Had a response from the FOS, basically not willing to review the final decision on my complaint due to mis-selling (I have no start/end dates or specified timeframe) because section 75 does not apply (I'm the debtor, but not the student), even though I was told by the Advent rep that I would be covered by section 75 and therefore signed the agreement under false pretenses.

Did your enrollment form state there is a fixed term of 2 years. This has been raised in the past as not all of the enrollment forms are the same and some have a fixed term where others do not. For instance, my wife's enrollment form states that the end of the contract is the earlier of the end date (which is blank) on the enrollment form or the date of which the final exam is taken. There is no "fixed term" specified as the "term" states the period from the defined "start" to the defined "end".

What about those of us which were the debtor but not the student and ruled as not covered by section 75? I don't see this benefiting us as we're not covered by that law?

I'm in the same situation as you. I'm raising a new complaint with the FOS for mis-selling as Advent were the agent for barclays who arranged the loan. We were supposed to have received a Guarantor loan, but signed a debtor loan. I have no idea what a guarantor loan looks like and took it on good faith that Advent had arranged the correct loan and that's what I was signing. He should also have stated that by signing the loan we would not be covered by the credit consumer act 1975, but he did not, otherwise I would not have signed the loan in case the provider went bankrupt. In terms of the contract, my wife has no end date on the enrollment form (contract) and was told the same as you about the course being open ended. In clause 4 on the back of my wife's enrollment form, it states that end of the contract is either the date on the enrollment form (which is blank) or the date when the final exam is taken. I'm going to send a copy of the enrollment form to CompuTeach as proof that it was open ended. If I can't get my money back from Barclay's, I'm certainly going to get my monies worth and my wife will take as long as needed to complete the course with no extra cost to myself.

Thanks a lot Fuzzbutt, really appreciate all the help. I saw the facebook entry. I had queried that with the my adjudicator and he said that whilst it could be raised. The case would be against Advent and they are in administration and so it would be unlikely that we would get anything back. Always worth a try tho.

Had a thought this morning for those of us who are debtors but not the student. We're being told by the FOS that section 75 does not apply as there is no relationship between the debtor and the supplier. Does that mean also that if we don't pay, BPF cannot sue us under section 75 using the same grounds as our arguement? Fuzzbutt can you pose that question to Ingred and see what she says? There are probably other ways BPF can get around it, but worth checking out.

Hey Fuzzbutt, Ingrid was looking into a way to help those of us who were supposed to be a guarantor but ended up being the debtor for the loan and are being told that section 75 doesn't apply as we have no relationship to the supplier? Can you find out if anything came of that?

I think the valid argument here is that barclays did freeze accounts, but only after we approached them to do it! At which time they did not cancel direct debits and continued to take payments. Those of us who questioned this were told to cancel our direct debits and if requested, got a refund for that payment. We, or at least I then received a statement saying the account is in debit because of the following payment being missed and was advised to ignore this letter.

I have in writing from CompuTeach the course structure and details of what they will provide and that it is like for like. To get this I advised them that I had an outstanding complaint with the FOS and that I needed a formal document from them with the details. In the document they also state that they do not have paper documents from Advent and do not consider them necessary as the Advent file has all the details on it. The FOS gave me their final decision saying that Section 75 does not apply as I am the debtor and my wife is the student, therefore I have no link to the supplier. I will be disputing this as my Barclays Finance Loan was opened through Advent for the purchase of the course and it is in black and white on my first statement (which I hadn't sent in before.) I will be calling my adjudicator, tomorrow as he wasn't in today, to discuss this before sending in my documents. I would also like to know why it took him 3 months to arrive at this decision when I explained on our first contact that I was the debtor and my wife was the student. There is clear misrepresentation as Advent told me they were setting up a loan where I was the guarantor, and with only 3 places (as documented by Advent) I needed to rush and sign before my wife lost her place on the course.

you're going blind

This has been brought up before and probably lost somewhere withing the last 200 pages. However I have spoken to my adjudicator this morning and raised this question with him. He advised that in the eye's of the FOS, this would not be an issue as the content of the course hasn't changed and we accepted the course and began studies. A court might see it differently as an issue with the contract, but they might also see it the same way. He also advised that CT are looking to implement a system where you can verify your details and see the course etc, without accepting them as a new provider. My claim is still under investigation as they are still waiting for BPF/CT to provide details of the replacement course, which seems to be proving difficult.

This might be a long shot, but I and I assume many others were asked by advent to sign up as a guarantor for the students loan. However the load advent arranged between with BPF was a loan with me as the debtor and not a loan with me as the guarantor. So I have been miss-sold this loan, can this hold any weight? Fuzz can you ask Hausfield?

No confusion at all fuzz. It states on the letter that the interest was calculated and included in the total amount. The loan I have is for almost £6k. I'll send you an email with it attached (blanked out my details of course). I think I sent a copy to Hausfield already.

Thanks Fuzz. I'm sure there's more than one scenario which most people fall into. Mis-selling, no end dates, etc, so depending on what builds the case we should still be involved. If not then maybe a separate case can be raised specifically for the sponsors.

Hi Fuzz, Can you clarify this with Ingrid as there is number of us which are sponsors, but under the impression that we are included in the class action? Regards, Juicey

I am the guarantor for my wife and will be contesting if they pull the same crap with me. I don't see the difference tbh, the loan is for training, doesn't matter whether I'm the student or not. On the same note.. I have not received any training or materials.. so the loan should be void.

It is indeed hard to prove what someone has said, but when hundreds of people are complaining that they were sold a course on the same promises, I think that is good proof. Nobody expected that to be lies and so we never recorded the sales pitch or got it all in writing. Especially with a 14 day sign up for a limited place course Fuzzbutt you've done an outstanding job so far and we are all grateful for your efforts. Don't let BPF get you down, we didn't expect them to fall at the first hurdle.

Ah, I hadn't seen that. I wouldn't say that they are backing away just from that news, but are ensuring that they can make a solid case against BPF before taking any further action. BPF want some clear details of the breaches for students and want to deal with each student case separately. Hausfield will tell us what they need soon to build up the case if they don't have enough information already. Stay positive!

Can you explain your reasoning for seeing the BPF response as Hausfield backing away? To me the response seems more like BPF trying to avoid class action by wanting to deal with each case separately rather than in a mass action. Avoiding a large law suit and much unwanted press.

An interesting read and mostly expected from Barclays at this stage. Fuzzbutt, it might be worth asking Hausfeld what exactly they need from us to satisfy our claims. ie, a written statement from each student on the misrepresentation and the loss incurred. A template could be set out as I'm sure most people had the same lies told to them. Something like, I xxxxxx, was sold the course on the promise that I could complete the first 2 modules within 3 months and that they would provide employment with a salary of £x which advent failed to provide and now I have financial loss due to the lack of employment. The course was also misrepresented as I was told that there were limited places and I had 14 days to complete my enrollment, when in fact they were recruiting months later for the same course. etc etc.

Fortunately my enrollment form doesn't have an end date and when CompuCrap told me there was an end date on my advent file I asked for a copy of the enrollment form which I was told they didn't have. My case with the FOS is based on the fact that I have no end date because it is an open ended, self paced training program (One of the main reasons the training was taken with Advent) and the length of period that CompuCrap say the end date is on my file and that this would not be enough time to complete the studies. My enrollment form clearly states that the end date is the earlier of the end date on the enrollment form and the date when the final exam is taken. Do you have an end date on your enrollment form, consumer87? Does your enrollment form (section 1.1) also state as mine regarding the end date?

Got a call from an adjudicator at the FOS on Thursday last week. He advised that he was now dealing with my dispute and after a short discussion with him and slight changes in the nature of my dispute (with CompuTeach now matching some of the like for like disputed areas) he will be contacting Barclays and then will make his decision on the dispute. I was advised that this could take a couple of months to resolve. I have been paying since my account came off hold as I cannot afford for my credit rating to be messed up by this. Knowing what Barclays are like, in my situation, I made the right decision although I'm only paying for the CR and not because I accept their alternative. I explained that to the FOS also.

looks like the issues with virginmedia have been resolved and people should be able to get on the site again

For anyone on virgin media and having trouble accessing the Class action website. You can find some updates on the virgin media community website. Re: Problems With Webs.com - Help & Support Forum

As Fuzzbutt said, I would says "Barclays Partner Finance group legal action". I would also suggest that you make sure to add your account number for reference so that they can link it to your other documents.