Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)Info and discussion thread

[Savarok]

Indeed Mustard I was just about to say that, how can they say that it applies now when good ol' Wilma Thomson mailed out thousands of letters stating otherwise.

 

Looks like the left hand isnt talking to the right hand.

[lowdown]

Contact Fuzzbutt for any questions about the Action website!!

 

Hey Fuzz,

 

Looks like they have backtracked on the section 75 argument they quite clearly say that section 75 applies. Also they say disclosing how they arrived at Computeach is irrelevant, but they will give us the leaflet LOL!!

 

I think they are stalling for time in a big way!

 

Just reading through now.

They do not mention you will only get the details of like for like,

[or bespoke...lol]from CT when you sign up to another contract again,

clarifying their claim to PKF that they can earn future income from former Advent students [ hence BPF not wanting to disclose how they reached at CT....lol [ do BPF not know we have a copy of the PKF Email?]

Also it seems they want to break it down to a per person claim,

forgeting its a class action.That would possibly be down to damage limitation.[Pay that one off - keep that one]

 

Also they are pretty much saying that most of the students are lying in the

statements about pressure to sign to Advent and mis selling.

 

Get you popcorn in folks - its gonna be a long film.

[10pack]

Contact Fuzzbutt for any questions about the Action website!!

 

Hey Fuzz,

 

Looks like they have backtracked on the section 75 argument they quite clearly say that section 75 applies. Also they say disclosing how they arrived at Computeach is irrelevant, but they will give us the leaflet LOL!!

 

I think they are stalling for time in a big way!

 

yes thats the impression I got while reading their reply.. I also felt like they were just laughing.. and not taking us seriously.

 

I also note that they seem to think that supplying computeach is it as far as they are concerned they dont need to do more to justify asking us for money.. how can this be.. surely its their definition of supplying a satisfactory alternative.. not mine and as some of you may of noted me write before..

 

I dont want to be a computeach student again!!!!

 

So how do my views come into their argument???

 

and its been 6 months now since advent pegged it.. i have lost 6 months worth of study time while BPF have been stalling and taking the ****!!

 

Their claim of equal study time with computeach does not come into it with the amount of my time they have wasted.

 

I want my money back.. all £312 and then they can get lost.. which is basicly what I have already asked for when I have phoned each time before.. they refused me each time??

[Savarok]

Also it seems they want to break it down to a per person claim,

forgeting its a class action.That would possibly be down to damage limitation.[Pay that one off - keep that one]

 

.

 

Will it not eventually get to that? Class action or not?

[alf man]

Where does this leave us payment wise? Do we don't we? Advice from solicitors required I think.

[raj4u]

lovely 32 page stupid letter! isn't it? how can they say things like that..i'm sure they even want to pose more pressure on our lawyer saying that its a premature class action and wants details of individuals. so sick of these b@st***s!

[lowdown]

Will it not eventually get to that? Class action or not?

 

Possibly.

But what does this mean?

"At the outset we note that our client accepts that section 75 of the CCA will apply where there is in fact a debtor-creditor-supplier arrangement in place"

Only to students with a loan in place?

[JuiceyBuns]

An interesting read and mostly expected from Barclays at this stage.

 

Fuzzbutt, it might be worth asking Hausfeld what exactly they need from us to satisfy our claims. ie, a written statement from each student on the misrepresentation and the loss incurred. A template could be set out as I'm sure most people had the same lies told to them.

 

Something like, I xxxxxx, was sold the course on the promise that I could complete the first 2 modules within 3 months and that they would provide employment with a salary of £x which advent failed to provide and now I have financial loss due to the lack of employment. The course was also misrepresented as I was told that there were limited places and I had 14 days to complete my enrollment, when in fact they were recruiting months later for the same course. etc etc.

[Savarok]

That there JuiceyBuns, is a really good idea.

 

I think the first couple of blows have been landed and now the real fight begins.

[DonnieB]

Putting aside any question of misselling or failure to deliver on Advent's part (as i believe these are the trickier areas of the case, though no less valid) I just get so ****ed off that there is any argument at all with regard to Barclays being able to say "here's a company, they offer training, thats all we have to do". Personally this is where the fight is for me coz it seems so wrong.

 

Its amazing that in that response, assumin i'm reading it right, they say that Computeach have offered a bespoke course for the advent people and if ya just go sign up with computeach you'll have access to the info to see how exactly the same it all is, just go sign up, it'll all be fine then, blah, blah, blah. If it really is the case why are computeach so evasive and inconsistent when answering our questions and concerns????

[alf man]

The hardest point for people to prove and this is mainly for the people who contracts with Advent that have '' expired '' is that Advent offered everyone open ended training until you passed the final exam. In my particular case I had a email from computeach saying that my contract had expired in June 09 strange because I went to a workshop after that date but I cant find any documentation to prove and I dare bet all files accept contracts were destroyed when advent went bust.

Mis selling is plain to see and as juicybuns say a generic template would be good because we all got spun same load of s**t .

[skyblue dave]

What do people think of the letter on the 'Latest News' page of the 'Advent Student's' web site. As far as I can tell, it appears that Hausfield are backing away from the case.

[Cadarn]

The hardest point for people to prove and this is mainly for the people who contracts with Advent that have '' expired '' is that Advent offered everyone open ended training until you passed the final exam. In my particular case I had a email from computeach saying that my contract had expired in June 09 strange because I went to a workshop after that date but I cant find any documentation to prove and I dare bet all files accept contracts were destroyed when advent went bust.

Mis selling is plain to see and as juicybuns say a generic template would be good because we all got spun same load of s**t .

 

I too received an email from Computeach saying my contract expired in July '09.

I attended a workshop in October '09, I was supplied with a code to take a mock exam in in December '09, took and passed a Microsoft exam in December '09 and received more course materials from Advent in December '09.

As I was "sold" the course as being open ended I didn't ask for an extension so it looks like both Advent and me weren't aware of a two year "term".

I still have all email correspondence that took place between Advent and me after the supposed expiry date of my contract and will be happy to send copies to Hausfeld as and when required.

[lowdown]

The hardest point for people to prove and this is mainly for the people who contracts with Advent that have '' expired '' is that Advent offered everyone open ended training until you passed the final exam. In my particular case I had a email from computeach saying that my contract had expired in June 09 strange because I went to a workshop after that date but I cant find any documentation to prove and I dare bet all files accept contracts were destroyed when advent went bust.

Mis selling is plain to see and as juicybuns say a generic template would be good because we all got spun same load of s**t .

 

Have CT contacted you at any time since Advent went under?

[if your training has expired]

If so and BPF offered you another training provider, they knew the contract was open ended, otherwise why offer you CT? [More money for CT of course]

The offer from BPF to you might be evidence?

Edited July 14, 2010 by lowdown

[JuiceyBuns]

What do people think of the letter on the 'Latest News' page of the 'Advent Student's' web site. As far as I can tell, it appears that Hausfield are backing away from the case.

 

Can you explain your reasoning for seeing the BPF response as Hausfield backing away?

 

To me the response seems more like BPF trying to avoid class action by wanting to deal with each case separately rather than in a mass action. Avoiding a large law suit and much unwanted press.

[skyblue dave]

Can you explain your reasoning for seeing the BPF response as Hausfield backing away?

 

To me the response seems more like BPF trying to avoid class action by wanting to deal with each case separately rather than in a mass action. Avoiding a large law suit and much unwanted press.

 

 

I'm not referring to the response from BFP. I'm referring to the letter on the 'Latest News' page of the web-site.

[DINKY_2010]

I'm not referring to the response from BFP. I'm referring to the letter on the 'Latest News' page of the web-site.

 

 

Can you send me the link for the latest news page of the website please?

[pigwig]

The hardest point for people to prove and this is mainly for the people who contracts with Advent that have '' expired '' is that Advent offered everyone open ended training until you passed the final exam. In my particular case I had a email from computeach saying that my contract had expired in June 09 strange because I went to a workshop after that date but I cant find any documentation to prove and I dare bet all files accept contracts were destroyed when advent went bust.

Mis selling is plain to see and as juicybuns say a generic template would be good because we all got spun same load of s**t .

 

I did eventually get an email back from my salesman confirming they extended contracts. I've forwarded it to the legal team, hopefully that will help a bit!

 

I'm not sure how Barclays expect us to 'prove' the misselling!!...do they expect us to have recorded the conversations or something!!?? Idiots!

[JuiceyBuns]

I'm not referring to the response from BFP. I'm referring to the letter on the 'Latest News' page of the web-site.

 

Ah, I hadn't seen that. I wouldn't say that they are backing away just from that news, but are ensuring that they can make a solid case against BPF before taking any further action. BPF want some clear details of the breaches for students and want to deal with each student case separately. Hausfield will tell us what they need soon to build up the case if they don't have enough information already.

 

Stay positive!

[THE ROADIE]

Well, BPFs lawyer admitting the S75 does apply is big news. Would we be able to sue Barclays for false representation then, as in their letters they say it doesn't apply?

[Fuzzbutt]

Juicybuns idea of a template statement is a good one and I'll put that to our lawyer.

 

She's looking at all our docs again and may need individuals to give in-depth accounts and offer to be (on paper at least) a representative. I'll let everyone know. Personally I've said I'm willing to go to court and face these b*****ds in any way I can now. The arrogant tone of that letter from Hogan Lovells is depressing (it's even getting me down, and that's hard to do as I'm a generally positive person).

 

If you have ANYTHING in writing or email that could help us out PLEASE send it ASAP to Ingrid (or me to pass on) so she can build an unshakable case. We really need to do this.

We can't let BPF squirm out of this. They are indeed, sneeringly insinuating we are lying.

[THE ROADIE]

I have my confirmation of appointment letter at home which states that course places were limited, if I remember correctly. I will have a look at home tonight to double check.

[JuiceyBuns]

I'm not sure how Barclays expect us to 'prove' the misselling!!...do they expect us to have recorded the conversations or something!!?? Idiots!

 

It is indeed hard to prove what someone has said, but when hundreds of people are complaining that they were sold a course on the same promises, I think that is good proof. Nobody expected that to be lies and so we never recorded the sales pitch or got it all in writing. Especially with a 14 day sign up for a limited place course

 

Fuzzbutt you've done an outstanding job so far and we are all grateful for your efforts. Don't let BPF get you down, we didn't expect them to fall at the first hurdle.

[Turfs75]

Hi all,

Been reading through the letter from BPF, found it quite annoying. Anyway i was reading the 'misrepresentation alleged to be by advent and access' and our claims that the reps told us it was open ended but on some of our contracts it states 2 years and then they draws your attension to clause 15.8 which basically says if you find anything wrong with the contract to contact them within 30 days'. I only found out AFTER advent went bust and only when i logged on to this forum that there was a 2 year course period. So who do i contact about it!?

I would also love to know what the difference is between our 'bestoke' course and what computeach off as normal. i had a look at the info sent by BPF lawyer but it doesn't mention about the MCSE just the MCSA course.

[Mustard2243]

Take it as a positive Fuzzbutt, It is going to be a long ride but i think we are on to a winner now especially as Hogan Lovells are just trying to stall by asking us for irrelevant details. It will not be long before we are outside a court room chanting Ingrid,Ingrid,Ingrid!!!