Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)

[DaveH24]

Hi Blade I have sent you a message with my email address if you wouldnt mind sending me a copy - thanks.

[Kraken1]

I intend to ask them to refer my case to the OFT under the unfair relationships Guidance Enforcement action under part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

They won't do this because the oft can't enforce this bit of the consumer credit act - it is something you need to take to court yourself.

 

the 'course expired' argument isn't bad, but remember that the main remedy in contract is to be put back into the position you should have been in if the contract had been fulfilled. so make sure you are arguing your case carefully or you'll put up two arguments that defeat each other. Either the replacement course isn't the same or you were misadvised when being sold the course - the salesman did not use reasonable skill and care.

 

There is no remedy if you made a poor bargain.

 

This is very like cars, really. If you bought a car that was just too slow for you, or didn't have enough seats, then you are pretty much stuck with it. If you bought a 1.2 ford fiesta titanium in pink, and then the dealer goes under, providing the finance company can supply you with a a 1.2 ford fiesta titanium in pink then won't get a refund. If all they can supply is a 1.0 ford fiesta in black, then you probably can get a refund. You can't argue that they haven't given you the right car and in any event, you were mis sold a pink one anyway.

 

As I keep saying - if claiming you need to be careful what exactly you are going to claim, in what way and how you will plead it. This is a complex area, there are a number of irrelevant bits of law being punted around and a bit more research might be needed.

[blade325]

Hi Guys this is a rough outline of the letter that I will be sending to the FOS. Do let me no what you think, Thanks

 

Following the collapse of Advent computer training inJanuary 2010 and my subsequent appeal to the FOS to have my linked loancancelled as the alternate provider (Computeach) CT sourced by (BarclaysPartner Finance) BPF did not provide a like for like course despite theirclaims of having a bespoked course for ex Advent students.

There are number of points that shall be raised here tosupport my argument.

I initially signed up with Advent as they had a dedicatedjobs placement section (Advent Careers) which purpose was job placement afterinitial exams had been passed. CT does not offer a job placement section butinstead offer CV writing/ interview techniques. I did not sign up for this.

Pressurised selling techniques were used to get me to signup. I have letters stating my place would only be held open for a limited time(14 days), which is a clear breach of section 7 of the Prohibitions under theConsumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

Mis-sold:

1. As I was misadvised when being sold the course,the Advent rep did not use reasonable skill and care.

2. The A† part of the course was unnecessary inmy case as I already had a number of years working/ building and configuringcomputers. So unnecessary.

3. Lied to as to where I could do both practicalclasses and exams. I was told that I could do both of these in London as I livethere. I later found out that all practical classes took place only inKidderminster. This was almost practically impossible for both time and costreasons.

Frustration ofContract:

Contractual performance imposing a burden on one party whichis radically different from that contemplated at the time of contractingwithout rendering performance actually impossible (TsaKiroglou Vs Noblee Thorl[1962] Ac 93).

In my case BPF renders this impossible within theircontracted timescales and that some of the goods can now be considered perishedas they are now either retired or about to be retired by Microsoft and CompTIA,and this would have been the case before I finished the course.

In this instance:

CompTIA A†

MCDST

MCSE

Refer to this websitefor proof w w w. microsoft. com /learning /en / certification

Due to the long delay in BPF finding a replacement providerSection 14 of the Supply of Goods and Services 1982 implied a term into thecontract that the service is provided within a reasonable time. The delay insupplying the service was unreasonable and due to the nature of the contractconstitutes a material breach of contract thus entitling me to rescind thecontract.

Both BPF and CT failed to communicate my options anddevelopments with the new ‘bespoke’ course arrangements in good enough time forme to consider taking up the new course. This failure in communication has putme at a severe disadvantage in deciding what to do regarding my position againa breach of Section 14 of the Supply of Goods and Services 1982.

BPF later agreed to a 3 month time extension to all exAdvent students, but I do not accept this as again it was not communicated tome in a timely manner and was too little too late.

CT’s refusal to provide me with details of their ‘bespoke’course without me signing over all my details to them is a breach of the UnfairContracts Terms Act and a violation of my consumer rights.

Further Submissions:

· PKF administrators selling my details to CT secretlywithout my/ the Courts permission being given has already resulted in thembeing censured.

· BPF’s attempt to use Law in Retrospect on someof the legal issues.

· The contact by email of creditors did not comeinto force until this year.

· No new contracts were issued and no refunds ofthe difference between the cost of courses.

· BPF use of harassment tactics by use of multipleDebt Collection Agencies, letters and numerous phone calls.

Lastly a number of ex Advent students that took out linkedloans for identical courses using Hitachi have had their money refunded. Thequestion here is why given the same set of circumstances are BPF refusing to dothe same.

Sorry for the formatting apparentely I do not have enough post's to do it correctly.

[Fuzzbutt]

That looks pretty thorough, Blade.

Bearing in mind Kraken's point I'm focussing on the mis-selling rather than the like for like issue now as I don't want BPF to be able to undermine my case by 'proving' it's supplied what I'm claiming was mis-sold originally, although I'm raising the 'open ended' issue as part of the mis-selling case.

One point, it's worth a google of Microsoft, CIW website and CompTia website for evidence the 2 years isn't realistic timescale-wise, especially if you were working (as I was) at the same time. I've discovered one exam prep website (http://www.simulationexams.com/certification-exams/ciwa-certification.htm) estimating that the CIW Associate exam can take easily 6 months alone at approx 4 hours study a day. That's just for that one exam. How many of us could have completed to final exam within 2 years?

[Kraken1]

I really haven't got time to comment in depth, but I'm sorry to say I don't like it Blade. You are arguing in part that you should never have been sold the course, and then arguing that the course you have been offered as a replacement isn't the same as the course you were missold. The two points almost counter each other out - which was it? Do you want the course you were sold or were you missold a course? I think you can only really argue one point.

 

Although I can see what you are getting at, the rest of your points are fairly garbled and unsupported. I don't think the letter as drafted will have the desired effect.

[blade325]

Hi Kraken again thanks for your advice, I have now remove all parts in my draft letter that refer to the CT course not being like for like and instead concentrated on the mis-selling and aggressive marketing used by Advent.

[bjs2910]

Glad you found this thread, bjs2910.If you want to write to the press the Daily Mirror team, Penman and Sommerlad Investigates, have run articles on this in the past and been very supportive. I've sent mass-mails to every daily paper letters page, also Watchdog and Rip Off Britain....the more voices the merrier and will help raise the profile of our situation.

 

Hi all, just thought I would post a little update for you all. Not sure if its anything out of the norm or if I am getting my hopes up.

I wrote to the fos and supplied them with my original complaints and details. I simply asked them to take another look at my case and I got a promising letter back. I was surprised that it wasn't one of the stock letters I got previously. It said:

 

"We will now ask Barclay's to send us their information about your case. One of our adjudicators will then be able to start work on your case". I got rather excited about this as all I've heard before is advise telling me to contact my local trading standards or the company dealing with the Administration process!

 

I also wrote to my local MP and got an encouraging response saying that he was writing to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about circumstances. Not sure what that means though

 

In both of my letters I tried to appeal to their human side, instead of quoting laws and legislations I tried to stress my disappointment and asked them if they thought it was fair that I have nothing to show for the money I am still paying.

I'm pretty sure my circumstances are totally unique to everyone else's as I started my MCSE way back in 2006. Due to personal circumstances and the lack of support from Advent I hadnt even taken my A+ by the time they folded.

I had a career development loan from Barclays to pay £4500 in full to Advent. Advent kindly gave Barclay's a completion date for the course of 2008, when this date came around I had to start repaying my loan even though I had barely begun the course. Barclay's say they won't offer me alternative training as I should have completed the course.

 

When I get any updates I will let you all know. Fingers crossed!

[DonnieB]

You should definitely stress the fact that although Advent's records or whatever showed an end date of 2008 they were still 'supporting' you and providing you with the materials and allowing you to take exams and coursework well over a year after this time. I think that the more people that can show that Advent's "end dates" werent actually that and that they did actually adhere to their "take as long as you need to" sales spiel the better it will be for everybody.Im still waiting on the FOS - kinda second round stage in that they came back initially supporting Barclays but I got them to send me the evidence that BPF sent them and have used that to further my argument. I am basing it all on the like for like issue with regard to course length (as kraken says you kinda need to go with one argument or the other as this and misselling sorta cancel each other out if taken together). If they agree that the course was open ended then I have them on not 'like for like' as Computeach are certainly not offering that, but if they come back and say it wasnt and that an end date applies then I will start a fresh complaint that Barclays are party to misselling and use all the stuff they have given me for the first argument as solid proof of that (that way i am hopefully able to swing the cancelling out effect of the two arguments back to my advantage...)

[blade325]

Hey guys just wandering if anyone else has got a blank enrolement form with nothing written on or signed?

[10pack]

Hi guys

Apex on my back again

I ignored their first letter and then they wrote again in which the wrote about visiting my property.

I sent them a letter telling them they do not have my permission to do so and that my account with barclays is in dispute and is subject to legal dispute over S75 non compliance by Barclays and had nothing to do with any other company.

 

This morning got another letter from Apex, this time a bit more abrupt and threatening to visit my property at their own time due to not being able to communicate with me.. I sent my letter first class to be signed for on Tuesday this week so I think they got it and are just ignoring it.

 

anyone else getting this treatment from Apex?

[DaveH24]

Hi 10pack,

 

I sent the standard un resolved complint template of this website to APEX and got a letter 2 days later stating they would look in to it and another a few days after that saying they had closed my account and reffered it back to Barclays.

 

This was about a month ago and no heard anything from anybody since, with this in mind the only contact with barclays since April 2010 is an annual statement.

 

All the other DCA's before APEX got ignored and went away.

[10pack]

Hi 10pack,

 

I sent the standard un resolved complint template of this website to APEX and got a letter 2 days later stating they would look in to it and another a few days after that saying they had closed my account and reffered it back to Barclays.

 

This was about a month ago and no heard anything from anybody since, with this in mind the only contact with barclays since April 2010 is an annual statement.

 

All the other DCA's before APEX got ignored and went away.

 

Hi

Yes that has been the case with previous dca , I read a little about this company they make mistakes in their paperwork and continue quoting what they originally stated often ignoring people even when its pointed out they are in the wrong.

 

I will send them a CCA request and tell them what I told the other companies.

 

I think it about time I again wrote to Barclays tell them I wish to compalin about their actions, I also have not heard from barclays since about december last year.

I have not made any complaint to the fos yet, was waiting to see how the legal thing Fuzzbutt was leading, so I think its about time I made my complaint.

Will be doing it along the lines of miss-selling rather than like for like, also to put extra spin.. I was given a loan while I was unemployed (still am) that should add extra weight with fos.

[10pack]

Hi guys

having had this latest letter from apex I have now sent them the challenge letter asking them for a copy of doa and copy of my credit agreement will see what happens next.

 

Mean while what the situation on on starting county court proceedings againts BPF.. I have had enough of all this and want to start kicking ass.

I went to the hmcourts website and there is a lot to read.. luckly being unemployed for the past two years I have time on my hands inbetween cutting the weeds in the garden

[lowdown]

Hi guys

having had this latest letter from apex I have now sent them the challenge letter asking them for a copy of doa and copy of my credit agreement will see what happens next.

 

Mean while what the situation on on starting county court proceedings againts BPF.. I have had enough of all this and want to start kicking ass.

I went to the hmcourts website and there is a lot to read.. luckly being unemployed for the past two years I have time on my hands inbetween cutting the weeds in the garden

 

 

You have a PM.

Edited June 10, 2011 by lowdown

[10pack]

 

 

You have a PM.

 

Cheers Thanks lowdown

[Fuzzbutt]

I guess some of you may have missed the announcement but Hausfeld are no longer taking our group case forward (see explanation in their open letter to the group on my website).

 

However, I served (or rather Bristol County Court did on my behalf) the N1 notice of my claim against Barclays Partner Finance last Thurs. They have 14 days now to reply to the court and state if they want to challenge or capitulate.

 

I'll keep everyone posted on developments.

 

[richeeeee]

Good luck fuzzbutt! Very interested to find out the outcome of this case as this will more then likely decide what im going to do.

 

Fingers crossed for you

[Fuzzbutt]

Thanks Richee...I'll let you all know. Obviously if I win this Barclays have lost more than having to pay me back my money. It will be a landmark ruling that will open the floodgates for everyone.

[10pack]

Thanks Richee...I'll let you all know. Obviously if I win this Barclays have lost more than having to pay me back my money. It will be a landmark ruling that will open the floodgates for everyone.

 

very true Fuzzbutt which means they will fight this all the more harder I think

 

Meanwhile I am waiting to see if apex make good on their threat and visit my home.. will be interesting I think.. you have my pesonal details from previous emails.. can you guess what will be their first problem??

[Lankus]

Just something to bear in mind - BPF might settle out of courst as long as Fuzz signs a non-disclosure agreement. I'll be honest and say if it were me, I would sign and draw a line under the whole situation. So if we don't hear anything about the outcome from Fuzz, we should probably assume this is what has happened and take it as a sign that BPF aren't as confident as they make out about this situation and as long as a good argument is made, most of us could get the same outcome.

[Fuzzbutt]

Just something to bear in mind - BPF might settle out of courst as long as Fuzz signs a non-disclosure agreement. I'll be honest and say if it were me, I would sign and draw a line under the whole situation. So if we don't hear anything about the outcome from Fuzz, we should probably assume this is what has happened and take it as a sign that BPF aren't as confident as they make out about this situation and as long as a good argument is made, most of us could get the same outcome.

 

 

I'll be signing no gagging orders, that's for sure. I'd rather take my chance and say no thanks you (b)ankers, it goes before a judge now and I'll take my chance.

 

 

The fact that they'd insist on that as a condition would be proof of their guilt and I'm determined these bast**ds won't get away with what they've done and brush it under the carpet.That they haven't yet taken one person to court, despite the threats from their barking dogs over the past year, speaks volumes. They know their defence won't stand up before a judge on points of law and THAT is why they are reluctant to step into a court. Put it this way, you force a company out of business, then act in violation of the CCA by refusing to refund loans but force the victims to go (after nearly 3 months without a study provider) to another company they did not choose/want. Then change all their contract terms and conditions by providing a service that is not only NOT what they signed up to, costs a large amount less than the previous course, and (despite their pathetic attempts to force CT to match with the 'bespoke' arragement) fails anyway as the course is still time-limited. Many of the people are unable to finish due to the delays without paying more money on top to the replacement service....I really don't think any judge would consider that fair and reasonable. On top put the failure to communicate this all in a timely manner, and CT refusing to release details of the new course to people without them signing over (blind sign up)....not looking good, Barclays! They may capitulate simply that I'm such small fry money-wise and too much hassle to bother with (cost of their expensive solicitors time, coming to Bristol to the hearing etc). I'll know within the next 14 days anyway what their decision is.It will be interesting.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Fuzzbutt

[10pack]

Hi Guys

Another letter from apex, this time sent signed for, I had sent them a request for copies of doa and cca

 

"Further to your letter undated the contents of which have been duly noted.

apex are not the data holding branch and are therefor not obliged to supply the data you have requested, this information should be requested from our clients

please contact our client directly for a copy of your agreement."

 

they returned my postal order and sent me a copy of my letter back

 

so as I see it they do not have the debt asigned to them.. the do not hold a loan, they seem to be making out that they are working directly with BPF.

 

Should I bother writing back to them informing them I will be submitting papers to county court to get my money back from BPF?

[Mustard2243]

However, I served (or rather Bristol County Court did on my behalf) the N1 notice of my claim against Barclays Partner Finance last Thurs. They have 14 days now to reply to the court and state if they want to challenge or capitulate.

 

Good luck, Fuzzbutt you won't need it though they are in the wrong

[Mustard2243]

Hi Guys,

 

Well since my last letter to barclays which was along the lines of i do not acknowledge this debt i am moving soon see ya. I just had a fishing letter from a firm called Pace forward saying blah blah call us to tell us its not you or we will assume its you which considering i dont have any debts apart from the fictitious barclays one its probably them.

 

Reccomended course of action?

[10pack]

Hi Guys,

 

Well since my last letter to barclays which was along the lines of i do not acknowledge this debt i am moving soon see ya. I just had a fishing letter from a firm called Pace forward saying blah blah call us to tell us its not you or we will assume its you which considering i dont have any debts apart from the fictitious barclays one its probably them.

 

Reccomended course of action?

 

I would have said send them the letter asking for a copy of DOA. but I am wondering now if we should answer them.

I am not sure how much effort they put into tracking you to see where you live, but if you have moved then answering them just tells them where you are.

 

and I have apex fishing trying to see if i will throw my hands up and p i ss myself, I sent them the DOA request they actually sent my postal order back and wrote as I have written the other day.

I have not as yet answered them since their reply is as other dca.. they do not have the debt.. and are trying to extort money with threats... BPF hold our loans and its BPF who we will all be sending our court papers to.. not the other way round!!!.