Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)

[Fuzzbutt]

Best of luck Fuzzbutt, and thanks for yer grit and hard work.

 

I've just sent a brief overview of the Access/Advent/BPF situation to WHICH? magazine, seeing as they've had success with the mis-selling of PPI for loans by the major banks, and the banks felt the sting. I've flagged it as a 2 pronged complaint, one is obviously the behaviour of BPF, the other is the regulation of the private training firms.

 

Can I encourage more to do the same as they might see by numbers that there is a campaign to get behind.

 

Nice one, Skinnyribs - thanks, will also do that.

[Lankus]

Hi all, I was doing the plumbing course with Access 2 Trade and am considering taking it to a small claims court. Is anyone else from the plumbing or electrical course thinking of doing the same? I was thinking we could put our heads together to get the best evidence between us. Thanks

[rphood]

Certainly! I've been going through it with a toothpick and found a couple of contradictions.

Another point we can use is we were not ALLOWED to see any details of the courses unless we 'verified' our details on the CT website, so that was unfair under the Contracts Act. The 'bespoke' offer was not made public on CT website until 7 Oct 2010, 10 months after Advent's collapse!

 

BPF really are full of bullsh** and are desperately trying to claw their way out of this now.

This is exactly the point I am putting in front of the FOS adjudicator. The fact we would be taking up a contract without any legal redress if the new provider defaults. There are also a couple of issues legally were they have tried to apply law in retrospect.The contact by email of the creditors did not come into force until this year.The secret selling of our details to Computeach without disclosure to the courts has earned PKF a telling off. They are patching things up as they go along in the hope that it will all be forgotten that BPF started all this in the 1st place by breaking their contract with Advent.

[Fuzzbutt]

This is exactly the point I am putting in front of the FOS adjudicator. The fact we would be taking up a contract without any legal redress if the new provider defaults. There are also a couple of issues legally were they have tried to apply law in retrospect.The contact by email of the creditors did not come into force until this year.The secret selling of our details to Computeach without disclosure to the courts has earned PKF a telling off. They are patching things up as they go along in the hope that it will all be forgotten that BPF started all this in the 1st place by breaking their contract with Advent.

 

I think we've got a good case, Rob.I really hope people look into Hausfeld's advice of taking legal action in small claims or county court now and not throw in the towel in despair.I've nearly finished by letter before legal action to BPF now, just waiting on confirmation of something which may be useful to us all.

[DonnieB]

I think there is definitely a good argument for maintaining the group mentality on this as the cost of a good commercial lawyer to deal with 600+ individual court cases is going to be far in excess of the amount BPF think people owe them. And we know they only care about the money............so they may reconsider............

[richeeeee]

I must admit fuzz your determination is something I for one am impressed by. It has definately given me hope as i almost gave in. What gets me is why BPF havn't tried taking us to court yet to reclaim this money rather then try and bully us into it? Basicly admitting there in the wrong isnt it?

[10pack]

I just had a end of year statement from BPF basicly telling me I am in arrears by X amount blah blah.

Not once has BPF asked what I want ..

 

I noticed that they have added costs of £1 in serveral places, I am wondering whats that about?..

Anyone got this and have ideas?

[lowdown]

 

Anyone got this and have ideas?

 

No - nor do BPF.....LOL....

[rphood]

I just had a end of year statement from BPF basicly telling me I am in arrears by X amount blah blah.

Not once has BPF asked what I want ..

 

I noticed that they have added costs of £1 in serveral places, I am wondering whats that about?..

Anyone got this and have ideas?

Remember all those £1 postal orders we have sent along with our Deed Of Assignment Letters to Mercers and the likes.This was originally sent to them to cover the costs of retrieving those documents which none of us received !! Seems BPF put that towards paying off our loans. Misappropriation of some kind ?? Edited May 19, 2011 by rphood
Spelling

[Fuzzbutt]

I must admit fuzz your determination is something I for one am impressed by. It has definately given me hope as i almost gave in. What gets me is why BPF havn't tried taking us to court yet to reclaim this money rather then try and bully us into it? Basicly admitting there in the wrong isnt it?

 

I'm of the opinion it's because they feel a judge may not look so favourably upon them as FOS! And they know it! Ingrid is still looking at issues for us (should something new and concrete come up she can pinpoint ) but did stress that many individual claims is far more hassle and cost to a bank which will have to engage a solicitor on each case, send them to your local court (all over the country in this case), and face costs/interest etc...Don't forget you may be able to get a free court solicitor (depending on your income) and/or legal aid - Barclays won't! In a small claims court you are protected from costs if you lose by the 'no costs rule'.I'm confident on these points - mis-sellingfailure of CT and BPF to supply timely info on the 'bespoke courses', so negating our chance to act on it.failure of Ct to give detailed info of the new course without you 'verifying' your details (signing up with them) - unfair.S75 - 3 month gap in course supply, despite BPF's extension agreed with CT.CT reputation - lots of evidence!not like for like (the open ended issue)CT/ BPF wasting so much time and poor communication (certainly in my case as my end date ran out - so would be forced to pay more to finish my certificate)Some successes already with Hitachi agreeing refunds to Advent students and FOS rulings on 'no end date'That's enough to kick butt, I reckon!

[rphood]

Remember all those £1 postal orders we have sent along with our Deed Of Assignment Letters to Mercers and the likes.This was originally sent to them to cover the costs of retrieving those documents which none of us received !! Seems BPF put that towards paying off our loans. Misappropriation of some kind ??

This is an interesting point of Law to take up Frustration Of Contract

 

Examples of frustrating events include:

 

Contractual performance imposing a burden on one party which is radically different from that contemplated at the time of contracting,

without rendering performance actually impossible (Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl [1962] AC 93).

 

Actually didn't BPF render this impossible within their contracted time scales and that some of the goods can be considered perished as they are retired by Microsoft and CompTia

Edited May 19, 2011 by rphood
Extra Data

[rphood]

You might want to look up frustration of contract. I can't post the link

[rphood]

I'm of the opinion it's because they feel a judge may not look so favourably upon them as FOS! And they know it! Ingrid is still looking at issues for us (should something new and concrete come up she can pinpoint ) but did stress that many individual claims is far more hassle and cost to a bank which will have to engage a solicitor on each case, send them to your local court (all over the country in this case), and face costs/interest etc...Don't forget you may be able to get a free court solicitor (depending on your income) and/or legal aid - Barclays won't! In a small claims court you are protected from costs if you lose by the 'no costs rule'.I'm confident on these points - mis-sellingfailure of CT and BPF to supply timely info on the 'bespoke courses', so negating our chance to act on it.failure of Ct to give detailed info of the new course without you 'verifying' your details (signing up with them) - unfair.S75 - 3 month gap in course supply, despite BPF's extension agreed with CT.CT reputation - lots of evidence!not like for like (the open ended issue)CT/ BPF wasting so much time and poor communication (certainly in my case as my end date ran out - so would be forced to pay more to finish my certificate)Some successes already with Hitachi agreeing refunds to Advent students and FOS rulings on 'no end date'That's enough to kick butt, I reckon!

Posted On our Face Book Page

(Name Removed) I was on the mcse when they went, and only got my A+, I was with hitachi for the loan but the deals the same, contact me on my email - (Email Removed)with Advent as the subject and i'll send you across my paperwork. I started a small claims court case against hitachi, as they too were acting v.threatening, and managed to get near all the dosh back. it's all in the consumer credit act, which i'll also send you a full copy of. section 74, isn't actually the main bit, contrary to popular belief, but section 70 added to it, basically states that as these loans are "Linked Agreements" that is a loan or credit for a specific purpose paid direct, means that in your case bpf should actually write off the loan and refund what you've paid over what was recieved, and acutally you could get it all back due to parts of the course being miss-sold. Check your enrolment form if you still have it for advent. it states for me "MCSE" which would be the final course, so the A+ in my case, was completely mis-sold and legally free!!

Sorry to ramble on, but as i say, drop me an email, and i'll send you all the info across. Oh yea, and i did it with out a lawyer, not because I study law, but because solong as you read through and get your own head around it, the rules are actually pretty simple and blunt that you deserve a refund!! - same goes for anyone else reading this!!

Works For Me !!!

[Fuzzbutt]

Well spotted, Rob - I missed that on facebook.

 

I just googled S70, linked loans and found this on the 'legislation.gov.uk' website...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/70/2007-12-01

 

Quote from S70:

"Cancellation: recovery of money paid by debtor or hirer.

 

(1)On the cancellation of a regulated agreement, and of any linked transaction,—

 

(a)any sum paid by the debtor or hirer, or his relative, under or in contemplation of the agreement or transaction, including any item in the total charge for credit, shall become repayable, and

 

(b)any sum, including any item in the total charge for credit, which but for the cancellation is, or would or might become, payable by the debtor or hirer, or his relative, under the agreement or transaction shall cease to be, or shall not become, so payable, and

 

©in the case of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b), any sum paid on the debtor’s behalf by the creditor to the supplier shall become repayable to the creditor.

 

(2)If, under the terms of a cancelled agreement or transaction, the debtor or hirer, or his relative, is in possession of any goods, he shall have a lien on them for any sum repayable to him under subsection (1) in respect of that agreement or transaction, or any other linked transaction.

 

(3)A sum repayable under subsection (1) is repayable by the person to whom it was originally paid, but in the case of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) the creditor and the supplier shall be under a joint and several liability to repay sums paid by the debtor, or his relative, under the agreement or under a linked transaction falling within section 19(1)(b) and accordingly, in such a case, the creditor shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to any proceedings brought against the creditor to recover any such sums.

 

(4)Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (3), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

 

(5)Subsection (1) does not apply to any sum which, if not paid by a debtor, would be payable by virtue of section 71, and applies to a sum paid or payable by a debtor for the issue of a credit-token only where the credit-token has been returned to the creditor or surrendered to a supplier."

 

It looks like a new amendment, so far as I can see, and I'm going to look into it a bit more now.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Fuzzbutt

[Fuzzbutt]

In retrospect, having gone over the A+ exam coursework, it covered very rudimentary, technical matters relating to the workings of computer processors etc, which I did not need to have a knowledge of in order to complete the CIW Web Designer course using design software (bearing in mind I had worked as a publications/web site designer already - which the rep knew). I feel I could have gone straight to the Designer certification and bypassed this part completely as it was geared more towards the technical certificates, involving management of office networks, such as the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE). Hence I feel I was wrongly advised into taking an unnecessary qualification and mis-sold this unit of the course completely.

 

Something else to raise, inappropriate course units pushed on you!

[rphood]

In retrospect, having gone over the A+ exam coursework, it covered very rudimentary, technical matters relating to the workings of computer processors etc, which I did not need to have a knowledge of in order to complete the CIW Web Designer course using design software (bearing in mind I had worked as a publications/web site designer already - which the rep knew). I feel I could have gone straight to the Designer certification and bypassed this part completely as it was geared more towards the technical certificates, involving management of office networks, such as the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE). Hence I feel I was wrongly advised into taking an unnecessary qualification and mis-sold this unit of the course completely.

 

Something else to raise, inappropriate course units pushed on you!

Also note now Advents Comptia A+ is now retired MCDST covers XP and is retired by Microsoft at the end of June. MCSE has been retired already. Advent was supplying this to you when you signed up and Computeach probably got this al cheap under the guise of intelectual property from the liquidation of Advent.

[Fuzzbutt]

deleted as the formatting isn't working!!!!

[Fuzzbutt]

Posted by letter before court action to BPF yesterday. They've got 14 days now before it goes to small claims court.I gave a detailed account but in summary, my arguments are...The loan agreement was a restricted use credit agreement and is covered under debtor-creditor-supplier agreements within the meaning of section 12 CCA. This liability is also acknowledged in the standard terms and conditions under the loan arrangements. The loan was arranged by Advent and paid directly to Advent by Barclays. The monies never came to me. As the loan is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act and falls within limit of 12 (a) / (b) therefore I do have equal claim against Barclays as against Advent. As Advent are now in administration and training will no longer be provided to me, Barclays are fully liable as the creditor. Hence I am entitled to a refund due to Breach of Contract under S75 & S70 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.Further to this, I believe this course was mis-sold as;• I was induced to sign up under pressured selling (place only held open for a limited time).• Promises were made to me regarding a job placement after passing the first A+ exam which, in retrospect, were obviously false.• The initial modules of the course were inappropriate and unnecessary in order to complete the CIW Web Designer certificate. The time I was expected to complete within was also unrealistic for someone working full-time.• The course material and mentor support proved to be of poor quality.Pressured selling is a clear breach of S7 of the Prohibitions under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.Barclays failed to appoint a replacement immediately and so from 27 Jan 2010 (date the Advent directors notified students their study would no longer be supported) to the announcement on 25 March 2010 that Computeach had been appointed, I was without any trainer. That is a clear breach of contract under S75 CCA as I was without a training provider for over 8 weeks. I do not accept that Barclays Partner Finance can automatically remedy the failure by Advent to provide any service following their administration by offering an alternate course provider some 2 months later. Both Barclays and Computeach FAILED to communicate my options and developments with the new ‘bespoke’ course arrangements in good enough time for me to consider taking up the new course before my original agreement terminated. This failure in communication put me at a severe disadvantage in deciding what to do regarding my position. Barclays Partner Finance later agreed a 3 month time extension to all Advent students but I do not consider this acceptable and, again, it was not communicated in a timely manner and was too little too late. To be expected to finish a 2 year course with 3 exams (while working full time) in approx 5 months is unreasonable and would have been physically impossible to achieve. In order to complete the certificate I would have had to sign up with a training company I did not want in the first place and pay EXTRA money on top of the £4,950 already laid out as my time would have run out and I would have had to extend my studies at extra cost.Hogan Lovells notably has refused to address Hausfeld’s request in a letter on the group’s behalf dated 26 Nov 2010 (paragraph 10-11) for information on exactly when and how the ‘bespoke arrangement’ was communicated to students. This is probably because of the sloppy and confused approach from both the bank and Computeach, and the fact that this set up was an afterthought and pushed on Computeach by Barclays so it was able to claim it was matching the ‘like for like’ terms being raised in complaints. This was a desperate, cynical bid to avoid refunding loans under S75. Barclays has still not given a satisfactory account to either the FOS or Hausfeld as to why it feels S75 CCA does not apply, other than to say it has fulfilled the responsibility of the contract by providing Computeach.Computeach refused to give me details of the new course without my signing over to them. This, I consider, is a breach of the Unfair Contracts Terms Act and a violation of my consumer rights.The loan arrangements include unfair contract terms in breach of Section 140A of the CCA and/or obligations to treat customers fairly under Rule 6 of the FSA Principles of Business. I also believe that a court would find an APR of 29.8% to be unfair within the meaning of section 140A of the CCA 1974. That Computeach is still unable to fulfil two of the main promises I undertook Advent’s course on (that it was ultimately ‘open-ended’ and that after passing the first exam they would actively look for a work placement for me) is proof that the replacement is NOT technically like-for-like and therefore I consider Barclays still in breach of S75 of the Consumer Credit Act.Be interesting to see what reply I get!

[Fuzzbutt]

What is going wrong with the post formatting on this site?? There were paragraphs and line spacing in the above post by me.

[DaveH24]

Some very valid points in the Fuzz.

 

Like you say will be interesting to see what they come back with. I have no idea how they think they are above the law.

 

Best of luck and keep us posted.

[Fuzzbutt]

Some very valid points in the Fuzz.

 

Like you say will be interesting to see what they come back with. I have no idea how they think they are above the law.

 

Best of luck and keep us posted.

 

Will do. It was signed for 20 mins ago, accordingh to the Royal Mail tracking website, so I hope that's spoilt his lunch!

[rphood]

Will do. It was signed for 20 mins ago, accordingh to the Royal Mail tracking website, so I hope that's spoilt his lunch!

Get used to getting a lot of these Mr Paul Noble.Not to make an otherwise obvious statement I'll remind him

Shouldn't we just say :-

 

Barclay’s undertook a aggressive sales campaign TV adverts, high pressure salesmen etc.. leading up to Advents demise and then forced the company into liquidation by breaching their contract without giving Advent 12 months notice. There was not enough transparency on where people stood and to prevent the apparent onslaught of S75 claims by choosing an existing and cheaper partner Computeach and have only been told us to pay up whatever position we were in with our training but with a pretty good indication they were being sold onto a cheaper provider.Sorry that just seems like Profiteering.

 

Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit by methods considered unethical

 

Whether the money was paid to Advent or goes to Computeach Barclays remain responsible because of their initial breach of contract.

 

Any loses should be born by Barclay’s aren’t we paying enough for RBS for their failure with Fred The Shreds whose got the biggest

one tussle with Barclays already ?

Edited May 25, 2011 by rphood

[Kraken1]

You've already sent this, so a bit late for help, but for any follow ups..."Hence I am entitled to a refund due to Breach of Contract under S75 & S70 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974"

 

 

Section 70 isn't relevant, that refers to agreements that are cancelled, for example under s67l. These aren't.

 

"I believe this course was mis-sold as"

 

Don't 'believe'. State it was. "Pressured selling is a clear breach of S7 of the Prohibitions under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations"

 

It is, but this is not relevant to a consumer claim, you have no right of action or redress under the cputr so it isn't really worth including. Don't include stuff like this in a LBA as the aim of a LBA is to persuade the other party that you are serious and really know your stuff. This sort of inclusion means that your LBA is considered a little less seriously. The more odd stuff and errors that are included, the less seriously it gets taken. "

 

 

Barclays failed to appoint a replacement immediately and so from 27 Jan 2010 (date the Advent directors notified students their study would no longer be supported) to the announcement on 25 March 2010 that Computeach had been appointed, I was without any trainer. That is a clear breach of contract under S75 CCA as I was without a training provider for over 8 weeks."

 

It isn't. The argument is that section 14 of the supply of goods and services 1982 implied a term into the contract that the serive be provided within a reasonable time. The delay in supplying the service was unreasonable and due to the nature of the contract constitutes a material breach of contract entitling you to rescind the contract. In the alternative Barclay's failure to arrange for the timely performance of the contract may be considered to be evidence of their intention to repudiate the contract, and such repudiation was accepted by you.

 

For clarity - these arguments are not ideal and have weaknesses, but they are the ones to try. "

 

I do not accept that Barclays Partner Finance can automatically remedy the failure by Advent to provide any service following their administration by offering an alternate course provider some 2 months later"

 

Unless the two months is a breach of s14 SGSA, they can. Probably best not to go here. It is an evidential point linked to the above, which in turn is 'a question of fact'.

 

"Both Barclays and Computeach FAILED to communicate my options and developments with the new ‘bespoke’ course arrangements in good enough time for me to consider taking up the new course before my original agreement terminated. This failure in communication put me at a severe disadvantage in deciding what to do regarding my position."

 

This is evidence to support the s14 argument above. "

 

Barclays Partner Finance later agreed a 3 month time extension to all Advent students but I do not consider this acceptable and, again, it was not communicated in a timely manner and was too little too late."

 

Again, this is evidence to support the s14 point, or in the alternative, evidence that Barclays sought to unilaterally amend the terms of the contact. "

 

To be expected to finish a 2 year course with 3 exams (while working full time) in approx 5 months is unreasonable and would have been physically impossible to achieve. In order to complete the certificate I would have had to sign up with a training company I did not want in the first place and pay EXTRA money on top of the £4,950 already laid out as my time would have run out and I would have had to extend my studies at extra cost."

 

Their obligation is to provide the same course for the same cost, this does not meet those obligations. "

 

Hogan Lovells notably has refused to address Hausfeld’s request in a letter on the group’s behalf dated 26 Nov 2010 (paragraph 10-11) for information on exactly when and how the ‘bespoke arrangement’ was communicated to students. This is probably because of the sloppy and confused approach from both the bank and Computeach, and the fact that this set up was an afterthought and pushed on Computeach by Barclays so it was able to claim it was matching the ‘like for like’ terms being raised in complaints. This was a desperate, cynical bid to avoid refunding loans under S75."

 

Irrelevant and emotive, don't go there.

 

"Barclays has still not given a satisfactory account to either the fos or Hausfeld as to why it feels S75 CCA does not apply, other than to say it has fulfilled the responsibility of the contract by providing Computeach."

 

They have not argued that s75 does not apply (apart from in some cases where is actually doesn't, for eg where there is a fourth party that actually took the loan); they are saying that either there is no breach of contract and that they are not liable or there was a breach of contract but that this was a breach of a warranty of the contract and the correct remedy is to honour the obligations of the contract.

 

"Computeach refused to give me details of the new course without my signing over to them. This, I consider, is a breach of the Unfair Contracts Terms Act and a violation of my consumer rights."

 

Not sure that this is a breach of ucta, or the unfair terms in consumer contracts regs as there was already a contract in place. If it is then the remedy it is strike out the offending term and barclays won't be able to rely on it. It is therefore important to identify which term is unfair and what the effect of deleting this would be. "

 

The loan arrangements include unfair contract terms in breach of Section 140A of the CCA and/or obligations to treat customers fairly under Rule 6 of the FSA Principles of Business."

 

Maybe - you'll need to evidence this well. It is fairly new law so worth a punt. "

 

I also believe that a court would find an APR of 29.8% to be unfair within the meaning of section 140A of the CCA 1974."

 

Very very doubtful. To the degree I'd not include. "

 

That Computeach is still unable to fulfil two of the main promises I undertook Advent’s course on (that it was ultimately ‘open-ended’ and that after passing the first exam they would actively look for a work placement for me) is proof that the replacement is NOT technically like-for-like and therefore I consider Barclays still in breach of S75 of the Consumer Credit Act."

Again, not a breach of s75, a breach of s14 SGSA.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Kraken1

[Kraken1]

sorry - all the paragraphs dissappeared. That will be difficult to read... sorry.

 

Fixed - ish. Ample use of code thingies - I apologise for the sloppiness. Odd things are happening to my posts. :/

Edited May 25, 2011 by Kraken1

[Fuzzbutt]

sorry - all the paragraphs dissappeared. That will be difficult to read... sorry.

 

Fixed - ish. Ample use of code thingies - I apologise for the sloppiness. Odd things are happening to my posts. :/

 

Thanks for that feedback, Kraken. I'll take a re-look. If it goes to court now I'll have a chance to fine tune, I guess.