Well done on getting a result Fuzzbutt. Sorry its not exactly the one you (we) were looking for.Sorry if this questionis a bit premature (and probably selfish) but do we know what this means, if anything, for the rest of us?

Dude, You're super brave Fuzzbutt. If i'd been confronted with 3 lawyers and stuff i'd have probably wet myself. Well done on seeing it through. Whatever happens you've helped out a lot of people over this and I for one am very grateful for all your time and investigations and everything. Here's hoping you still get the answer you (we!!) need.

That last point of yours Blade seems like a very good one!!Question for ya: When you say you have re-opened your case with the Ombudsman what exactly do you mean? And what stage were you at? I had a decision from the ombudsman (actual ombudsman as opposed to the lower level dudes), that I obviously wasnt happy with, and in my subsequent enquiries as to whether I can appeal, re-examine the case etc, they have been very vague or just not answered my emails at all!!Cheers.

Howdy. I'll try to be sucinct.I got my ruling from the FOS a couple of weeks ago - they sided with BPF with regard to the open ended nature of the course - despite no end dates on my form and my assertion that this was what was offered - thus they decided the BPF offer was 'like for like' enough. Had pretty much figured this was what was gonna happen though. One point of interest from the process though was an offer from BPF that they would negotiate a new timescale for me to complete my course but ONLY if i first signed up with Computeach, which i'm obviously not willing to do.Now getting hassled again by debt people, Moorcroft this time with threats of legal action - though managed to get them to put it on hold for a couple of weeks whilst I figure out who I'm going to appeal to next. Couple of questions: Does anyone know if you can/cant raise a new complaint with the FOS on a different tack than the first (i figure if they assert the course was not open ended then I have legitimate claim for it being missold amongst other things)With regard to section 75 does anyone know of anywhere within it that says you HAVE to accept an alternative offer from the creditor in these sorts of instances or is this basically one of the legal type questions that no one knows the answer too and is what is causing a lot of the problems?

You should definitely stress the fact that although Advent's records or whatever showed an end date of 2008 they were still 'supporting' you and providing you with the materials and allowing you to take exams and coursework well over a year after this time. I think that the more people that can show that Advent's "end dates" werent actually that and that they did actually adhere to their "take as long as you need to" sales spiel the better it will be for everybody.Im still waiting on the FOS - kinda second round stage in that they came back initially supporting Barclays but I got them to send me the evidence that BPF sent them and have used that to further my argument. I am basing it all on the like for like issue with regard to course length (as kraken says you kinda need to go with one argument or the other as this and misselling sorta cancel each other out if taken together). If they agree that the course was open ended then I have them on not 'like for like' as Computeach are certainly not offering that, but if they come back and say it wasnt and that an end date applies then I will start a fresh complaint that Barclays are party to misselling and use all the stuff they have given me for the first argument as solid proof of that (that way i am hopefully able to swing the cancelling out effect of the two arguments back to my advantage...)

I think there is definitely a good argument for maintaining the group mentality on this as the cost of a good commercial lawyer to deal with 600+ individual court cases is going to be far in excess of the amount BPF think people owe them. And we know they only care about the money............so they may reconsider............

Just got it dude. Not had a look yet though.

Sorry to cover old ground and sorry I cant remember who it was but can the dude who managed to get a note put on their credit report explaining the BPF situation remind me how they went about it please. I have reached that stage now as am two months out of date on my payments (BPF are now about 12months out of date on their repayments in my opinion) and am just keen to make sure I dont get too screwed by this whole thing1!

Is 0800 975 5304 one of the BPF crew’s numbers? Its one of about three different numbers I’m getting calls from at the moment but not one I’ve answered yet to verify. And I don’t particularly want to answer it to have the same annoying conversation over again. It is silly. After Sunday’s call, which I actually answered coz it was on a different number (001 795 509 145) to any I’d had before, the dude I was speaking to actually apologised to me for bothering me as he had not realised my account was being disputed etc. Didn’t stop em calling the very next day again though. They’re probably sat in the same room as the people who are dealing with the complaints and yet one person has no idea what the other is doing. You’d have thought it would be on their screens in front of them. What they need to do is to train some people in IT skills, coz, ya know, apparently, there is a shortage of workers in that field. If only there was a dedicated company that dealt with such things………………………………….oh wait…………….

Just a random addition – In my conversation before xmas with BPF regarding this whole lovely mess the lady kept telling me I needed proof that what they were offering wasn’t “like for like”. So I have sent them a copy of the enrolement form without the end date on it, as proof that Advent really was “at your own pace/openended” or whatever. But in writing the letter it occurred to me that I can’t remember BPF ever providing proof that their “like for like” offer was infact just so. So I told them in my letter that as it was simply an assertion on their part that they were fulfilling their obligations that I wanted proof from them. And that if I didn’t get it then I would consider that they were in fact not offering “like for like”. I figure that if they don’t come back then that’s a pretty decent score at our end but if they do come back and can prove that the course was not open ended then they are basically asserting/acknowledging that we have all been missold the course so will leave themselves open on that front. Just wondering if anyone else has tried this yet?

Isnt it. I raised that same point. Im annoyed I let them wind me up and Im annoyed I even considered I'd have a sensible conversation with them. Gotta keep the resolve though I supposed and just keep plugging away it until it reaches its conclusion. We can have our one year anniversary party in a few weeks time. Wont that be special!!

Hi everyone. I stopped paying this month as my correspondence with BPF had finally seemed to stall and they were basically just ignoring me. So this week the phonecalls started and I just now got off the phone to a lady in customer relations after having an intensely frustrating conversation over whether like for like was a matter of opinion and how according to BPF its not a matter of opinion as they have ‘decided’ its like for like and their legal department agree and me asking whether anyone outside of BPF has verified this coz surely for it to be more than just their opinion that would need to be the case and them basically not answering that but saying I have to pay and yada, yada, yada, BS, BS, BS, etc. So nothing new there!! There were two things though that were a little interesting. She asked me to send her a photocopy of my enrolement agreement without its end date on it and the terms and conditions I had from Advent saying that the end of the contract was based on said end date and they would look at that as it might be an issue on the like for like. Dunno if anyone has tried this yet? She also acknowledged that it was a section75 issue (which was at least something) but said something to the effect that if I wasn’t keeping up payments then section 75 didn’t apply??!?!? This seems like news to me and I was therefore wondering if anyone knew the line on this coz it seems like a weird thing to say. From the tone of her voice she wasn’t entirely convinced either so maybe it was just 'tactics'. Cheers.

Not to sound in any way ungrateful for what Hausfield are doing as I really do appreciate their help and the letter seems to cover all things very comprehensively but I gotta agree that that last line of the letter does seem to suggest that Hausfield wont be taking it to court themselves on our behalf? Which I kinda thought was the point? Or did I misunderstand that? Apologies if this is not what that line is suggesting. And yeah, I think it was Aaron. There was also another dude who said his parents had already got a court date or something as he'd been unaware of this group and so had just progressed things on his own. And I thought it was for around November time. EDIT: Re-reading the letter I may be wrong. This is from one lawyer to BPF’s lawyer. Hausfield are not the claimants – the students are – so they may have to phrase it that way. They could well be saying “if BPF don’t respond reasonably to this class action and come up with some cash, we will arm several hundred students with the necessary advice to pursue this individually and that will be much more expensive for BPF”

Today I received 2 identical letters from BPF telling me I was behind with my payments (I am foolishly still paying and havent missed a payment yet). The payments I apparently 'missed' were....... oh, the three months whilst my account was on hold!!!!!!! So I rang them up to be told I had perfect payments and that all was fine and it was another letter sent out by mistake. No apology though, no recognition that they are once again being foolish and that they cant keep up with their own decisions or track of whats what. Its beyond ridiculous. Meh.

I have been wondering about this as well. Are PKF required/allowed to divulge the details of the liquidation and creditors if it is requested? It seems that if BPF got a lot of money back it would definitely strengthen our case. And even if they didnt, it wouldnt change anything so wouldnt hurt the case in any way.