Advent Computer Training (Barclays Partner Finance)

[Fuzzbutt 2]

Kraken is right, I understand, on the issue of mitigation.

 

I can't appeal as such as I have won the case and could only appeal if a) I thought the judge had made the wrong decision and ignored legal issues (he's applied S75 to the letter, it seems) or b) there had been some procedural failure in the way the court was run.

 

What IS unfair is the amount, from my perspective, which I can query and demonstrate a reason why I disagree with the award, so I believe.

 

I have been awarded costs (don't know how much yet until I get the court letter) but I shall certainly be writing to Barclays with a letter of disgust, national press and OFT (who asked me to let them know outcome).

[10pack 1]

Kraken is right, I understand, on the issue of mitigation.

 

I can't appeal as such as I have won the case and could only appeal if a) I thought the judge had made the wrong decision and ignored legal issues (he's applied S75 to the letter, it seems) or b) there had been some procedural failure in the way the court was run.

 

What IS unfair is the amount, from my perspective, which I can query and demonstrate a reason why I disagree with the award, so I believe.

 

I have been awarded costs (don't know how much yet until I get the court letter) but I shall certainly be writing to Barclays with a letter of disgust, national press and OFT (who asked me to let them know outcome).

 

Bet after your judgement... they will try to use the judgement as it stands so that barclays only have to pay for any cheaper options.. book tokens for waterstones perhaps.. while still paying back a loan for thousands for a product not received

[fractal 1]

Unfortunately I am not a lawyer, and English is not my first language so pls bear with me but I guess what I was referring to is close to "expectation damage" in Brit legalese speak; in other words, by not being provided with the service as promised and paid for, Fizzbutt has suffered a damage - wasting time, upset career plans etc. Isn't this a very viable argument that the court should have taken into consideration? Unless you are criminally young (joking! ) and don't care much about time wasted, time is a critical factor for those of us who are just too old to afford making a mistake (trying to avoid saying the number).

 

Besides, shouldn't people have a choice whether to accept a refund, or a suitable replacement - and if they don't want the replacement for whatever reason (I don't see why you should give a reason at all), it is their right to decide?

 

P.S. Are there any provisions in theoriginal contract about what happens if the course provider goes bust?

Edited February 29, 2012 by fractal

[10pack 1]

Unfortunately I am not a lawyer, and English is not my first language so pls bear with me but I guess what I was referring to is close to "expectation damage" in Brit legalese speak; in other words, by not being provided with the service as promised and paid for, Fizzbutt has suffered a damage - wasting time, upset career plans etc. Isn't this a very viable argument that the court should have taken into consideration? Unless you are criminally young (joking! ) and don't care much about time wasted, time is a critical factor for those of us who are just too old to afford making a mistake (trying to avoid saying the number).

 

Besides, shouldn't people have a choice whether to accept a refund, or a suitable replacement - and if they don't want the replacement for whatever reason (I don't see why you should give a reason at all), it is their right to decide?

 

P.S. Are there any provisions in theoriginal contract about what happens if the course provider goes bust?

 

yes time was also an issue with me.. I am over 50 and to think that I had years of study in front of me was not the best thing I could think of doing at this time, but I wanted to be a microsoft qualified programmer.. and I did complain to advent rep as to why I need to to a technicians course.. he said it was a foundation course.. I did not see the point, I can build computers with my eyes closed

[Kraken1 545]

what I was referring to is close to "expectation damage" in Brit legalese speak; in other words, by not being provided with the service as promised and paid for, Fizzbutt has suffered a damage - wasting time, upset career plans etc. Isn't this a very viable argument that the court should have taken into consideration?

 

There is a principle of expectation loss in English law. This is useful: http://www.gillhams.com/articles/394.cfm. I think you are perhaps really alluding to 'reliance loss' akin to anglia tv v reed. Either way, it is all still related to a loss and that needs to be quantified. 'Non pecuniary losses', whilst awarded, are usually nominal. The primary aim is to get you what you contracted for. There are even instances of the court awarding reasonable amounts of money to allow someone to get what they paid for. Ruxely Electronics is a good example of the too-ing and fro-ing that can go on. If I buy a certain car for 20k, and then the dealership fails to deliver, but I can get the same car from another dealership for 25k, then I can claim the extra 5k it cost me. If it is the same car for the same cost, I can't claim. If I buy it and realise that paying 20k for a Chevvy Matiz was a poor move, then I can't do anything about it. There is no law against making a bad bargain.

 

With these claims it is partly about the service, but also about the outcome. Arguably, it is more about the outcome. The ends justify the means as it were. A well delivered degree course, with excellent teaching and fantastic facilities is worth nothing without the award at the end of it. You need the letters after your name for any of it to be worth anything. Also the court would ask what has caused the delay - is it Barclays sodding around (a three month delay before trying to provide an alternative) or the delay taken through litigation and dispute? If the latter then a claim is questionable. That is why, all along the key question has always been is it the same course and qualification?

 

I don't want to sound negative, but you'll see from all my comments on this and the other thread that I've taken this view all along. I first came across this when asked for help with the problem. I didn't suggest fighting because of all these problems - it all comes back to breach of contract and how that can be fixed. It is also partly due to the fact that advent were fairly rubbish to start with I think. I'll fight to the ends of the earth if I think I stand a chance, but on this I advised settling. They took the CT option in the end I think. Not sure how it all turned out for them. I think they finished the course, but it didn't help them get a job.

 

To use Fuzz's analogy:

 

"If I'd bought a car on loan and the dealership had collapsed before they were able to deliver it and the bank had sent me round a second-hand bike instead, would I have been treated the same way?"

 

I think what happened is that people bought a second hand bike for £5000 and so then this is what was delivered. After all, if Advent had been any good, why'd they go under? I know Barclays pulled the plug on them, but they must have had a reason. The cynic in me feels that it was a commercial decision - it was cheaper to deal with this mess than the fall-out if they'd carried on. Paying out for a couple of years of students must be better than regularly paying out every year?

[fractal 1]

Thank you for the links (and patience), Kraken. I suppose I might have been alluding to non-pecuniary Expectation Loss as well as Restitution (acc. to the gillhams link).

 

Hopefully one day someone will write a Survival Guide to Law for Dummies.

 

Good luck, Fuzzbeat (and all other Advent-urers)!

[Fuzzbutt 2]

I've posted my court letter with an update explanation here on my website. Please feel free to refer to it (case ref number is on the letter).

 

http://adventstudents.webs.com/courtverdict.htm

[Bluedo 2]

I've posted my court letter with an update explanation here on my website. Please feel free to refer to it (case ref number is on the letter).

 

http://adventstudents.webs.com/courtverdict.htm

 

Thanks for posting the letter Fuzz I feel for you, if you don't mind me saying it's a complete disgrace. I understand you were highlighting the absurdity of the cost of the courses and exposing the rip off. I wouldn't have seen that coming either,that they would use it as a settlement is galling. Did he not understand the point being made.also the bigger picture, I thought at least you would have a substantial refund.if not full refund as the end result was not achieved, OK at least you've shown that Computeach can't be forced on us that's a big win btw. but it's from start to finish been a complete disaster.Brick wall after Brick wall jeez makes you mad what you've went through and the work you done has not went without gratitude here and on FB so Thank You Fuzz. I'm also disgusted at the amount of regulatory bodies out there have not done anything to help, not one has called Barclay to account. Where is the Justice here.

[Kraken1 545]

But to play devils advocate, the reg bodies like trading standards and the like can't make law, they can only apply the law that is there. If this is what a court says then what can they do? The people to harass must be the law makers, not enforcers, surely?

[lowdown 1]

Thanks for putting the Court outcome on the student site Fuzzbutt.

I will be sending a copy to my fos appeal adjudicator if that's ok.

I have emailed you first.

[blade325 1]

Hi Fuzzbutt thanks for the letter, it will come in handy for many of us on this forum, especially for those that are either still dealing with the FOS or those that wish to go down the small claims route.

I totally agree with your planned follow up strategy of writting to the OFT, Trading Standards and the head of Barclays board. I think we should all follow suit and do the same. Is it worth getting some kind of template letter together? so that it is apparent that we are all complaining about the same thing?.

[Fuzzbutt 2]

Thanks for posting the letter Fuzz I feel for you, if you don't mind me saying it's a complete disgrace. I understand you were highlighting the absurdity of the cost of the courses and exposing the rip off. I wouldn't have seen that coming either,that they would use it as a settlement is galling. Did he not understand the point being made.also the bigger picture, I thought at least you would have a substantial refund.if not full refund as the end result was not achieved, OK at least you've shown that Computeach can't be forced on us that's a big win btw. but it's from start to finish been a complete disaster.Brick wall after Brick wall jeez makes you mad what you've went through and the work you done has not went without gratitude here and on FB so Thank You Fuzz. I'm also disgusted at the amount of regulatory bodies out there have not done anything to help, not one has called Barclay to account. Where is the Justice here.

 

Thanks Bluedo for your kind words. Yes, I'm disgusted at the underhand tactics used by the Hogan Lovells lawyer. I won, yet financially I'm the loser!

I am challenging the amount awarded as I can ask for that to be reviewed within 14 days.

[Fuzzbutt 2]

But to play devils advocate, the reg bodies like trading standards and the like can't make law, they can only apply the law that is there. If this is what a court says then what can they do? The people to harass must be the law makers, not enforcers, surely?

 

I agree, Kraken, but I'm at a loss of who to complain to in honesty (I thought directly to Barclays Board)? Can you suggest any authority please?

[Fuzzbutt 2]

Hi Fuzzbutt thanks for the letter, it will come in handy for many of us on this forum, especially for those that are either still dealing with the FOS or those that wish to go down the small claims route.

I totally agree with your planned follow up strategy of writting to the OFT, Trading Standards and the head of Barclays board. I think we should all follow suit and do the same. Is it worth getting some kind of template letter together? so that it is apparent that we are all complaining about the same thing?.

 

I may put one up on my website once I've had a reply from the court about the amount, depending on what they come back with.

[Kraken1 545]

MPs I suppose. They make the law after all. I think that they are looking at consumer law issues at the moment so things could change.

[fractal 1]

Fuzzbutt, apologies for butting in again, just hope to be able to help as I am also digging into CIW issues, although with a different provider.

It is not clear how they came up with that compensation figure; the cost of self-study kits from CIW certified distributors as sold in the UK is considerably higher; there are 3 providers, and the costs are online (source: http://www.ciwcertified.com/store/uk_distribution.php)

 

Best of luck!

[Fuzzbutt 2]

Fuzzbutt, apologies for butting in again, just hope to be able to help as I am also digging into CIW issues, although with a different provider.

It is not clear how they came up with that compensation figure; the cost of self-study kits from CIW certified distributors as sold in the UK is considerably higher; there are 3 providers, and the costs are online (source: http://www.ciwcertified.com/store/uk_distribution.php)

 

Best of luck!

 

Thanks for that, Fractal. Very useful.

[Keith_rb 1]

Well done to you Fuzz.

 

I have a quick question though, will the court send you a detailed break down of the judges decision related to the issues you raised, or is that rather brief letter all you get? I only ask because the former would be like a silver bullet for the rest of us in court.

[Fuzzbutt 2]

Well done to you Fuzz.

 

I have a quick question though, will the court send you a detailed break down of the judges decision related to the issues you raised, or is that rather brief letter all you get? I only ask because the former would be like a silver bullet for the rest of us in court.

 

I don't think they do for small claims, Keith. That was all I got, the short letter posted on my website, which is a shame.

[caro 4,347]

I don't think they do for small claims, Keith. That was all I got, the short letter posted on my website, which is a shame.

 

You could see if you can get a transcript but you'd have to pay. http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=161

[Fuzzbutt 2]

My ruling at Bristol Court proves -

 

BARCLAYS PARTNER FINANCE HAVE NO RIGHT TO ENFORCE COMPUTEACH. WHAT THEY HAVE DONE MAY BE LEGAL BUT IT IS MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!

 

I'm in the process of writing to the Board of Shareholders at Barclays, OFT, MP and of course all major press, BBC Watchdog and the One Show (who supported us in the past). Suggest all of you get your heads over the parapet now and charge, do the same! Together we have a BIG voice. Don't whine, DO!!!

 

Barclays, like all banks, do not like BAD PUBLICITY IT HITS 'EM WHERE IT HURTS - THEIR POCKET- so make sure you give 'em some!

Edited March 18, 2012 by Fuzzbutt

[blade325 1]

Hi Fuzzbutt would like to do the same, in an earlier post I suggested a template letter so that we were all singing from the same hym sheet?? what do you think? or should we all do individual letters?

[Kraken1 545]

template letters are likely to get ignored or template responses.

[blade325 1]

Cheers Kraken will continue with the letter that I had already started. It will essentially focus on the point that BPF had no right to try and force us all to go to Computeach.

[Kraken1 545]

and.... suggest a solution? A more acceptable alternative provider? No sense bemoaning a problem without also arguing for what you want. That said, I suppose in doing that you need to be writing to the people that can do something. Probably no point in writing to the OFT or Trading standards, they will just stick to the law that Fuzz has helped clarify. Barclays is a punt I suppose. The media folk I think will need some sort of story or angle. Not sure what that would be though. Worth thinking about before investing in a stamp I'd have thought.