My reasoned arguments are that myself as guarantor requested clarification on the timescale to cancel, the agreement only stated a short period of time. Following a phone call by the salesman we all agreed on an extension to 6 weeks following the first set of course notes. This time period was necessary as insufficient information was provided by Advent on the course content at the time as the student had suffered a frontal lobe brain injury 9 years previous which can affect problem solving. I cancelled within that timescale and therefore met the verbal contract. The legal terminology would call this misrepresentation, I was also present during the discussions between the salesman and the student which more or less agrees with other students posts on this site.

I accept the controversy that's why we need a court's decision. However the better defence you can provide the better chance you are giving yourself. I have used some of the issues in the document over my many letters to Barclays and the FOS and their response have avoided the answers, just to say Sec 75 doesn't apply and prove the discussion between the Salesman and ourselves, rather a monotonous response. Fortunately I have a witness to the discussion and the Bank hasn't provided the Salesman's response which should agree with ours.

The LACORS arguments are quite strong with case law and CCA interpretations quoted. Item 1.3 identifies me the so called guarantor as the debtor and the disagreement by LG regulation that section 75 doesn't exist as I was party to all the promises made to the student regarding the course items 4.2 and 5.3. I accept that this is only advice from LG but nevertheless provides some powerful arguments.

Sorry misposted.

Mis-selling is still a serious breach of the law, but in my case I was investigating any written evidence that may be more easily accepted in defence. A decision by the Ombudsman not to accept the extended termination period agreed by the salesman at the time has made me review the early letters received. I notice from a letter sent from BPF dated 22nd December 2009 (strange as I didn’t sign the agreement until the 23rd December 2009) states ‘You have 5 days starting with the day after you receive this notice’. The letter was received on the 4th January 2010, which takes us to the 10th January 2010 to cancel. According to the Advent web site at the time from a copy I took states ‘Funding from enrolments through Barclays made since the 9th January 2010 has been retained by Barclays and NOT forwarded to Advent’. Would it not have been prudent for Barclays to withhold advancing payments to Advent until after the cancellation deadline. In that case no money would have been forwarded. Just a thought.

Thank you, I was unaware of that. The amount involved was for a loan just short of £6000 so is definitely worth considering. If as I believe the agreement is invalid then no contract exists between us and therefore no money needs paying. I cancelled the contract following advent’s demise and before the Direct Debit commenced. I have another issue with the salesman mis selling. However, this is verbal and would require evidence from my witness the student and Barclays witness the salesman. Their defence would be that Advent’s salesman was being mischievous. I’m glad to read that you are going down that route and wish you the best. I intend to get an article into one of the newspapers regarding the FOS’s lack of the law and the Banks Code that states ‘All written terms and conditions will be fair …‘ that assumes BPF have signed up to that.

Although I have been following this forum, this is my first posting. My case is a guarantor for the student. As a matter of interest, my agreement states ‘This is a Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Sign it only if you want to be legally bound by its terms’, this is also repeated on the top of the Agreement form. According to the Ombudsman’s final decision this cannot apply as the debtor-creditor-supplier relationship has not been created. So why put it on? If I’d have known that it didn’t apply I would not have signed. The consumer credit act is there for our protection. Could this be a question for the Financial Regulator (FSA)? If other guarantors have got this on their agreement, then I’d be interested in your experience. The amount involved is greater than the £5000 cut off limit for the small claims court and must be heard at County Court level. The costs involved would be prohibited for the vast majority of the public that could easily be caught out by this loophole in the law. I understand this limit may be increased in the near future, but too late for us.