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

[Fuzzbutt]

hi fuzz i sent the enrollment forms to the legal teams stating the course was self paced and the acceptance letter stating that they could only keep the place on the course for 14 days hope this helps?

i to will be a representative if need's be , no problem at all

keep positive fuzz they have already lied to us saying s75 does not apply

now they change there mind all of a sudden surely thats mis representation or some thing? looks like there stalling for time!

 

Thanks for doing that, Lewis - that's a great help.

If they admit to S75 I'm hoping that could be our ace card, though I'm not a lawyer so that's just my take on it all.

[Fuzzbutt]

Be nice if we can get him to give evidence for us against BPF. Failling that maybe we could seek advice from hausfield whether one of us could do the same thing and how best to go about it, then use it as evidence against BPF and computeach.

I'd be willing to stand up in court if need be.

 

Thanks Turfs - hopefully we'll crack this without anyone having to go through all that.

As many of us have now passed our finish dates on the Advent agreements (mine ran out just after Advent announced they were bust, I think) we also have the fact that many of us will not be able to move over to CT (even supposing we wanted to!) as they have stated to some people who have inquired they will only add 3 months at most onto the date Advent gave as end date. So those people don't have a chance to sit their exams now.

 

I'm confident that because CT are unwilling when asked to put their false promises on paper (people are being told conflicting things on the phone too) then Barclays won't be able to use that 'honouring Advents terms' crap anyway.

[Teo27]

hi fuzz i sent the enrollment forms to the legal teams stating the course was self paced and the acceptance letter stating that they could only keep the place on the course for 14 days hope this helps?

i to will be a representative if need's be , no problem at all

keep positive fuzz they have already lied to us saying s75 does not apply

now they change there mind all of a sudden surely thats mis representation or some thing? looks like there stalling for time!

 

I'm sure i have to have this letter somewhere too. I will look for it tommorow again :/

[Timage]

Fuzz,

 

Count me in also as a representative student, if you still need people. I'd be quite happy help in any way I can.

[mozzer0734]

Fuzzbutt I would also be willing to be a representative, my case is straight forward I’m still within 2 years I just won’t accept computeach. There is one thing bothering me though, this line from Ingrid on the site “The other issue is that I think people may be thinking we have taken on the case, and is important that people understand that we are still investigating it.” By this I understand that Hausfeld are not currently representing us and are still deciding if they will take on the case.

[Timage]

Fuzzbutt I would also be willing to be a representative, my case is straight forward I’m still within 2 years I just won’t accept computeach. There is one thing bothering me though, this line from Ingrid on the site “The other issue is that I think people may be thinking we have taken on the case, and is important that people understand that we are still investigating it.” By this I understand that Hausfeld are not currently representing us and are still deciding if they will take on the case.

 

Yes, that's the only way to take it. I guess we all just owe it to ourselves to find any more evidence that exists, and make sure that Hausfeld do take up the case.

[mantaxi]

hi all got a phone call from fos just to tell me that i have no chance to get any money back. she said because my dad signed the loan agreement and i signed the advent agreement that s75 will not apply to my dad and that i will have to try and get my money back from advent. some chance of that i said they have gone bust or didn't you know that. so where does that leave me then, only hope is hausfeld. i too have got the letter stating 14 days, strange that a lot of others got that letter, maybe they give you 14 days then start recruiting again, every 14 days of the year. every year.

[Bluedo]

hi all got a phone call from fos just to tell me that i have no chance to get any money back. she said because my dad signed the loan agreement and i signed the advent agreement that s75 will not apply to my dad and that i will have to try and get my money back from advent. some chance of that i said they have gone bust or didn't you know that. so where does that leave me then, only hope is hausfeld. i too have got the letter stating 14 days, strange that a lot of others got that letter, maybe they give you 14 days then start recruiting again, every 14 days of the year. every year.

 

Fricken hell Mantaxi that's same position as me, 1 thing bothers me though as I was led to believe my Dad was to be Guarantor not the recipient of the loan which by the way was paid to Advent so how the hell can he have no rights under s75 .

Except I've not paid nothing yet as the interest free period was up in March however I find this hard to swallow that there is no consumer protection under these circumstances we never received goods or services,

and as even adding the goodwill of BPF 3month I am left with 9month to complete an mcse + ccna it's impossible, and I only got as far as the first two exams. plus if BPF paid Advent for Dad he wasn't a student so why would they do that? none of this was explained. I understood a Guarantor to be only a back up if I failed to pay not the recipient of the loan and why would BPF pay Advent for a loan that the course was not being done by the person receiving it?

Real dodgy

I wasn't working at the time this got set up but cant live on fresh air so took a job after the promise of a job within 3months failed to transpire so that cut down the study time.

We have been well and truly stitched up and if BPF think I'm paying £11,000 for two books and a folder then they can think again this has got to be totally unfair I believe all in for this course it costs a massive fraction of this cost think it can be done for £1000 or less. :evil:

[The Maelstrom]

I'm in the same boat as you mantaxi and Bluedo. As I am out of work and was at the time of starting the course, my friend kindly sign the credit agreement for me.

 

I have a copy of a letter that Advent sent to him, stating he is only acting as a sponsor to me, therefore allowing me to start the course.

 

I got the 12 month deferred payment option and it states quite clearly in several places I am the one responsible for the repayments. It even states he will not need to sign the direct debit mandate, as I will be using my bank details if I choose to take the pay £12k option.

 

If this does note show a connection, then I don't know what does. Not to mention, if there is no connection, why are Barclays happy to let me sign with Computeach for the remaining 18 months at their supposed expense?

[BlueMum]

I sponsored my son for this course, we were told about an alternative trainer who initially made contact with my son but now have seemingly vanished!

 

Now on a hardship plan, there is no justifcation seen in these guys still wanting their money! and now they want almost £14,000

 

I paid £100 over the phone once (before contact with CCCS), towards the 'debt' and smaller sums all under duress. Credit Consumer Counselling Services are a good source for support and information, on all debt/financial hardship.

 

Today I have posted a link to this thread via my facebook.. in faith that Justice prevails.

 

Good Luck everyone

[JuiceyBuns]

I am the guarantor for my wife and will be contesting if they pull the same crap with me. I don't see the difference tbh, the loan is for training, doesn't matter whether I'm the student or not.

 

On the same note.. I have not received any training or materials.. so the loan should be void.

[Fuzzbutt]

Fuzzbutt I would also be willing to be a representative, my case is straight forward I’m still within 2 years I just won’t accept computeach. There is one thing bothering me though, this line from Ingrid on the site “The other issue is that I think people may be thinking we have taken on the case, and is important that people understand that we are still investigating it.” By this I understand that Hausfeld are not currently representing us and are still deciding if they will take on the case.

 

No, don't worry Mozzer. They are just being cautious as it's not reached court yet and is still in investigative stages. The only signature as proof they are engaged to represent us is mine on any legal document at the moment. I've removed that comment now in case it confuses people. I think law firms avoid concrete promises as, to be fair, how do they know how a court case will go (even ones they are pretty dead certain about)? Until the judges' decision no one has any guarantee of anything.

 

Once they've selected a group of the representative people they will have to give a signature too I expect, as I did. Ingrid is confident about this case and emailed me today to reassure people of that.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Fuzzbutt

[Fuzzbutt]

Fuzz,

 

Count me in also as a representative student, if you still need people. I'd be quite happy help in any way I can.

 

Thanks Timage.

[Fuzzbutt]

Yes, that's the only way to take it. I guess we all just owe it to ourselves to find any more evidence that exists, and make sure that Hausfeld do take up the case.

 

True - it's our case essentially, and Hausfeld can only put forward what we give them to use, hence my appeal for any old docs/letters/emails etc you have from Advent or CT.

If they don't get that there is no case.

 

Thanks to everyone for your great efforts though. I've had about 10 emails tonight from people - all forwarded on to Ingrid. And I know some of you are contacting her directly too, so she asked me to pass on her thanks. There are a few useful gems there, so the more the better.

[Fuzzbutt]

Fricken hell Mantaxi that's same position as me, 1 thing bothers me though as I was led to believe my Dad was to be Guarantor not the recipient of the loan which by the way was paid to Advent so how the hell can he have no rights under s75 .

Except I've not paid nothing yet as the interest free period was up in March however I find this hard to swallow that there is no consumer protection under these circumstances we never received goods or services,

and as even adding the goodwill of BPF 3month I am left with 9month to complete an mcse + ccna it's impossible, and I only got as far as the first two exams. plus if BPF paid Advent for Dad he wasn't a student so why would they do that? none of this was explained. I understood a Guarantor to be only a back up if I failed to pay not the recipient of the loan and why would BPF pay Advent for a loan that the course was not being done by the person receiving it?

Real dodgy

I wasn't working at the time this got set up but cant live on fresh air so took a job after the promise of a job within 3months failed to transpire so that cut down the study time.

We have been well and truly stitched up and if BPF think I'm paying £11,000 for two books and a folder then they can think again this has got to be totally unfair I believe all in for this course it costs a massive fraction of this cost think it can be done for £1000 or less. :evil:

 

Exactly - stitched up are the words I'd use, Bluedo. It's disgraceful that the Financial Ombudsman is failing consumers in your position here.

[lewis2]

hi fuzz barclays are back on the phone again so i guess my account in dispute/hold didnt last to long , surprised ?...NO!

i'm sending another letter to them in the morning and was wondering if i should mention that i'm involved in the class action in it?

if so should i say that there legal team has said that s75 applies to

those of us with in a debtor ,creditor, supplier situation?

[mozzer0734]

No, don't worry Mozzer. They are just being cautious as it's not reached court yet and is still in investigative stages. The only signature as proof they are engaged to represent us is mine on any legal document at the moment. I've removed that comment now in case it confuses people. I think law firms avoid concrete promises as, to be fair, how do they know how a court case will go (even ones they are pretty dead certain about)? Until the judges' decision no one has any guarantee of anything.

 

Once they've selected a group of the representative people they will have to give a signature too I expect, as I did. Ingrid is confident about this case and emailed me today to reassure people of that.

 

Thanks fuzz, puts my mind to rest a bit. Keep up the good work you have been fantastic so far and the only reason we all have a chance at getting are money back.

[lewis2]

hi all i just found this on the net

The “certain circumstances” in which liability will be imposed on the creditor

are as follows:-

(a) that the agreement is a commercial agreement; (b) that the agreement is

regulated by the Act; © that the item or service supplied has a cash price

exceeding £100 but not more than £30,000; (d) that the agreement is

made by the creditor under a pre-existing arrangement between the

creditor and the supplier or in contemplation of future arrangements

Think this is any help?

[lewis2]

this makes good reading also I got his from.... House Of Lords Judgments - Office of fair trading (respondents)v.Lloyds tsb bank plc and others (appellants) and others (respondents)

20. The Committee distinguished "connected" from "unconnected" loans - foreshadowing the later statutory distinction between debtor-creditor-supplier agreements (s 12) and debtor-creditor agreements (s 13). The Committee described connected loans as involving situations where "the sale and loan aspects of the transaction are closely intertwined" and the connected lender and the seller, where not the same person, are "in effect engaged in a joint venture to their mutual advantage" (para 6.2.24). In paras 6.6.24-29 it concluded that in such situations the legal right which a buyer might have against his seller was not sufficient protection, observing that the majority of cases in which the buyer was likely to suffer were those where the seller was of doubtful repute and able to continue in business only because of the financial support received from the lender. In that light, the Committee recommended that the connected lender (creditor) should incur a primary liability for a supplier's misrepresentation or breach (para 6.6.26), along lines later reflected in section 75(1). It explained:

 

"6.6.29 In reaching this conclusion we have been influenced by the additional fact that if the delinquent seller is worth powder and shot it ought to be easier for the lender to put pressure on him to deal with the complaint than it is for the borrower. The lender is not likely to be so inhibited by expense from suing the seller; and in most cases proceedings by the lender would be unnecessary because the lender is in a position to say to the seller that future financing facilities will be withdrawn unless the seller attends to the complaint and takes greater care in the conduct of his business".

[mantaxi]

Fricken hell Mantaxi that's same position as me, 1 thing bothers me though as I was led to believe my Dad was to be Guarantor not the recipient of the loan which by the way was paid to Advent so how the hell can he have no rights under s75 .

Except I've not paid nothing yet as the interest free period was up in March however I find this hard to swallow that there is no consumer protection under these circumstances we never received goods or services,

and as even adding the goodwill of BPF 3month I am left with 9month to complete an mcse + ccna it's impossible, and I only got as far as the first two exams. plus if BPF paid Advent for Dad he wasn't a student so why would they do that? none of this was explained. I understood a Guarantor to be only a back up if I failed to pay not the recipient of the loan and why would BPF pay Advent for a loan that the course was not being done by the person receiving it?

Real dodgy

I wasn't working at the time this got set up but cant live on fresh air so took a job after the promise of a job within 3months failed to transpire so that cut down the study time.

We have been well and truly stitched up and if BPF think I'm paying £11,000 for two books and a folder then they can think again this has got to be totally unfair I believe all in for this course it costs a massive fraction of this cost think it can be done for £1000 or less. :evil:

 

it seems to me that bpf have got the fos in thier pockets. my dad can't believe that he has no right under s75. maybe bpf knew this all along so made the advent salesperson get 2 different signatures thinking they would be safe. if that is the case that my dad has no right under s75 because he signed that agreement does this mean that because the advent salesperson did not sign my advent agreement ( states in thier t &c that no contract exists if not signed ) that i have no contract with advent, then why has bpf taken £4750 from my dad? :-x:-x if bpf lawyers are quoting the terms of the contract at us then why is my contract valid when it states no signature no contract? i think there are others out there with advent contracts that have not been signed by the salesperson. maybe we can find out from hausfeld if this another way to go as well.

[krayzie eagle]

hi guys ii have been going through y'all comments,,,,I'm going through the same situation like you guys for the last three months they been stressing me out so much I'm mentally getting tired of this. they been calling me with different numbers...when they called for first time i told them straight that I'm not going to pay for nothing and then they kept calling me n telling me to pay all that crap since then ain't pick up there calls and feels me like I'm wasting my time talking with em and now recently they been calling from different numbers...so gay lol plus i received couple of red notice saying that if you don't pay the arrears we will claim the all money that we payed to the advent i mean how the heck they can do that? guys I' gonna step in to the citizen bureau today I will let you guys know whatever I get from em.

 

Hopefully we will win the case..........keep in touch guys;)

[gfunkasaur]

Hey all, can somebody tell what to look for on my contract that tells me (legally) whether or not I have a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement. In the parties section it just says them and me, just below this it says, "goods or services financed by credit-training course". At the bottom however, it says next to what is supposed to be a signature (signed for on behalf of BPF!), "retailer name-advent consulting ltd branch number....blah"

Am I right in assuming that as no money was payed out directly to me(the debtor), it was supposedly signed on behalf of BPF(the creditor) by an advent employee, and advent are the retailer(supplier) then this falls under what Barclays lawyers have said s75 applies to. Or..have they got out of that by leaving advent out the parties bit? Any ideas folks

Edited July 16, 2010 by gfunkasaur

[panliberski]

My Response From Fos Doesn't Look Promising .... But

Fos Confirms That s75 Applies To This Situation. The Trick Would Be To Convince Fos That Advent And Computeach Aren't Like For Like.

[lowdown]

this makes good reading also I got his from.... House Of Lords Judgments - Office of fair trading (respondents)v.Lloyds tsb bank plc and others (appellants) and others (respondents)

20. The Committee distinguished "connected" from "unconnected" loans - foreshadowing the later statutory distinction between debtor-creditor-supplier agreements (s 12) and debtor-creditor agreements (s 13). The Committee described connected loans as involving situations where "the sale and loan aspects of the transaction are closely intertwined" and the connected lender and the seller, where not the same person, are "in effect engaged in a joint venture to their mutual advantage" (para 6.2.24). In paras 6.6.24-29 it concluded that in such situations the legal right which a buyer might have against his seller was not sufficient protection, observing that the majority of cases in which the buyer was likely to suffer were those where the seller was of doubtful repute and able to continue in business only because of the financial support received from the lender. In that light, the Committee recommended that the connected lender (creditor) should incur a primary liability for a supplier's misrepresentation or breach (para 6.6.26), along lines later reflected in section 75(1). It explained:

 

"6.6.29 In reaching this conclusion we have been influenced by the additional fact that if the delinquent seller is worth powder and shot it ought to be easier for the lender to put pressure on him to deal with the complaint than it is for the borrower. The lender is not likely to be so inhibited by expense from suing the seller; and in most cases proceedings by the lender would be unnecessary because the lender is in a position to say to the seller that future financing facilities will be withdrawn unless the seller attends to the complaint and takes greater care in the conduct of his business".

 

Now that is very interesting!

[mugsymo]

I sent an email to Consumer Direct about an ex advent employee mentioning Barclays cut the funding and heres what i got:-

 

Dear Mr Mowat,

 

Thank you for your recent email dated 9th July.

 

Please allow me to apologise in the delay in replying to your email.

 

With reference to your enquiry, I have attached the further details you have provided to your case. Rest assured, all details are passed to Trading Standards for their intelligence purposes. Where bad practice occurs, there is potential for Trading Standards to take action.

 

I trust the above information is of some assistance to you. If you require any further advice, please do not hesitate to contact Consumer Direct quoting your above reference number on Tel No: 08454 04 05 06 our offices are opened Monday to Friday 8am - 6.30pm and Saturday 9am - 1pm. If this is not convenient please feel free to contact me at the email address below.

 

 

Thank you for your enquiry.

 

What i was thinking was cant we win this case by prooving that Barclays were the ones who cut funding for the course and we dont trust them so in essence we can't trust them with another training provider as we don't want to go through all this hassle again, then we could add to this case by using where they have screwed people in the past and the only reason why we accepted Barclays offer is due to the fact we had no idea about the company til we got treated this way.... then we can move onto the mis trust issue (ex barclays employee's having our info)

Edited July 16, 2010 by mugsymo