I toally agree with you that this thread & fuzzbutt's are very important to us all who have at the hands of Barclays or any other bank or lending company, it is also important for us to keep the pressure on politicians

I am in the process of writing to my MP and David Cameron on this very subject and the way they have dealt with Advent students and have repeatedly lied to us regardless of the case we put to them. For instance they have now asked my wife to prove that she was asked to be guarantor. Our reply to them was to ask how they normally scammed people, for instance did they pass on proof of the [problem] to the individuals?

Excuse me but I learn something new everytime I read this forum, but I would of thought that sales people not selling with reasonable care and mis-selling were two of the same things?

I do not have a personal opinion about Kraken for I do not know this person, also in some respects may well be proved correct which is why I do not mud sling against anyone I do not know, there is one point in which I believe Kraken may be correct which may well prove to be the case and that is that it is more likely that the majority of our cases and that is in whether the salesman/woman used reasonable care in the selling of the loan and certainly in my wife's case this is certainly the case in that it was mis-sold

I would argue that it was a legal win in FAVOUR of Fuzzbutt the actual award was a disgrace and would also advocate that individuals planning cases against Barclays should look seriously into obtaining a solicitor to act on their behalf. There are various ways that this can be done, firstly by looking at the offers made by trade unions and the fact that some of them would offer legal services to represent members, secondly is through their home insurance which often offer legal services and finally research your local area for not for profit advice groups which in some cases have solicitors working with them.

Although a financial win would of been preferable in Fuzzbutt's terms, but in the main picture it is the legal win that matters for more people will win because of that

It may also be of interest that in the case of Fuzz, that case was found in favour of the claimant by the court, it was the award that lacked justice and I believe that any lawyer who reads the facts of that case will perhaps see a way to increase the awards

I would not say that FOS find in favour of banks or claimants in general, but what I would say is that in the case of Advent they seem to have found in favour of Barclays more often then they have in respect of the claimants that is the only statistic that matters to me and my family. FOS have shown themselves to be completely inept in the cases I have read about, for instance in the case that I am acting on behalf of my wife they asked us to produce proof that Barclays and Advent had scammed us? When companies or governments [problem] you they do not send you a letter to confirm that they have scammed you, for in my wife's case is mis-selling pure & simple and reading of other similar cases only proves it!

I live some 180 miles north of London and would most certainly join the protest and I believe a lot more would if the organisation was correct and adequate details fed to the interested

I believe the idea of a protest at Barclays Agm is a great idea and may well attract the media

Just a suggestion why not try that BBC morning programme with Dominic that investigates on behalf of the consumer?

Hi Ya 10Pack your reasons are slightly different to my wife, but in reality they are both very similar, for my son had searched the net for a computer course to improve his chances of finding work, he applied to Computeach, but did not feel comfortable with the speel given by the rep so he knocked them on the head he also contacted another one which he also knocked on the head when he read their pack and finally settled on Advent due to the offers in the pamphlet and with talking to the rep, an Amanda Norcott, the only problem he had was that he could not get the loan from any of the banks and would need a guarantor, to which they suggested his father or mother, his mother volunteered, this was in April 2009 and 8 months later they are accepting unemployed people without gaurantors this is a sure sign of them lying to you and my son & wife, for the first thing Barclays told us after Advent went bust was that Barclays do not and did not accept gaurantors and the form that my wife had signed was for the loanee? So neither my son or my wife ever paid a penny to them. Now the Ombudsman asks us for proof of Advent & Barclays mis-selling the loan? How could we have proof for [problematic] like them do not give you a letter to tell you that they have scammed you? Anyway the same thing applies my wife was mis-sold a loan she did not require or want. Anyway good luck for next month.

Hi Ya 10pack, I cannot understand why they would offer you the loan whilst my son was refused the loan and was told he would need a gurantor which is how my wife has been embroiled in the argument and now owes £10,000 +. This information may be of help to you and we are more than happy to provide with our evidence? Raymondo

I do not know who Kraken is? But what I do realise is that everyone on this forum/site has the right to express their own point of view, regardless of whether anyone else agrees, I for one may not agree with Kraken but I would not be so presumptious as to infer that Kraken or anyone elso are rogues? For by doing this we might as well accuse everyone and then Barclays will get exactly what they want which is the demolition of this group/forum. Personally I am reasonably new to this forum and do not have a lot to say for I see the forum as being fact finding tool for which I can decide on my next step from a basis of some knowledge. For instance I have learnt is that we all have different arguments or beefs against Barclays and Advent and the answer to all of our various beef's may be different and therefore we should all read and take something from everyone's point of view.

Just to suggest a solution is perhaps read the contents of S75 as well as check on the evidence you have in regard to the circumstances, for if your evidence is strong in regards to the treatment/agreement you made with Advent then fos should accept it, but they have no qualms in calling you a liar, as they did with my wife.

Hi Ya Bluedo I am now going to tackle this in a different, they did believe my wife but they accepted my sons situation therefore he will now lodge a complaint under s75 which is basically the definition of fos, my wife cannot claim under s75 for she did not purchase the course for herself but for a third party, therefore it follows to me that my son should be accepted

Hi Ya Guys My wife has just received the reply from |FOS in regard to her questioning of his previous decision, again he did not believe her truthful claim that the loan was mis-sold, she also claimed again under S75 he did not accept that either nor did he know anything about the recent decision made by another ombudsman therefore he did not see it as being relevant. In essence nothing has changed since May 2011, apart from the fact that he apologised for inferring that he did not believe her, but he did not believe her. So my son for whom she had originally signed as gaurantor is now going to make a claim using the ombudsmans definiton of S75.

Excellent it reminds me of my wifes position with Barclays back in the early days

Cases where I have represented other people in debt cases such as rent arrears the judges have been known to delay judgement for various reasons, so there is still hope!

Hi Ya Fuzzbutt may I also wish you good luck

Hi Ya I read that about the PPI, the one thing about this and and FUZZBUTT's forthcoming court hearing is that what we all need is for one case to win and a ruling by the FOS or court could turn everything into our favour, my wife's Union solicitor feels very confident about her case for it is her who has intimated that one in favour of Advent students, she is also the one who suggested that we take our back to FOS and remind them of Section 75 in respect of my wife for because of Amanda Norcott my wife was a consumer from Advent, which she was not as well as from Barclays. Raymondo

Hi Ya Blade once again my experience of FOS the ombudsman will send you exactly the same reply as the adjudicators have already done, also their use of Section 75 is very questionable for in the case of miss selling they do not seem to understand that even though you miss sold the product this still leaves you as the consumer, they will rule the opposite.

Hi Ya Blade, the case I took to the Ombudsman was on behalf of my wife who was asked to be the Guarantor for our son and as soon as Advent went bust Barclays told her they do not accept guarantors. I am just writing to FOS to request that the case is reopened.

Hi Blade 325 You can my wife from S****horpe to this list. Indeed I have just written again to FOS with reference to his previous decision and I named the woman who did the mis-selling. Amamda Norcott

Hi, I think that in relation to MP's it depends who they are and their party, in respect of mis-selling it appears to me that everytime banks or other organisations set up dodgy deals or dealings they put some cash away in case they get caught, case in point being PPI.