it was us that pushed. we send a number of letters, worded each time more strongly leading to a deadline of 2 weeks before we proceeded with court action. nothin came back from them other than "we are looking into and will come back to you". also, with lots of unhappy students talking to and writing to bpf they will be looking into all the grounds for appeal and covering all the potential areas of liability until they have a comprehensive defence. with this in mind action sooner rather than later could give me more of fighting chance? (although i could be completely wrong - i guess it depends on your contract and the evidence submitted) my worries are alot of the complaints surrounding service levels and break in training which has effectively been covered by computeach's extension are either irrelevant in the letter of the law (although it is clearly unfair) or subjective. i need to make sure i know all the key differences which are facts - training days, accreditations, duration etc. any advice is really welcomed - i would love to come back in a month with 5k, a win and something of a president for anyone else who wants to claim

hi, this is my first post, prompted by the fact i am (well my parents) are now due to go to court with bpf. it appears, rather than kindly settle out of the smallclaims court, bpf are to contest the claim. i was a little surprised due to whispers of succesful claims. we decided to go to court on the advice of, amongst others the head of trading standards from a local authority (he seemed ****ed with how ignorant bpf have been when questioned) and the other reason was after 6 months break i am not about to start with computeach because advent were bad enough and they look worse I'm gonna check my contract for signiatures, but aside from the standard training days, guarenteed employment from free recruitment service, lack of ccna courses (just got letter stating they now do them), even worse reviews than advent - quite an achievement! - also my parents have been sent 2 letters from barclays with the wrong names and wrong account numbers which i am sure is a dpa issue i would like to find out all the potential grounds which you guys are using as the basis for claims which directly relate to the difference in standards of providers. personally i think 3 months to switch should be sufficient to constitute a breach in the agreement. any advice would be really appreciated and i will, of course keep you posted. as we stand barclays have 28 days to submit their defence thanks