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

[Fuzzbutt]

no my loan was for 3 year interest free.. I signed up mid December.. got no training because I was out of the country until 18th January first payment came out of my account on the 15th of january.. I made 2 payments before I asked them to stop taking money from my account.. so I had paid two payments of £151.48

Mine was for three years interest free

 

Thanks 10pack. Have Hausfeld got a copy of this ? Forgive my daft question - if not would you please let Ingrid have a copy? Thanks.

[10pack]

Thanks 10pack. Have Hausfeld got a copy of this ? Forgive my daft question - if not would you please let Ingrid have a copy? Thanks.

 

yes already sent out.. what about these letter from mercers.. they arrive unsealed no way they came unstuck.. obviously designed to embarress because the post man can see

[lowdown]

Lowdown - can you please send a copy of this letter to Ingrid Gubbay (our lawyer)?

Could be a crucial confession!

Thanks.

 

PM me if you'd prefer.

 

Ok, I have PM'd you.

[panliberski]

Hausfeld's first letter states...

 

"We note that in a number of loan agreements, the APR charged by BPF was 29.8%. In other similar loan agreements, the APR was 5.91%. We have seen no evidence that these charges for credit were individually negotiated (or if they were, on what basis). We are also not aware, to date, of any obvious reason for the disparity in treatment. Furthermore, in the circumstances, we believe that a court would find an APR of 29.8% to be unfair within the meaning of section 140A of the CCA 1974."

 

But I've also seen people state here and on FB that they were given a 0% interest loan (though I can't imagine that Barclays or any lender come to think of it would do that). I'm guessing here that the posters got confused and were actually given an interest free loan for a limited period, as I was, for a year only. THEN the 26% interest would have kicked in but I'd paid mine off from savings before the year was up.

There's usually a catch to an interest free loan in that you get snagged by BIG % interest once that honeymoon period is over. I calculated I'd be able to pay it back before that deadline. I think Barclays/Advent were counting on many not being able to repay in that time limit but were happy still to lend to people desperate to borrow in order to try and get a qualification and better themselves. The fact that BPF agreed all these unsuitable loans pushed through by the Advent salespeople without proper credit checks etc (they lent, afterall, to part-time workers who'd have been scraping pennies to pay back each month) shows how mis-sold it all was and greedy grabbing.

 

That makes what they are doing all the more despicable somehow.

 

i have 0% over five yrs, however it doesn't make me feel any better at the moment. Sent to Ingrid long time ago.

Edited July 21, 2010 by panliberski
why not?

[mantaxi]

did you notice that they were left deliberately open with "debt collecting agency" for all to see..

who writes letters and does not seal the envelopes??

 

I think they are not allowed to do this its harrassment

 

were these letters recorded delivery, if not then you did not get them did you. if they send recorded delivery, don't sign for them. see what happens then

[casper85]

Lowdown - can you please send a copy of this letter to Ingrid Gubbay (our lawyer)?

Could be a crucial confession!

Thanks.

 

PM me if you'd prefer.

 

I'd imagine "relevant authorities" just refers to the ex employee(s) that hacked in the system to get everyones personal details.

[lowdown]

I'd imagine "relevant authorities" just refers to the ex employee(s) that hacked in the system to get everyones personal details.

 

That quote was from the part of the letter regarding account in dispute.

As for the Gospel letter, BPF are doing an internal investigation into that [Their words].

Personally after dealing with BPF for four months and experiencing their

Incompetence level of the highest degree, they would have trouble naming the seven days of the week , let alone get to the bottom of Database hacking.

[THE ROADIE]

That quote was from the part of the letter regarding account in dispute.

As for the Gospel letter, BPF are doing an internal investigation into that [Their words].

Personally after dealing with BPF for four months and experiencing their

Incompetence level of the highest degree, they would have trouble naming the seven days of the week , let alone get to the bottom of Database hacking.

I would suspect that they would take someone hacking into their databse more seriously than complying with moral and legal code with regards to their customers!

[lowdown]

I would suspect that they would take someone hacking into their databse more seriously than complying with moral and legal code with regards to their customers!

 

I would like to think the two things went hand in hand if they took anything seriously.

[Wrighty1985]

Hi guys, seems I'm in the same position as a lot of you.

I was unemployed when I signed up to Advent, my dad had to help me out with the finance with Barclays (as my credit is non-existent). So the money comes out of his account every month but still costs me 200 a month!

 

I've switched to Computeach as the letter in January seemed to suggest no other option (join or pay the 9k for nothing!)

 

I have no previous qualifications in IT aside from a GCSE from 2001 (hence why I wanted to update my web design skills..Front Page 98 isnt exactly the shizzle anymore )

 

I am not happy with being lumbered with Computeach..like a lot of you I researched them before looking into Advent..to put it bluntly IF I WANTED TO USE COMPUTEACH I WOULD HAVE DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

 

Fuzz you are a legend! I'm so glad I've found this discussion, I will e-mail you personally tonight and send anything you need for evidence, havent looked at the contracts etc. at dads yet, interested to see if the signitures are on them.

 

Good luck to us all!

I could certainly do with the 3.5 k ive already paid back and to be 200 up a month!

[jm10]

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

[10pack]

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

 

Wow you are well advanced.. how did you manage to get it to this stage? was it you that pushed things?

 

I'd be surprised if it was Barclays, from what I can see they seem to be happy bullying us into paying, because I think they are scared to get us near a court because they know they are on dodgey ground.

 

I really think we will all be rooting for you.. since a win for you gives us more nails to hammer in the coffin that Barclays have made for themselves.

 

We are supposed to be their customers and this is how they treat us, I wonder what they would do if we were not?.

I beggers belief that for a few quid they have stiched themselves up in this situation.. because it is their doing no one elses.

[Eagle1905]

Hey all. Recieved a letter through post from Barclays. Basically Its a second final response? It states that by them providing computeach they have fulfilled their obligations in regards to section 75 and also means I cant dispute my account. I will be sending a copy of this letter of to Hausfeld.

[jm10]

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

[10pack]

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

 

Remember the extras BPF are supposedly offering advent/BPF customers are only available to view after you have signed up with computeach.. then you are hooked.. and they can tell you anything.. its unfair practise and should not be allowed but BPF are doing what they like they still behave as if we are only one customer.. they forget or dont want to know they have thousands of very ****ed off customers and we now have the power of the internet we keep each other informed of what they are doing.

Good Luck

[casper85]

Reported the ex barclays employee letter to the FSA and had a phone call from the FSA today - they are going to investigate which can result in big fat fine for Barclays.

Also sent the story to the Mirror, have spoken to them and they should hopefully be running the story as long as the legalailty around it is ok.

[lowdown]

Reported the ex barclays employee letter to the FSA and had a phone call from the FSA today - they are going to investigate which can result in big fat fine for Barclays.

Also sent the story to the Mirror, have spoken to them and they should hopefully be running the story as long as the legalailty around it is ok.

 

 

FSA told me to send them a copy of the letter [to me] from BPF admitting

the Database breach.They did not mention to me about the fine,but did say if it was widespread and proven there could be serious implications.

Tricky situation regarding the ex-employee but it was only info that was freely available on the net.The fact that the database was hacked is far more serious for BPF than hearsay from the web.Not sure if this will help the case as far as S75 goes,but it displays the whole mess BPF have created over the Advent demise due to them.

[Captain Crunch]

Hello one & all, The day has finally arrived and day means that C!*tlys want £5000 from me... Whats everyone doing are you paying installments or tuffing it out.. Has anyone managed to get there account put on hold while the solicitior loks into the case.. Any advice would be most helpful....

[lewis2]

hi all i got a reply from the F.O today, it reads as follows.

" Thank you for sending us details of your complaint.

It would appear that Clydesdale Financial Services LTD have not issued

there final response on your complaint even though they have had the

required eight weeks in which to do so.

It may be possible for them to issue their final response shortly;we have

therefore contacted Clydesdale Financial Services LTD and requested that

they issue their final response letter within the next 14 days.

We will contact you again upon receipt of the final response from Clydesdale

Financial Services LTD or when the 14 day time limit has expired.

 

Does this mean there on my side and barclays just F%£@ed up ?

[Fuzzbutt]

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 JM10

 

If you want to have a read of the student site I set up and lift anything from there, please do (you're welcome to register on it too, even if you don't opt for the group action as obviously you're doing your own thing).

 

external link removed

 

Please do keep us posted on how it all goes. Good luck.

 

I kept replying to BPF and demanding 2 week replies. They just about managed that but when I and my local Trading Standards had the same fob-off letter I decided to initiate this group action as we seemed to be banging our heads against a wall. Yes, BPF's arrogance (evident in the patronising reply Noble gave to Bristol Trading Standards as his 'final word' when they wrote on my behalf) is amazing.

They'll hang themselves with their own rope now though.

Edited December 31, 2010 by IdaInFife
external link removed

[adinmatty]

I just received "final" answer from Barclays regarding account in dispute. Basically they assured me that Computeach is like for like and they have (Barclays) "taken steps to ensure that Computeach will meet the original terms and conditions provided to you by Advent"... - it looks like confirmation for their tactics to "adjust" Compucrap offer to fit with Advent.

In addition: bla bla bla... "...you have not been able to provide us with any evidence that the training now being offered is materially different to the training to which you subscribed under the Agreement and therefore have failed to indentify any basis on which you may reasonably refuse to accept the alternative training offered"... I basically boiled after reading that sentence. So after you buy red coat they offer blue blouse, and its yours business to prove that is not like for like?....

And again I have 8 weeks to answer this crap.

 

Fuzz, shall I put all my arguments in next letter (but than it will cause answer similiar to last letter from Hogan Lovells), or just leave it with our legal team?

 

Simply its impossible to prove anything, since whatever difference we raise they say "no its changed especially for ex-Advent students":mad:. However what about 3 months lost (Jan - April) or 6 (up to now), excluding Computeach in process of choosing Advent, promised job (3 months, pass CompTIA lvl, 20-25k job), lack of proper credit check - i was out of job end of Jan, and salesman was informed, etc.... And finally what about my basic right to say NO. Thank you very much, but after all of this I do not wish to be offered alternative doubtful provider at all?

 

What you think guys?

[Fuzzbutt]

Remember the extras BPF are supposedly offering advent/BPF customers are only available to view after you have signed up with computeach.. then you are hooked.. and they can tell you anything.. its unfair practise and should not be allowed but BPF are doing what they like they still behave as if we are only one customer.. they forget or dont want to know they have thousands of very ****ed off customers and we now have the power of the internet we keep each other informed of what they are doing.

Good Luck

 

True, our lawyer's advice was..

"CT must provide upfront information about the course programme before people sign up to take them. They can’t expect people to sign up to a course they know little about then CT are in danger of breaching the unfair terms in contracts act, and other consumer regulations. There needs to be clear and transparent product information BEFORE people sign on. Generally, there seems to be alot of confusion and different bits of information about what people can and can’t do, ie if Advent contract expired then have to pay again. Unless that bit of information was available in the administrators notice to students, or in any of the Advent or Barclays materials or other material then there is a very strong argument that if people were not given the proper notice of the expiration point, then it is not enforceable.

Students who feel under pressure should at the very least;

 

Demand to know the details of the product CT offers before signing on, and,

Whether they will incur any further financial liability

Have a right to refuse without incurring any loss or penalty

Let CT people know that they were not made aware of the expiration point ,where that is the case, and therefore this may well be legally challengeable."

 

One poor guy has already found this out to his cost.

[Penny Mitchell]

I have received a response from the FOS saying that they are "unable to recommend that my complaint should be upheld". They say there is no debtor-creditor-supplier agreement in place, because although I am the debtor in this agreement, as the party liable for the agreement, in order to make a claim under Section 75 I also need to be attending the course that I was funding. The course was being attended by my partner, and not me. Therefore I don't have a direct relationship with both the creditor and the supplier. Therefore they're not upholding my complaint.

[lowdown]

True, our lawyer's advice was..

"CT must provide upfront information about the course programme before people sign up to take them. They can’t expect people to sign up to a course they know little about then CT are in danger of breaching the unfair terms in contracts act, and other consumer regulations. There needs to be clear and transparent product information BEFORE people sign on. Generally, there seems to be alot of confusion and different bits of information about what people can and can’t do, ie if Advent contract expired then have to pay again. Unless that bit of information was available in the administrators notice to students, or in any of the Advent or Barclays materials or other material then there is a very strong argument that if people were not given the proper notice of the expiration point, then it is not enforceable.

Students who feel under pressure should at the very least;

 

Demand to know the details of the product CT offers before signing on, and,

Whether they will incur any further financial liability

Have a right to refuse without incurring any loss or penalty

Let CT people know that they were not made aware of the expiration point ,where that is the case, and therefore this may well be legally challengeable."

 

One poor guy has already found this out to his cost.

 

Fuzzbutt, i pretty much said that to BPF in my dispute [ not those exact words] Hence the reply i got [ which you have read]

So i suggest people get that over in their dispute letter.I think that point is at least making BPF slightly question their own misguided thinking.

[Fuzzbutt]

I just received "final" answer from Barclays regarding account in dispute. Basically they assured me that Computeach is like for like and they have (Barclays) "taken steps to ensure that Computeach will meet the original terms and conditions provided to you by Advent"... - it looks like confirmation for their tactics to "adjust" Compucrap offer to fit with Advent.

In addition: bla bla bla... "...you have not been able to provide us with any evidence that the training now being offered is materially different to the training to which you subscribed under the Agreement and therefore have failed to indentify any basis on which you may reasonably refuse to accept the alternative training offered"... I basically boiled after reading that sentence. So after you buy red coat they offer blue blouse, and its yours business to prove that is not like for like?....

And again I have 8 weeks to answer this crap.

 

Fuzz, shall I put all my arguments in next letter (but than it will cause answer similiar to last letter from Hogan Lovells), or just leave it with our legal team?

 

Simply its impossible to prove anything, since whatever difference we raise they say "no its changed especially for ex-Advent students":mad:. However what about 3 months lost (Jan - April) or 6 (up to now), excluding Computeach in process of choosing Advent, promised job (3 months, pass CompTIA lvl, 20-25k job), lack of proper credit check - i was out of job end of Jan, and salesman was informed, etc.... And finally what about my basic right to say NO. Thank you very much, but after all of this I do not wish to be offered alternative doubtful provider at all?

 

What you think guys?

 

Personally, I'd just reply you don't want CT and explain briefly why (just so BPF have it in writing) and advise them you are part of the Hausfeld group action.

 

I didn't even bother writing back to Noble again after his supposed 'final word' and just informed our beloved Wilma I was disgusted at her reply and would now be taking legal advice (the group action was just starting then).

 

Here's my final letter ....Barclays 5 (1).doc