems little point in paying a solicitor to get nothing back… 
mkb600:
Certain brokers will do all they can, with stalling tactics, to extend the period in excess of the 120 day chargeback limit.
Section 75 CCA 1974 rights remain even after the chargeback window has gone. If s. 75 applies, you have the same rights against the card provider as you have against the company who debited your card account. If you could sue the company for breach of contract using the small claims procedure, you could sue the card provider in exactly the same way.
In practice, card providers often try to deny s. 75 rights initially, though a firmly worded letter pointing explicitly to the law usually generates results. You are perfectly entitled to go for the softer target - if you think the card provider is liable under s. 75, it’s usually better to take action against the card provider. Once you have your money, it’s up to the card provider to take whatever recovery action they can - it’s no longer your problem!
mkb600:
If the company closes down there seems little point in paying a solicitor to get nothing back…
If a company closes down you can still go after them, but it is only worth doing so if there are assets remaining. A CCJ is a pyrrhic victory if there are no assets remaining to satisfy the judgment.
mkb600:
Firstly the dishonest broker issue. Regulation is in place to deal with them via ASA and trading standards. This is apart from the criminal law, of course.
This does NOT get my money back, or the money of possibly hundreds of people, both prospective trainees and trainers.
The dishonest co’s have many ccj’s unpaid and I would guess that you Peter are aware of that.
But nor does being bitter & doing nowt about it get your money back
Nor complaining on here
I am not being bitter and doing nowt about it, far from it, wheels are turning and there is a lot of activity that I can not yet mention, for obvious reasons 
I am posting on here in an attempt to help others steer away from problems that myself and many others have faced with the unscrupulous brokers that we all know exist. if it saves anyone from losing their money then it is worth it.
If anyone sees it as unwarranted complaining and moaning then so be it, after all nobody is forced to read any of the posts on here.
mkb600:
I am not being bitter and doing nowt about it, far from it, wheels are turning and there is a lot of activity that I can not yet mention, for obvious reasonsThis is true
I am posting on here in an attempt to help others steer away from problems that myself and many others have faced with the unscrupulous brokers that we all know exist. if it saves anyone from losing their money then it is worth it.
Again many have done this in the past & yep it has helped to make more people aware of the problem
If anyone sees it as unwarranted complaining and moaning then so be it, after all nobody is forced to read any of the posts on here.
True
I always try to look at things from both sides before making judgement, if the sheet is touching the floor at both sides, it will cover the load.
Many years ago a friend of mine faced prison, and ended up with a suspended sentence and a fine. His crime, well he didn’t actually do one, he was duped by someone who was “doing him a favour.” We had a hobby garage between us and this lad was offered some spray equipment and tools outside a car auction. He bought them in good faith and loaded them in his van. 6 weeks later the police arrested him for theft after coming down to his home.
He got done for receiving stolen goods, someone had seen him at the auction and the police traced his van, all legal and in his name.
Should the reputable trainers face a similar penalty if they do work for these inscrutable brokers?
Without receivers there would be no thieves!
Obviously, if the trainers are not getting paid, then the brokers are twice reaping the field.
Why is it when 1 broker goes under another 1 pops up its just like weeding the garden
Why is it when 1 broker goes under another 1 pops up its just like weeding the garden
Same people - different name. Simples.
Pete 