Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)

[Bluedo]

I also think that advent in the last month or so was saying anything to collect money because they knew they was going to the wall.

For me it was about 4 weeks from when I signed up before advent went bust, and yet somehow they managed to find time to rush my paperwork through to get a loan from Barclays.. how?

if barclays had removed their financing at begining of December 2009.. what sort of time scales are we talking about from when barclays said thats it we will cut you off now? it could not have been days by the look of it.. otherwise if it was weeks barclays would have refused to finance my loan simply because of the time limits.

so by the looks of it it was mere days, and the advent boss wrote that he had tried hard to find alternate finance before going bust.

what happened to all the money that should have been there to pay for our training concidering the banks are saying they gave payment up front.. i really wish we kew what happened there.

someone knows:!:

 

Exactly!! there are too many questions surrounding the circumstances and the fact they were in such a rush to sign people up even like yourself 10pack so near to the withdrawal they must have known this was their intention yet continued to trap as many as they could. They should have stopped issuing loans.

I like you would really like to know did barlclays paid upfront because one of the guys who posted earlier on in this said Advent didn't receive payment upfront but in parts. whole thing stinks.

[Bluedo]

I have been watching these companie's

 

Status: Active - Proposal to Strike off

 

WDNTOE .....Access

WDNTS . .....Advent Computer training

WDNTC Ten UK.......Ideas for Careers

 

Check them out on companies house webcheck.

 

There is now a proposal to strike off I've had a look to see what this means and .....Here it is another piece of the jigsaw.

The missing millions maybe.

 

How do I apply for a company to be struck off the Register?

 

Complete and send us Form DS01 with a £10 filing fee: The Registrar will provide the form on request. However, striking-off is only applicable to a company if, in the past three months, it has not:

 

traded or otherwise carried on business;

changed its name;

disposed for value of property or rights that, immediately before ceasing to be in business or trade, it held for disposal or gain in the normal course of that business or trade; or

engaged in any other activity except one necessary or expedient for making a striking-off application, settling the company’s affairs or meeting a statutory requirement. A company can, however, apply if it has settled trading or business debts in the previous three months.

(See guidance booklet 'Striking-off, Dissolution and Restoration' for full details of how to apply.)

[Fuzzbutt]

FUZZBUTT ANNOUNCEMENT:

For anyone who did not get my mass mail last message as they haven't registered on the student website and are still unsure.

"New information just come to hand suggests that if you were a former student who paid in full just before the collapse of Advent and had no course end date on your enrolment form you may well, based upon recent experience, get at least a 60% refund from the FOS. Computeach have said they did not offer ‘open ended’ course dates, so to that extent the fact that the two courses differed in that respect has been accepted by the FOS."

This is the quote direct from our Hausfeld lawyer (see latest news on the advent student website).....emphasis is on paid in full and no end date.

 

It's not clear yet if you would still get a FOS ruling in your favour if you had no end date (or no dates) but were still repaying the loan - until someone tries it and we get a FOS decision we won't know.

I would give it a try - they can only say no, after all.

Off the top of my head (just my opinion) if your agreement shows the course was sold to you as 'open-ended' as in the successful case (whether paid off or not) it seems reasonable you should get a favourable result and would maybe just get back a % of what you paid so far.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Fuzzbutt

[10pack]

FUZZBUTT ANNOUNCEMENT:

For anyone who did not get my mass mail last message as they haven't registered on the student website and are still unsure.

"New information just come to hand suggests that if you were a former student who paid in full just before the collapse of Advent and had no course end date on your enrolment form you may well, based upon recent experience, get at least a 60% refund from the FOS. Computeach have said they did not offer ‘open ended’ course dates, so to that extent the fact that the two courses differed in that respect has been accepted by the FOS."

This is the quote direct from our Hausfeld lawyer (see latest news on the advent student website).....emphasis is on paid in full and no end date.

 

It's not clear yet if you would still get a FOS ruling in your favour if you had no end date (or no dates) but were still repaying the loan - until someone tries it and we get a FOS decision we won't know.

I would give it a try - they can only say no, after all.

Off the top of my head (just my opinion) if your agreement shows the course was sold to you as 'open-ended' as in the successful case (whether paid off or not) it seems reasonable you should get a favourable result and would maybe just get back a % of what you paid so far.

 

By paid in full do you mean.. have personally paid over all monies with no loan.. or do you mean the banks handed over the full amount to Advent?

[Fuzzbutt]

By paid in full do you mean.. have personally paid over all monies with no loan.. or do you mean the banks handed over the full amount to Advent?

 

I don't know how this person paid, 10pack. I would guess it meant they had either paid the loan off fully or paid by a card perhaps - how the money hand-over worked between Advent and BPF is a bit of a mystery at present and we can only speculate.

[sparkytwo]

I'm also wondering where our money went. If Barclays had paid the full amount to Access2trades before it went bust, where are they now finding the money to pay OCLI? If they hadn't paid the money over to Access, then they surely haven't got the right to demand we pay back the loans? None of it adds up.

[sparkytwo]

Did anyone see the news story about the landlady who did not want to purchase football coverage from Sky but wanted to buy it from a Greek provider instead? She took her case to the European Court and WON on the basis that she had the right to choose who she bought the service from. This must be relevant to our situation - by forcing us to take up a course with a provider they've chosen, Barclays are effectively removing our right to choose our own training provider.

[10pack]

Did anyone see the news story about the landlady who did not want to purchase football coverage from Sky but wanted to buy it from a Greek provider instead? She took her case to the European Court and WON on the basis that she had the right to choose who she bought the service from. This must be relevant to our situation - by forcing us to take up a course with a provider they've chosen, Barclays are effectively removing our right to choose our own training provider.

 

this subject is also a sore point with me, years ago I brought a legit subscription to Canal digital, I paid upfront for the whole year, the card was provided by a UK company who had agents in various countries across Europe, the agents opened an account in your name with that company so everything was above board.

Sky did not like that we could actually access football on these suscriptions and went to the UK company and demanded that they hand over the names and address of all customers able to access "Their football".. this company refused partly on the grounds that we were their customers and not sky's and also data protection act stopped them handing over such information.

 

Sky's answer was to go to the EU courts and told that we were watching these channels with pirate decoders and cards, it was at that time the EU directive came out against pirate cards and such, and sky strengthened their hold on the UK market.. with the help of our government who handed the digital platform on a plate to sky.

 

many of us who had subscriptions found that at the end of the year we were unable to renew, so we turned to other means to be able to watch these chanels , the only people who won in this situation was sky, they elimated competition to the UK market (same as they did with Ondigital).

our arguement at the time was who cares how you watch your films and programs so long as a legal subscription is paid.. at the end of the day Hollywood gets their money for films, the satellite companies get paid by their customers, now you know why we in UK pay some of the highest subscription charges in Europe.

 

You can bet there will be no rest until they overturn that ruling in the EU a few days ago.

over £600m from UK subscribers goes to the prem leauge.. they are not going to let that go!!

[Penny Mitchell]

I'm also wondering where our money went. If Barclays had paid the full amount to Access2trades before it went bust, where are they now finding the money to pay OCLI? If they hadn't paid the money over to Access, then they surely haven't got the right to demand we pay back the loans? None of it adds up.

 

When this first happened, the Advent announcement claimed that Advent held no funds, and that Barclays held all the money.

[10pack]

When this first happened, the Advent announcement claimed that Advent held no funds, and that Barclays held all the money.

 

Hmm When I first phoned Barclays in Jan 2010 the rep told me they had over 6000 students in same position as me and that they had handed over all monies.. someone was telling porkies

[Fuzzbutt]

If BPF is claiming default payments on your loan, one of our members has challenged this and had this response - "your account was held for 3 months in February, March & April of last year until we found a suitable provider. Once this was done payments were due as usual. However, as your case is currently with the financial Ombudsman service I have pleasure in confirming your account is currently on hold pending their findings"

 

He would have still been getting charged the default payment but for writing to them, and it's a good idea to contact BPF if you have a complaint that's still with FOS and pointing this out to them. All you have to do is write to BPF and tell them the date the FOS took on your case, quoting the case reference number.

If you supply proof of the date FOS took up our complaint you can try asking them to cancel and backdate all the default payments from then, although it's unclear if they'll do this at the moment.

 

Please do not contact Fuzzbutt or Hausfeld regarding this.

[ASBO_ALI]

Good luck with that Bluedo, maybe a good tactic to have your dad put in a complaint (could be a way out for guarantors ). I understood anyone who has had a finance deal with any organisation they aren't happy with are entitled to complain to FOS so don't see why they wouldn't look at it.

I wrote to the FOS as my husbands guarantor and apparent holder of the loan - it was chucked straight back at me because i wasnt the student

[Tricla]

On the back of the Advent enrolment form it clearly says - IF THERE IS NO SIGNATURE FROM AN ADVENT DIRECTOR, THIS IS NOT A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.

Not much chance of BPF enforcing that contract in court because it is a linked loan, might be worth finding your agreement as a priority.

You signing a finance agreement with BPF, would be based on a legally binding contract with Advent[linked loan]. This is something not to be overlooked.

 

I have checked that part of my agreement and it says that it has to be signed by me and a person authorised to sign the form on Advents behalf. Bear in mind, I have the pink part of the enrollment form which is supposed to be kept by the adviser. Seems they kept my copy which should be the blue one. Just shows how incompetent they were.

 

Do you think there was a change to their wording at some stage? Surely the wording on the blue copy is the same as on the pink copy? I signed it in October 2008. Is there anyone who signed up at around the same time who's wording refers to the director having to sign?

[lowdown]

I have checked that part of my agreement and it says that it has to be signed by me and a person authorised to sign the form on Advents behalf. Bear in mind, I have the pink part of the enrollment form which is supposed to be kept by the adviser. Seems they kept my copy which should be the blue one. Just shows how incompetent they were.

 

Do you think there was a change to their wording at some stage? Surely the wording on the blue copy is the same as on the pink copy? I signed it in October 2008. Is there anyone who signed up at around the same time who's wording refers to the director having to sign?

 

My contract/agreement with Advent was signed in May 2008 - and does say to be signed by an Advent director. Also there are no boxes with start & end dates, like later enrolment forms. So yes it does look like they were changed at some point.

Edited February 8, 2011 by lowdown

[ASBO_ALI]

I have checked that part of my agreement and it says that it has to be signed by me and a person authorised to sign the form on Advents behalf. Bear in mind, I have the pink part of the enrollment form which is supposed to be kept by the adviser. Seems they kept my copy which should be the blue one. Just shows how incompetent they were.

 

Do you think there was a change to their wording at some stage? Surely the wording on the blue copy is the same as on the pink copy? I signed it in October 2008. Is there anyone who signed up at around the same time who's wording refers to the director having to sign?

 

Hi Tricla, my husbands Enrolment says the same as yours and he has the blue copy. He sign in Feb 2009. Im guesing the wording was changed on the Enrolment Forms.

[ASBO_ALI]

That's exactly where my confusion is laying. WHY!! are they disregarding the student,

My hubby called BPF and they refused to talk to him point blank because the loan wasnt in his name (big surprise to us as it seems ADVENT/BPF obtained this loan in my old addres therefore i never see any paperwork fullstop). BPF were not for one minute interested in what my husband 'as the student' had to say. Husband tried to say look at where the payments are coming from (my husbands account), and BPF still refused to talk to him. So you are right - BPF interests were not with the student at all - they just wanted money from the loan holder. Im researching now if legally a Guarantor can also be the loan holder.

[ASBO_ALI]

I have received this information from an Online Free Solictor:

 

 

You can guarantee your own loan but in relation to goods i.e. a car.

 

A bank loan you cannot guarantee yourself as it is not viable.

This is a general indication from the information you have provided us. It should not be seen as a substitute for detailed legal advice.

[ASBO_ALI]

You can guarantee your own loan but in relation to goods i.e. a car.

 

A bank loan you cannot guarantee yourself as it is not viable.

.

FUZZ for all us 'Guarantors' who are not the student are you able to direct this question to Hausfield to see if it may have some clout legally? Big thanks

[Lankus]

Does anyone know anything about the responce from BFP to the latest Hausfeld letter? It must be over 2 months now

[Teo27]

Hello

I see old thread is finished.

Can i ask You for sugestion.

My current situation is:

Barclays sent Moorcroft Debt Recovery Limited on me few months ago. I've recived 4 letters 2 times (at one day i've get two twice), and for 4 months nobody asked me to repay my loan. Just today i've recived demand to pay back 10349.94 pounds in whole till 10/02/11 ( which of course i won't give them back (even if i would have any ot these)). As they saying if i wont do that without delay they will pass case to County Court and bailiffs.

If they will win case in court (i can't see it possible to win (same as it was with FOS) it in court as i'm foreigner which is not fluent with British law and language) what can do bailiffs to me, if:

- i live in rented home with two other mates (but rent contract was signed for my name (all 3 names were passed to Counsil)),

- all goods like TV, playstation or fridge and gym were bought together so i am not a full owner of it,

- i owe just things in my room like PC,

- i owe a flat abroad.

Can they try to take some of this things from me ?

[Keith_rb]

Hello

I see old thread is finished.

Can i ask You for sugestion.

My current situation is:

Barclays sent Moorcroft Debt Recovery Limited on me few months ago. I've recived 4 letters 2 times (at one day i've get two twice), and for 4 months nobody asked me to repay my loan. Just today i've recived demand to pay back 10349.94 pounds in whole till 10/02/11 ( which of course i won't give them back (even if i would have any ot these)). As they saying if i wont do that without delay they will pass case to County Court and bailiffs.

If they will win case in court (i can't see it possible to win (same as it was with FOS) it in court as i'm foreigner which is not fluent with British law and language) what can do bailiffs to me, if:

- i live in rented home with two other mates (but rent contract was signed for my name (all 3 names were passed to Counsil)),

- all goods like TV, playstation or fridge and gym were bought together so i am not a full owner of it,

- i owe just things in my room like PC,

- i owe a flat abroad.

Can they try to take some of this things from me ?

 

Don't worry about Moorcroft, they do not have a deed of assignment or a copy of your loan agreement so they can't do anything to you. Send them a letter requesting these two items and state that if they are not provided, you will pass their details on to the relavent authorities. Then just watch how quickly they pass you back to BPF, it is quite funny. They can't take you to court either, only BPF can do that, and they won't because they know they can't until this is resolved with Hausfield.

[Fuzzbutt]

FUZZ for all us 'Guarantors' who are not the student are you able to direct this question to Hausfield to see if it may have some clout legally? Big thanks

Quote- "I have received this information from an Online Free Solictor:

You can guarantee your own loan but in relation to goods i.e. a car.

A bank loan you cannot guarantee yourself as it is not viable.

This is a general indication from the information you have provided us. It should not be seen as a substitute for detailed legal advice."

I'd need more info really and exactly what you asked please as it's not clear from their vaguely worded response to you. What type of loan did you ask these free advisors about and did you stress it was for a training course or that it was a linked loan or other? What about other issues (up to what amount, repayment terms etc?)

 

Ingrid is pretty busy, so sorry, I don't want to bother her unless necessary and a lot of free advisors only have a surface knowledge (hence they are free). I'd have thought, to be honest, that Hausfeld would have picked up on any uncertainty or way out for guarantors when they first looked at the agreements in depth, having gone through the copies of agreements a number of guarantors sent to them.

[Eagle1905]

Hey all. On this default payment situation I never actually went to ombudsman so dont have reference number or anything. To be honest dont know if BPF are still adding default payments as I havent recieved any more default letters from them for a while now. Likewise havent heard anything from Allied International. Kinda hoping its a good sign

[badge]

Not yet, Savarok. I'm in the same position and I think we will have to rely on the mis-selling and not like for like if enough prople can prove that, plus any legal issues such as S75 etc. FOS are accepting not like for like it seems where individuals have no end date on their course agreement (as they cannot deny the course was sold as open-ended there). For those of us who have dates though they are using that as proof our course was not open-ended, even when we argue the sales rep assured us it was 'by arrangement'.

 

One good thing I spotted after plodding through over 90 emails last night in response to this was at least 70 people told me they had no dates entered, so if that sample is anything to go by then it seems reps entering dates was not the norm. I'd assumed it would just be a few people where the rep hadn't bothered to complete the date boxes on the form, but not so.

In which case this number is good evidence the course WAS designed to be open-ended, and perhaps those of us with dates were the exception. My sales rep assured me the dates (2 years, which was up in Dec 2010) were (quote) "just a rough guide" and if I needed more time to contact Advent and negotiate that.

We can then argue that the same policy applied to ALL of, not just individuals who happen to have reps who maybe correctly filled out the forms by leaving them blank. Training for reps may not have been very good as they were obviously inconsistent in filling out the forms and incompetent in some case in advising guarantors particularly.

 

I've not posted for a while - but I've just spent the last few days catching up on all the history.

 

About the start/end date, I unfortunatly have these dates on my form , but was told by the sales guy, that if I had not finished by the end date, then I could extend after a short review with Advent. He was just putting a date, for the sake of putting a date.

 

Is it worth working out, for those people with start/end dates how long we were given. If there is a difference, then surely this prooves an inconsitancy, and not like-for-like?

 

For example mine says:-

Start - 04/11/08

End - 04/11/11

 

Three years in total. I would bet that not everyones is the same.

[ASBO_ALI]

thanks FUZZ. The Enrolment Form i signed as a so called Guarantor is actually printed as a 'Financer' and not a Guarantor - so i guess that is a bit of a non starter really. Bring on the Statue of Limitation... only 5 years to go... :o(