Take a look at the original 1 April letter too from CT which clearly states - 'we do operate slightly different to the Company (advent'). In other words admitting the terms are different, I'd say?Where does CT state the exams will be retired and outdated please Rob? That could certainly be useful if we are being expected to continue with old outdated course material.

I paid £4,950 for Advent’s course. 2 years equivalent with Computeach (at £1,679 per annum as confirmed by email from their sales rep, Anthony Weaver) would have cost me £3,358. That’s a difference of £1,592, which Barclays have never offered to reimburse.I see what you're saying, Kraken. I'm thinking our best defence is the 'like-for-like' issue still and mis-selling?On the like for like, if we can get a judge to accept the Advent course promised a work placement after the first A+ exam (which seems to be a common promise to just about everyone) and the course was extendable at no extra cost by agreement then I guess we've got them. As these weren't put in writing though it's not an easy one and I guess would rely on a judge taking someone's word as truth.Barclays argue S75 is cancelled as they provided CT after over 2 months but I don't see this could stand as the breach of contract still took place (i.e. no provider for 9 weeks). My Trading Standards office raised this issue in a letter on my behalf and Barclays just gave their usual reply that now CompuTeach was in place they had fulfilled the contract. That seems unfair to me but how to challenge it?FOS have accepted mis-selling in at least one case so far, so that's hopeful.

That's right - I've got my Advent letter stating the 'we can only keep this open for 14 days' offer as evidence.

Just arrive in the post - a reply from BPF to my letter before court action - HA HA HA! Predictable reply, just stating that "I acknowledge that you remain dissatisfied with the alternative course provided.....we strongly believe that we have fulfilled our obligation to our customers under the CCA 1974".,,,"the FOS has conducted an independant investigation blah blah and found in favour of Barclays Bank." (signed on behalf of Ronnie Denholm, who appears to be their new Managing Director now). Only because the FOS adjudicator disregarded most of my evidence and bought Barclays lies! The end date entered by the rep on my agreement was the key reason she did so and wouldn't agree my course was open-ended, unfortunately, totally disregarding the other details I gave about Advent's mis-selling. FOS are failing the majority of us badly! Looks like this arrogant bank is relying on FOS to cover it's back though. Although it's a bit daunting I'm going to small claims and will represent myself. The unfair relationships/contracts issues I wasn't aware of when I put my argument forward to BPF, or FOS, but I'm amending my case outline for court to include that now. THIS IS WAR NOW! SEE YOU IN COURT BARCLAYS! YOU CAN KISS MY (FUZZ)BUTT! :rant:

Good point - no new contracts were issued to people, no refunds of the difference between cost of courses. All very secretive and underhand. I suspect BPF are chewing their fingernails now all this is slowly creeping out and being questioned.

Exactly, Rob. CT would not release details of the course to me unless I 'verified my details' on their website, thereby agreeing to continue studying with them. That's clearly laid out in the 1 April letter CT sent to everyone, far from being 'alleged' as Hogan Lovells solicitor patronisingly put it in their last letter! When I also phoned for details of the course as I wanted to compare them to back up my arguments against like-for-like they refused to put anything in writing (Ingrids advice on the insistence of a blind sign up is on my website - basically don't do it without evidence of what exactly you are signing to). The lack of clear, open course info communicated in a timely fashion was completely lacking from both CT and BPF. For many that put us at a disadvantage and meant our agreements expired/wasted at least 4 months while we were trying to argue our case.

Argh - formatting not working!! Looked OK in the preview - would an admin be able to check what's causing this please? Thanks.

I've been doing a bit of research, thanks to Kraken and Rob's pointers. See what you guys think - is this stuff we can use? S140A of the Consumer Credit Act. The Consumer Credit Act 2006 notably amended the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and one of the principal changes was the introduction of the concept of an unfair relationship. The Act enables borrowers to challenge credit agreements in court on the grounds that the relationship between the parties is unfair. The new 'unfair relationships' test replaces the current concept of extortionate credit bargains. S140A: “The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following -(a) any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;© any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).” Unfair relationships - The Office of Fair Trading guide published in May 2008 (‘Unfair relationships: Enforcement action under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002’) states that it considers an unfair relationship “in our view, category © would include, for example, pre-contract business practices (such as advertising) and post-contract actions not based on a right (such as demanding sums of money the consumer has not agreed to pay). Relevant omissions might include failure to provide key information in a clear and timely manner (or at all), or to disclose material facts. Category © would also encompass acts or omissions which are non-commercial.”‘ 'Failure to provide key information in a clear and timely manner’ would be relevant in my case, considering the failure of Barclays to communicate the new course arrangements in good time in order for me to properly consider the option before the Advent agreement ran out. Paragraph 4.24 goes on to say “As a result, the consumer may not have entered into the transaction in full knowledge of the facts. He may also have had, in the circumstances, no real choice as to acceptance of the particular terms, or may have been subject to aggressive marketing.”‘ Subject to aggressive marketing’ is relevant in my case regarding the original Advent sales tactics and sign up. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 Act section ‘Misleading actions’ states:“5.-(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph -(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.(3) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph if -(a)it concerns any marketing of a product (including comparative advertising) which creates confusion with any products, trade marks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor; or(b)it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—(i)the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and(ii)the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational,and it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise, taking account of its factual context and of all its features and circumstances.” Advent engaged in the above with its misleading promises of work placement, supposed ‘limited places’ and unrealistic timescale given to me to finish in. The Act also states: Aggressive commercial practices“7.(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances—(a)it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and(b)it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.(2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of—(a)its timing, location, nature or persistence;(b)the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour;©the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product;(d)any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and(e)any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken.(3) In this regulation—(a)“coercion” includes the use of physical force; and(b)“undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.” Again, this directly covers the Advent sales technique in the letter which urged me to sign up within 14 days or lose my place, stressing the urgency to act now.Sorry this is long - hope the formatting and paragraph breaks work this time!

Bet you 50p Apex won't produce a DOA either, 10pack. So far as I know, no one has been taken to court yet by any of these debt agencies - despite their threats to do so (against OFT guidelines of course!)

Barclays will deny it but they must surely be complicit in the way these debt collectors are acting - I can't believe they're not aware this is being done in their name, especially Mercers as their in-house agency, and they don't know about it.

Appalling - I ripped into their lawyers letter in my letter to MD of BPF. Also the lies told to the 'ONE Show', such as 'most Advent students are happy with Comuteach!!' Not very much evidence of that when over 600 people out of the estimated 2,000 Advent students signed up to the protest group with Hausfeld within a couple of months of it starting!

Thanks Rob - I'll follow that up too.

Thanks for that feedback, Kraken. I'll take a re-look. If it goes to court now I'll have a chance to fine tune, I guess.

Will do. It was signed for 20 mins ago, accordingh to the Royal Mail tracking website, so I hope that's spoilt his lunch!

What is going wrong with the post formatting on this site?? There were paragraphs and line spacing in the above post by me.

Posted by letter before court action to BPF yesterday. They've got 14 days now before it goes to small claims court.I gave a detailed account but in summary, my arguments are...The loan agreement was a restricted use credit agreement and is covered under debtor-creditor-supplier agreements within the meaning of section 12 CCA. This liability is also acknowledged in the standard terms and conditions under the loan arrangements. The loan was arranged by Advent and paid directly to Advent by Barclays. The monies never came to me. As the loan is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act and falls within limit of 12 (a) / (b) therefore I do have equal claim against Barclays as against Advent. As Advent are now in administration and training will no longer be provided to me, Barclays are fully liable as the creditor. Hence I am entitled to a refund due to Breach of Contract under S75 & S70 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.Further to this, I believe this course was mis-sold as;• I was induced to sign up under pressured selling (place only held open for a limited time).• Promises were made to me regarding a job placement after passing the first A+ exam which, in retrospect, were obviously false.• The initial modules of the course were inappropriate and unnecessary in order to complete the CIW Web Designer certificate. The time I was expected to complete within was also unrealistic for someone working full-time.• The course material and mentor support proved to be of poor quality.Pressured selling is a clear breach of S7 of the Prohibitions under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.Barclays failed to appoint a replacement immediately and so from 27 Jan 2010 (date the Advent directors notified students their study would no longer be supported) to the announcement on 25 March 2010 that Computeach had been appointed, I was without any trainer. That is a clear breach of contract under S75 CCA as I was without a training provider for over 8 weeks. I do not accept that Barclays Partner Finance can automatically remedy the failure by Advent to provide any service following their administration by offering an alternate course provider some 2 months later. Both Barclays and Computeach FAILED to communicate my options and developments with the new ‘bespoke’ course arrangements in good enough time for me to consider taking up the new course before my original agreement terminated. This failure in communication put me at a severe disadvantage in deciding what to do regarding my position. Barclays Partner Finance later agreed a 3 month time extension to all Advent students but I do not consider this acceptable and, again, it was not communicated in a timely manner and was too little too late. To be expected to finish a 2 year course with 3 exams (while working full time) in approx 5 months is unreasonable and would have been physically impossible to achieve. In order to complete the certificate I would have had to sign up with a training company I did not want in the first place and pay EXTRA money on top of the £4,950 already laid out as my time would have run out and I would have had to extend my studies at extra cost.Hogan Lovells notably has refused to address Hausfeld’s request in a letter on the group’s behalf dated 26 Nov 2010 (paragraph 10-11) for information on exactly when and how the ‘bespoke arrangement’ was communicated to students. This is probably because of the sloppy and confused approach from both the bank and Computeach, and the fact that this set up was an afterthought and pushed on Computeach by Barclays so it was able to claim it was matching the ‘like for like’ terms being raised in complaints. This was a desperate, cynical bid to avoid refunding loans under S75. Barclays has still not given a satisfactory account to either the FOS or Hausfeld as to why it feels S75 CCA does not apply, other than to say it has fulfilled the responsibility of the contract by providing Computeach.Computeach refused to give me details of the new course without my signing over to them. This, I consider, is a breach of the Unfair Contracts Terms Act and a violation of my consumer rights.The loan arrangements include unfair contract terms in breach of Section 140A of the CCA and/or obligations to treat customers fairly under Rule 6 of the FSA Principles of Business. I also believe that a court would find an APR of 29.8% to be unfair within the meaning of section 140A of the CCA 1974. That Computeach is still unable to fulfil two of the main promises I undertook Advent’s course on (that it was ultimately ‘open-ended’ and that after passing the first exam they would actively look for a work placement for me) is proof that the replacement is NOT technically like-for-like and therefore I consider Barclays still in breach of S75 of the Consumer Credit Act.Be interesting to see what reply I get!

deleted as the formatting isn't working!!!!

In retrospect, having gone over the A+ exam coursework, it covered very rudimentary, technical matters relating to the workings of computer processors etc, which I did not need to have a knowledge of in order to complete the CIW Web Designer course using design software (bearing in mind I had worked as a publications/web site designer already - which the rep knew). I feel I could have gone straight to the Designer certification and bypassed this part completely as it was geared more towards the technical certificates, involving management of office networks, such as the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE). Hence I feel I was wrongly advised into taking an unnecessary qualification and mis-sold this unit of the course completely. Something else to raise, inappropriate course units pushed on you!

Well spotted, Rob - I missed that on facebook. I just googled S70, linked loans and found this on the 'legislation.gov.uk' website... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/70/2007-12-01 Quote from S70: "Cancellation: recovery of money paid by debtor or hirer. (1)On the cancellation of a regulated agreement, and of any linked transaction,— (a)any sum paid by the debtor or hirer, or his relative, under or in contemplation of the agreement or transaction, including any item in the total charge for credit, shall become repayable, and (b)any sum, including any item in the total charge for credit, which but for the cancellation is, or would or might become, payable by the debtor or hirer, or his relative, under the agreement or transaction shall cease to be, or shall not become, so payable, and ©in the case of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b), any sum paid on the debtor’s behalf by the creditor to the supplier shall become repayable to the creditor. (2)If, under the terms of a cancelled agreement or transaction, the debtor or hirer, or his relative, is in possession of any goods, he shall have a lien on them for any sum repayable to him under subsection (1) in respect of that agreement or transaction, or any other linked transaction. (3)A sum repayable under subsection (1) is repayable by the person to whom it was originally paid, but in the case of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) the creditor and the supplier shall be under a joint and several liability to repay sums paid by the debtor, or his relative, under the agreement or under a linked transaction falling within section 19(1)(b) and accordingly, in such a case, the creditor shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to any proceedings brought against the creditor to recover any such sums. (4)Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (3), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor. (5)Subsection (1) does not apply to any sum which, if not paid by a debtor, would be payable by virtue of section 71, and applies to a sum paid or payable by a debtor for the issue of a credit-token only where the credit-token has been returned to the creditor or surrendered to a supplier." It looks like a new amendment, so far as I can see, and I'm going to look into it a bit more now.

I'm of the opinion it's because they feel a judge may not look so favourably upon them as FOS! And they know it! Ingrid is still looking at issues for us (should something new and concrete come up she can pinpoint ) but did stress that many individual claims is far more hassle and cost to a bank which will have to engage a solicitor on each case, send them to your local court (all over the country in this case), and face costs/interest etc...Don't forget you may be able to get a free court solicitor (depending on your income) and/or legal aid - Barclays won't! In a small claims court you are protected from costs if you lose by the 'no costs rule'.I'm confident on these points - mis-sellingfailure of CT and BPF to supply timely info on the 'bespoke courses', so negating our chance to act on it.failure of Ct to give detailed info of the new course without you 'verifying' your details (signing up with them) - unfair.S75 - 3 month gap in course supply, despite BPF's extension agreed with CT.CT reputation - lots of evidence!not like for like (the open ended issue)CT/ BPF wasting so much time and poor communication (certainly in my case as my end date ran out - so would be forced to pay more to finish my certificate)Some successes already with Hitachi agreeing refunds to Advent students and FOS rulings on 'no end date'That's enough to kick butt, I reckon!

I think we've got a good case, Rob.I really hope people look into Hausfeld's advice of taking legal action in small claims or county court now and not throw in the towel in despair.I've nearly finished by letter before legal action to BPF now, just waiting on confirmation of something which may be useful to us all.

Nice one, Skinnyribs - thanks, will also do that.

Certainly! I've been going through it with a toothpick and found a couple of contradictions. Another point we can use is we were not ALLOWED to see any details of the courses unless we 'verified' our details on the CT website, so that was unfair under the Contracts Act. The 'bespoke' offer was not made public on CT website until 7 Oct 2010, 10 months after Advent's collapse! BPF really are full of bullsh** and are desperately trying to claw their way out of this now.

I'm taking forward a demand for refund via the Small Claims court now (just sending my notice before action letter to BPF as required in case they decide to make me an offer before it takes affect). Just to remind folk here, even if it's a larger amount you're claiming back (over £5,000 it goes to a County Court) it's worth asking your local CAB if you qualify for legal aid or help with costs/free legal representation by a court appointed solicitor. Small claims has a 'no costs' rule which ensures, even if you lose, you are not liable to pay the other sides legal costs. County Court slightly different but CAB can advise individual cases. Don't forget to pull out all the legal points and arguments from Hausfeld's letters to base your case on, plus the fact that BPF have been forced to refund min 60% of the loan to 'no end date' people, Hitachi have already made settlements with their customers, and the directors of Advent are also suing BPF for breach of contract. I'm confident I'll win my case but obviously (quite understandably!) some people may feel daunted in taking it further (due to fear of being slapped with costs) at County level. Don't forget too the lack of timely information on the arrangement of the ‘bespoke courses’ from BPF and CT combined to ensure many of us would be unable to complete the course before our agreement ran out. Worth raising. I don't intend giving up without a last shot!! Have contacted Daily Mirror again (Penman and Sommerlad investigates) who have supported our case in the past. Please everyone try and give them your story (see Mirror's website for contact).

You're welcome everyone - just sorry we didn't get a result via this route. On a positive note, Hitachi has refunded part/most of loans it gave for Advent courses apparently - customers have put good arguments forward and convinced them. Why can't Barclays do the same?