FUZZBUTT ANNOUNCEMENT; I have received a reply from the OFT, which I quote here in part; "I am very sorry to hear about the difficulties you have been experiencing, however the OFT has no authority to become involved in disputes between consumers and traders and so we cannot offer you any direct help or advise you directly in this matter, especially as the matter is currently the subject of legal action via Hausfelds LLP. This said, and as you may be aware, the OFT is responsible for monitoring the fitness, competence and conduct of those traders that hold consumer credit licences, such as BPF. Accordingly, the OFT is aware that BPF took a commercial decision to withdraw from the training market in early 2010 and that this decision, coupled with the inability of some traders to source an alternative finance provider, contributed to the insolvency of a number of training providers. We are aware of the issues that have arisen following these insolvencies and have been monitoring the situation.... We have noted the details of your complaints and will continue to monitor the situation. We would, however, be interested in receiving further details of individual complaints where a Court or the FOS has upheld complaints against BPF. Likewise we would be interested in receiving updates with regard to the group legal action you are involved with. Updates can be sent to [email protected]. Complaint information is vital to the OFT as it helps us to monitor the conduct of licensees and to determine whether licensing action is appropriate." If anyone who had approached FOS again following this no end date development has a favourable decision come back from them, please contact the OFT and let me/Hausfeld know too. Thanks.

Not sure if we are allowed, but I'm sure you'll find it via Google.

By the way, I have approached OFT about our case on behalf of the group and also the Ed Minister and FSA. Plus writing AGAIN to Watchdog and Which? (lots of us 'old hands' in it from the start when this first kicked off early 2010 did this, but nothing came of it - initial interest fizzled out, despite my supplying LOADS of info to Watchdog). OFT have passed our case to their investigations team, FSA have replied they can't comment and Minister has given acknowledgement that this will be looked into at sometime!. Watchdog and Which? also gave a standard acknowledgement to my complaint, and I hope to hear further that they will follow it up. Please contact them individually and complain - the more voices the more weight the case will have! Thanks.

By the way, I have approached OFT about our case on behalf of the group and also the Ed Minister and FSA, plus writing AGAIN to Watchdog and Which? (lots of us 'old hands' in it from the start when this first kicked off early 2010 did this, but nothing came of it). OFT have passed our case to their investigations team, FSA have replied they can't comment and Minister has given acknowledgement that this will be looked into. Watchdog and Which? also gave a standard acknowledgement to my complaint, and I hope to hear further. Please contact them individually and complain - the more voices the more weight the case will have! Thanks.

FUZZBUTT ANNOUNCEMENT: I have just spoken with Ingrid at Hausfeld and she has asked me to emphasize that it's important for anyone with the no end dates/no dates to approach FOS and ensure you copy me (Fuzzbutt) the FINAL DECISION. She feels that this could be a good lever against BPF as it will show inconsistencies in FOS rulings. But she needs the evidence in the form of decision letters so PLEASE FOLLOW IT UP AND KEEP ME INFORMED. Things ARE moving slowly but with enough FOS favourable decisions as ammunition she feels this will be a big step. Ingrid has stressed she sympathises with people's anxiety but the case is far from simple and legally not clear cut at the moment.

Read this, for anyone still unclear about the dates issue...... http://adventstudents.webs.com/apps/blog/

Quote- "I have received this information from an Online Free Solictor: You can guarantee your own loan but in relation to goods i.e. a car. A bank loan you cannot guarantee yourself as it is not viable. This is a general indication from the information you have provided us. It should not be seen as a substitute for detailed legal advice." I'd need more info really and exactly what you asked please as it's not clear from their vaguely worded response to you. What type of loan did you ask these free advisors about and did you stress it was for a training course or that it was a linked loan or other? What about other issues (up to what amount, repayment terms etc?) Ingrid is pretty busy, so sorry, I don't want to bother her unless necessary and a lot of free advisors only have a surface knowledge (hence they are free). I'd have thought, to be honest, that Hausfeld would have picked up on any uncertainty or way out for guarantors when they first looked at the agreements in depth, having gone through the copies of agreements a number of guarantors sent to them.

If BPF is claiming default payments on your loan, one of our members has challenged this and had this response - "your account was held for 3 months in February, March & April of last year until we found a suitable provider. Once this was done payments were due as usual. However, as your case is currently with the financial Ombudsman service I have pleasure in confirming your account is currently on hold pending their findings" He would have still been getting charged the default payment but for writing to them, and it's a good idea to contact BPF if you have a complaint that's still with FOS and pointing this out to them. All you have to do is write to BPF and tell them the date the FOS took on your case, quoting the case reference number. If you supply proof of the date FOS took up our complaint you can try asking them to cancel and backdate all the default payments from then, although it's unclear if they'll do this at the moment. Please do not contact Fuzzbutt or Hausfeld regarding this.

I don't know how this person paid, 10pack. I would guess it meant they had either paid the loan off fully or paid by a card perhaps - how the money hand-over worked between Advent and BPF is a bit of a mystery at present and we can only speculate.

FUZZBUTT ANNOUNCEMENT: For anyone who did not get my mass mail last message as they haven't registered on the student website and are still unsure. "New information just come to hand suggests that if you were a former student who paid in full just before the collapse of Advent and had no course end date on your enrolment form you may well, based upon recent experience, get at least a 60% refund from the FOS. Computeach have said they did not offer ‘open ended’ course dates, so to that extent the fact that the two courses differed in that respect has been accepted by the FOS." This is the quote direct from our Hausfeld lawyer (see latest news on the advent student website).....emphasis is on paid in full and no end date. It's not clear yet if you would still get a FOS ruling in your favour if you had no end date (or no dates) but were still repaying the loan - until someone tries it and we get a FOS decision we won't know. I would give it a try - they can only say no, after all. Off the top of my head (just my opinion) if your agreement shows the course was sold to you as 'open-ended' as in the successful case (whether paid off or not) it seems reasonable you should get a favourable result and would maybe just get back a % of what you paid so far.

I just re-read a reply from Ingrid and realised I must have raised the director's signature in my last email to her on Tuesday (sorry) - I asked; "Someone else also pointed out that the agreements are supposed to be signed by an Advent director so I'll check mine as I hadn't thought about that." She replied; "The fact that the agreement is not signed by an Advent Director is a peripheral issue, and won’t really get far." May be worth a mention though as yet another example of inconsistency in the Advent enrolement form and the style of sign up used by individual reps.

You're welcome, Dave. That's a good point. I've been thinking about this and I'm going to put in another FOS complaint with emphasis on; 'reasonably assumed'- open-ended should apply to all students on similar courses. the lack of directors signature on the AGREEMENT I can't prove the mis-selling with job placement promise as I don't have this in writing, like the open-ended promise, but it's worth a shot.

Good luck with that Bluedo, maybe a good tactic to have your dad put in a complaint (could be a way out for guarantors ). I understood anyone who has had a finance deal with any organisation they aren't happy with are entitled to complain to FOS so don't see why they wouldn't look at it.

Thanks - much appreciated.

Thanks for that, Lowdown - I'll look further into this.

Bluedo, out of interest, did you raise this with your Trading Standards local office, or Consumer Direct? Would be interesting to see what they make of your agreements (and anyone else in this guarantor situation).

I'll take a look at that when I get home, Lowdown - maybe need to query it with Ingrid.

Not yet, Savarok. I'm in the same position and I think we will have to rely on the mis-selling and not like for like if enough prople can prove that, plus any legal issues such as S75 etc. FOS are accepting not like for like it seems where individuals have no end date on their course agreement (as they cannot deny the course was sold as open-ended there). For those of us who have dates though they are using that as proof our course was not open-ended, even when we argue the sales rep assured us it was 'by arrangement'. One good thing I spotted after plodding through over 90 emails last night in response to this was at least 70 people told me they had no dates entered, so if that sample is anything to go by then it seems reps entering dates was not the norm. I'd assumed it would just be a few people where the rep hadn't bothered to complete the date boxes on the form, but not so. In which case this number is good evidence the course WAS designed to be open-ended, and perhaps those of us with dates were the exception. My sales rep assured me the dates (2 years, which was up in Dec 2010) were (quote) "just a rough guide" and if I needed more time to contact Advent and negotiate that. We can then argue that the same policy applied to ALL of, not just individuals who happen to have reps who maybe correctly filled out the forms by leaving them blank. Training for reps may not have been very good as they were obviously inconsistent in filling out the forms and incompetent in some case in advising guarantors particularly.

No, I need to make this clear in case people are confused. Hausfeld will not be arguing anyone's case with FOS for them - that is for each individual to do for themselves. If you have NO end date on your course agreement you need to contact your FOS adjudicator now and explain that this new ruling has come to light and request your case is looked at again (by the ombudsman if necessary - look at their website and it explains it all there). Hausfeld are interested though in people's outcomes in case they can use it as leverage, hence I've asked for people to let me know if you get a ruling in your favour (that's how this one came to light).

I'd send everything that could possibly prove mis-selling if it were me, 10pack (evidence you were unemployed, why you don't consider CT adequate, 3 month delay before BPF appointed them -anything that illustrates how you've been messed around). If you don't have end dates on your course agreement then it's worth emphasizing that particularly, bearing in mind someone has already had a favourable result on that point. When I put mine togethere I sent copies of my agreements (mine do sadly have dates) and correspondence with Barclays, showing how unreasonable they were in looking at my complaint. There's a short guide to the main points on the home page of my website which might help (you can also take legal points/arguments from Hausfeld's various letters on the site too).

Not yet apparently.

Apologies that my previous post may have caused some confusion but the explanation below from our lawyer should clarify the situation. New information just come to hand suggests that if you were a former student who paid in full just before the collapse of Advent and had no course end date on your enrolment form you may well, based upon recent experience, get at least a 60% refund from the FOS. Computeach have said they did not offer ‘open ended’ course dates, so to that extent the fact that the two courses differed in that respect has been accepted by the FOS. Please contact Fuzzbutt if you are one of these people (send your full name/address). I am compiling a list for our lawyer of all those now able to claim a refund under this ruling. For those who have NOT yet put in a complaint to FOS our lawyer advises you to do so now and make this date issue clear in your complaint. If you HAVE but you're still waiting for a decision from your adjudicator ensure you contact them and point out that a ruling has been made in favour of a student in similar circumstances to yourself. Please do not send any documents to Hausfeld as it's not necessary.

Yes, a refund has been authorised by FOS but to respect the individual's confidentiality request I can't say more than that.

Hi PW1 Ingrid replied to me... "Firstly, in the ordinary scheme of things ,this ruling would not affect the situation of guarantors. Having said that there could be no harm is trying to assert this deficiency (ie that there is no end date in the contract) and see if the FOS may take a more benevolent view, as they are supposed to adjudicate on what they see as ‘fair and reasonable’ not within the strict letter of the law. Obviously this could only be done where there was no end date. The fact that the agreement is not signed by an Advent Director is a peripheral issue, and won’t really get far." Hope that helps. I also asked about the lack of signature Lowdown raised earlier.

You're welcome. I'll certainly ask that and the point about a director needing to have signed the form, that Lowdown mentioned.