Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)

[Savarok]

Great, but what about people who don't use facebook?

[CONputeach]

Hi Saravok I would happily start this group on any forum you can think as well facebook if it means these scumbags get stopped. The reason i picked facebook is because 1. its already been a group on there that computeach got shut down I suspect by paying of the group owner! and 2 because its one of the most widely used forms of contact and probably the best way to spread the message to everyone. If you have any other suggestions for places I could create this as well I more than happy to take on the suggestions. lets spread the message and stand up for ourselves rather than letting them get away with it!!!!

[Celina]

All the best Fuzzbutt, and ensure that you do yourself justice and have your day in court.

[10pack]

Hi Saravok I would happily start this group on any forum you can think as well facebook if it means these scumbags get stopped. The reason i picked facebook is because 1. its already been a group on there that computeach got shut down I suspect by paying of the group owner! and 2 because its one of the most widely used forms of contact and probably the best way to spread the message to everyone. If you have any other suggestions for places I could create this as well I more than happy to take on the suggestions. lets spread the message and stand up for ourselves rather than letting them get away with it!!!!

 

Hi

Could I point out this forum is actually about ex students of Advent who are being forced by Barclays partner finance to accept computeach as an alternative regardless of their views on the matter.

 

Myself having been a computeach student in the past (years ago) I fully sympathise with you and wish you all the best in your fight hopefully you put them out of business also... I never want to be a student of computeach ever again.. would rather have my toe nails ripped out.

 

 

 

But as far as I know all who post here are ex advent/ barclays partner finance student/customers

though customers for barclays means to treat as milk cows.

[10pack]

Also I do not have a facebook or twitter account..

Sorry but how often do you hear about keeping you information safe.. and how many people blab all their details on facebook.. when they will be on holiday .. posting photos etc.. security starts with you!!

[Mustard2243]

Good Luck Fuzz!

[cashins]

A quick update on the career of the former MD of Barclays Partner Finance.

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/news/news-item.cfm?news=2376

 

Think the CV would make interesting reading.

 

If I remember correctly, Barclays to control of Clydesdale Financial Services around 2004/2005, long before he left BPF in Dec 2009, just as the wheels were coming off regarding the training situation. Not quite what the article says.

 

Since then he has worked for debt collectors.

[Fuzzbutt]

Thanks for the good wishes, everyone.

 

Could be some good news for all here, thanks to Ahmed on the Facebook group (who sent me a PDF of this LACORS document, regarding S75 and where and under which circumastances a creditor can and can't impose a choice of training provider. Web link:http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=24854

I suggest everyone reads this thoroughly, particularly paras in section 3 and also (particularly guarantors) paras 5-5.3. LACORS is what is now the Local Government Regulation body, by the way.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Fuzzbutt

[10pack]

Thanks for the good wishes, everyone.

 

Could be some good news for all here, thanks to Ahmed on the Facebook group (who sent me a PDF of this LACORS document, regarding S75 and where and under which circumastances a creditor can and can't impose a choice of training provider. Web link:http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=24854

I suggest everyone reads this thoroughly, particularly paras in section 3 and also (particularly guarantors) paras 5-5.3. LACORS is what is now the Local Government Regulation body, by the way.

 

WOW!! where has this information been hiding.. it is almost as if it was written for us..

And Barclays have ignored it also.. Barclays are so screwed!!!!

 

Thanks Fuzzbutt

[Kraken1]

Yes - read very thoroughly, and you'll note it is a quite odd, and generally contradictory document.

 

I have substantial concerns about its legal accuracy and clarity. It seems to suggest that there is certainty where there is none, and doesn't explain damages properly. Also, the stuff about the OFT/Lloyds case is very odd. It seems to be entirely contradictory, quoting case law that it then says, at the end of the para, in a round about way, that it doesn't apply. They are right by the way, none of it does, so why quote it? It is written in a very undergraduate-LLB style. All academics and no practical application.

 

Again, para three seems to be saying one thing and then concludes to the contrary with the last sentence.

 

I suspect that this document was written by one person and then a lawyer or someone that knew what they were talking about added in some sentences at the end, that is why there is some stuff that is right, but that that the bulk of the document is just plain odd. Some, for eg the bit about circumstances changing giving rise to a claim is just plain wrong.

 

In summary - this is the only really important part:

 

"...[a] claimant cannot recover damages for any part of his loss consequent on the defendant's breach of contract which the claimant could have avoided by taking reasonable steps...wherever the innocent party, following the defendant's breach, is able to find substitute performance from a 3rd party, the mitigation rules give him a strong incentive to accept the substitute" (Chitty...)."

 

This means - if it is the same course, you need to accept the replacement.

 

In my view, not helpful at all to any cases being brought. A competent trainee would destroy any arguments based on it.

[tamu0910]

thanks fuzzbutt

Edited August 26, 2011 by tamu0910

[10pack]

thanks fuzzbutt

 

What happened to your text?.. what I see written here is not the same as what I received in my email?

are you being censored?

 

Quote...

"are you saying now that what ever is written on the Government Regulatory Body also doesn't make sense to get BPF under its knees and they are always one step ahead or did I smell fish (no offence)."

[Fuzzbutt]

Yes - read very thoroughly, and you'll note it is a quite odd, and generally contradictory document.

 

I have substantial concerns about its legal accuracy and clarity. It seems to suggest that there is certainty where there is none, and doesn't explain damages properly....

In my view, not helpful at all to any cases being brought. A competent trainee would destroy any arguments based on it.

 

I see what you mean with contradictions and, not being a legal bod, I can't really second guess how a legal professional would interpret it. The person who sent it to me was provided this, I believe, by his solicitor he is engaging.

I think, as there are so many gray areas for us legally, the only test will now be before a judge. I think Barclays reluctance to take anyone to court so far is very telling - they must know this too.

Basically, my argument to the judge is I was forced to swap to a provider I'd already rejected in the first place, after I'd made it clear to Barclays I was unhappy with the service I'd received anyway from Advent (large parts of my course were inappropriate for what I wanted to do) and I would have been forced into the position of paying MORE money to CT after my agreement ran out of time, just to finish the qualification. Plus being expected to sign over to the new company without anything in writing regarding the actual course breakdown (CT refused to provide this) or 'bespoke' terms & conditions etc arranged apparently between BPF and CT months after Adven't colllapse - lots of other issues such as CT failing to write and tell me about the new terms etc...I'm hoping this will swing it.

One of the group members has had a favourable ruling on mis-selling now but Barclays has asked FOS to look at it again, challenging the ruling- this is how devious this bank is (not that I have any faith in FOS but for BPF to deny the ruling of the supposed independant assessor because they don't like their conclusion demonstrates the arrogance - and desperation- of this appalling bank).

[uneasy]

Sorry misposted.

Edited August 29, 2011 by uneasy

[uneasy]

The LACORS arguments are quite strong with case law and CCA interpretations quoted. Item 1.3 identifies me the so called guarantor as the debtor and the disagreement by LG regulation that section 75 doesn't exist as I was party to all the promises made to the student regarding the course items 4.2 and 5.3. I accept that this is only advice from LG but nevertheless provides some powerful arguments.

[Fuzzbutt]

What I found quite encouraging is this LACORS report was apparently referring to our (or virtuallly identical!) situation with a failed IT trainer and Barclays. Whoever contacted them prompted the government body to look into this, so I would think (even though there are no legal precedents laid down, only suggestions) this would be taken seriously in a court as it is produced by a government body.

[Kraken1]

"The LACORS arguments are quite strong with case law and CCA interpretations quoted."

 

They would be if they got them right and in context. A court would find this as persuasive as cheese. It is too confused and too contradictory. The other side would just pull out the bits that support their case and would then throw it back at you. This leaves you with the situation where you need to discredit the document yourself or try and argue that some bits are right and others wrong. Which is what the other side will be doing. It will all end badly.

[uneasy]

I accept the controversy that's why we need a court's decision. However the better defence you can provide the better chance you are giving yourself. I have used some of the issues in the document over my many letters to Barclays and the FOS and their response have avoided the answers, just to say Sec 75 doesn't apply and prove the discussion between the Salesman and ourselves, rather a monotonous response. Fortunately I have a witness to the discussion and the Bank hasn't provided the Salesman's response which should agree with ours.

[Kraken1]

However the better defence you can provide the better chance you are giving yourself.

 

True. But in order to make a good claim, you need to put forward a clear, reasoned, accurate legal argument. Most litigants in person, or google lawyers fail because they don't properly understand the issues and obsess over irrelevancies. For eg, the issues about when s75 applies are fairly well established. Not usually worth arguing about unless it is your only argument.

[uneasy]

My reasoned arguments are that myself as guarantor requested clarification on the timescale to cancel, the agreement only stated a short period of time. Following a phone call by the salesman we all agreed on an extension to 6 weeks following the first set of course notes. This time period was necessary as insufficient information was provided by Advent on the course content at the time as the student had suffered a frontal lobe brain injury 9 years previous which can affect problem solving. I cancelled within that timescale and therefore met the verbal contract. The legal terminology would call this misrepresentation, I was also present during the discussions between the salesman and the student which more or less agrees with other students posts on this site.

[Fuzzbutt]

Sorry - missed quote out - re-posted.

[Fuzzbutt]

True. But in order to make a good claim, you need to put forward a clear, reasoned, accurate legal argument. Most litigants in person, or google lawyers fail because they don't properly understand the issues and obsess over irrelevancies. For eg, the issues about when s75 applies are fairly well established. Not usually worth arguing about unless it is your only argument.

 

Surely though it is for the judge to consider the evidence and arguments you put before him, not for the claimant to be a legal expert and do the job for him? My understanding of small claims is that it was designed to be accessible to the average joe, and a solicitor is not neccessary so long as the claimant can put a clear case across.

I am presenting a whole range of issues I'm challenging Barclays on.

[10pack]

Surely though it is for the judge to consider the evidence and arguments you put before him, not for the claimant to be a legal expert and do the job for him? My understanding of small claims is that it was designed to be accessible to the average joe, and a solicitor is not neccessary so long as the claimant can put a clear case across.

 

That is what I would have thought Fuzzbutt

though I would not be surprised if it gets hijacked by the lawyers and such.. they charge a fortune to represent in court.. think nothing of £200+ an hour.. and if its in court.. then you also pay barrister and his own lawyers time.. easy £500+ a piece per hour so big incentive to move into anything they can.

 

How close are you to your court date?

[Fuzzbutt]

I think mis-representation is a strong argument for all students and guarantors, Uneasy. I have evidence that the qualification I was to do could have been achieved via CIW directly and that the first part of the course was unnecessary for me and primarily aimed at technicians (not web design, which was what I'd chosen to do). The salespeople basically pushed modules and certs on people that were either unnecessary or totally above their level of skill (obviously they made a commission on all the course modules they sold) - Microsoft, for example, do not recommend the MCSE to someone who does not have 2 ys work experience in IT networks apparently, yet Advent (and Computeach) push their courses as achievable by someone with no IT experience.

[Fuzzbutt]

That is what I would have thought Fuzzbutt

though I would not be surprised if it gets hijacked by the lawyers and such.. they charge a fortune to represent in court.. think nothing of £200+ an hour.. and if its in court.. then you also pay barrister and his own lawyers time.. easy £500+ a piece per hour so big incentive to move into anything they can.

 

How close are you to your court date?

 

Hi 10pack

 

Well, I've submitted evidence and the questionaire now to the court so I'm just waiting for a date for the hearing now. Should be pretty soon as I have no witnesses or complications like expert reports etc to submit.