Tweet
Here is the complaint I have against BPF. Nov 09 they dismissed my claims with the new information I have again raised this with them. Would appreciate any feedback on any of the issues raised as most of the stories are the same all over the various forums.
Mis-sold loans with guarantors unaware thinking they were witnesses.
Customer Services
Barclays Partner Finance
PO Box 3979
Glasgow
G51 1YL
Subject:- Account Number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anne Smith
Communications Manager.
With reference to the above subject I have to report that on 21/04/08 my son enrolled on a training course with The Skills Centre, this course was funded in partnership with your Company Barclays Partner Finance.
Mr Brian Robertson the representative and sales agent of the Skills Centre arranged this course and the finance in the form of the loan from yourselves, he signed the loan agreement for and on behalf of Barclays Partner Finance.
On attempting to book dates for his week one exams at the Aintree Training facility he was informed that they were no longer accepting students from the Skills Centre as there was a problem with funding.
A short time later he received a letter explaining that the Skills Centre was in the hands of Administrative Receivers but could continue with the course through ATL as they had taken on the partnership and he should wait contact from them and should continue to pay his loan repayments as usual, this he did.
Having not been contacted by them after a period of 6 months he contacted them to book his exams, they were unable to avail him of a suitable date or venue to sit these necessary requirements.
Every date he offered there was no exam being run that week or month for that matter further more the only venue offered was in Southampton a vast difference from that of Aintree.
Southampton is 11hrs drive away from his home, Aintree is 3 hours.
As he works away from home 6 months away 3 months at home the dates offered did not even work in even after trying to book ahead when he knew he would be in the UK all dates offered were during his period of deployment.
This is not what he signed up to and I countersigned as witness who now appears to be guarantor but was not informed that at the time by Mr Robertson who stated it was as witness to the signatures.
It is apparently obvious that this new Company do not want to take on the students of the Skill Centre and are making representations that will not suit deliberately to put the students off from continuing their studies with this form of further education.
This course was to enable him to secure employment here in the UK, 3 years down the line he has no course no qualification is still working in hazardous environments overseas and is out of pocket to the sum of £8845:66 with nothing to show for it.
Neither he nor I are prepares to accept this form of misrepresentation from any of the Companies involved , I do not appreciate either your call centre staff calling my home phone at 0800 hrs and late evening for payment requests.
Any further communication should be placed in writing no phone calls will be accepted.
We did not enter in to any agreement with ATL you have, they are unable to provide the service required the options offered are unreasonable and would place further hardship on an already stretched availability of our resources.
As the agreement was signed by a skills centre employee on your behalf and the alternative course objectives being unsuitable and having had no contact what so ever from your chosen provider I consider this a breach of contract and invoke my rights under the consumer credit act 1974 to hold you equally responsible as the course provider in that you supplied the partnered finance.
Under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 this is a breach of contract under the original terms of the agreement, I require Barclays to furnish a full and immediate refund and relinquish all further obligations in respect of this agreement.
I draw your attention to a catalogue of already adjudicated claims in this manner
One student, who wishes to remain nameless for fear his other Barclays loans will come under threat, contacted the Financial Ombudsman Services based in South Quay Plaza in London. The Adjudicator ruled on behalf of the student, who enrolled on a course with Advent/Access, who has written to BPF stating that BPF should “refund the monies [Mr XXXXX] has already paid under the loan agreement” and asked that BPF “cancel his remaining obligations”.
After a review of the documentation, the Adjudicator took the view that under the Supply of Goods and Services Act the fact was that as the student was using the course to gain employment and therefore there was a sufficient case for the course to be supplied within a reasonable time. As the student has waited since January of 2009, the Adjudicator took the view that it was not reasonable for the student to wait any longer for his practical training.
In another case connected to BPF, the London based Adjudicator responded on behalf of another student who has also fallen at the hand of a failed training company. In this case training has started before the training company went into administration. In other documentation, it was revealed that even though the student has studied for 4 months it held no significance. Furthermore, whilst the student had been offered a new structure of training from BPF it was still a breach of contract because it represented a fundamental change in performance. Citing the Consumer Credit act 1974 Section 75 the Adjudicator concluded that as Barclay Partner Finance was/is equally liable for the supplier’s breach of contract and therefore the student was entitled to a full refund. He expressed his findings to the bank and gave the bank 10 days to repay the monies already paid out and to cancel any further liabilities.
In a separate case the Adjudicator found in favour of an Advent student. He considered the course had been miss sold to the student. The Adjudicator cited evidence of the representative of Advent saying the student could forego a number of training days and still ultimately obtain the qualification he sought. Because of these false statements the Adjudicator ruled that Barclays Partner Finance has to repay, under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, because BPF was “...equally liable for the Supplier’s misrepresentation”. Therefore, “I would be grateful if the bank would repay the monies Mr X has already paid under the loan agreement and cancel his remaining obligation and if there is any reason why you will be unable to reply I would be grateful if you would let me know”. The student has received a full refund from Barclays Partner Finance within 10 working days.
In a further development, a massive public relations exercise was instigated, aiming at reducing student complaints, with the help of BPF. This campaign attempted to show BPF were helping students from failed training companies. However, the so-called saviour of BPF was announced as Computeach. This training organisation already has a FaceBook group headed “Legal Action against Computeach”. An entry on that FaceBook group reads as follows: “I was a soldier who was medically discharged from the Army after 3+ years of duty, I served in Iraq and after joint issues it was found I had hyper mobility which as a solider isn’t a good thing. After contacting Computeach they cancelled my course after a letter from my doctor but left me with the debt from BPF. The fact is Computeach have made free money at the cost of my suffering. This will not end and I will not back down, I have written the BBC watchdog and awaiting a reply from them, it’s not my fault I was discharged from the Army, Computeach sure makes it seem like it, no compassion and no respect for those that have served so big companies like them can continue to let people down.”
BPF claimed they were offering students the opportunity to gain training from Computeach giving the following reason. Jon Orritt from BPF said that the company was glad it could help these thousands of students continue with their education, despite the problems thrown up by the recession. He continued: "We chose Computeach because their services are very closely aligned with Advent's and they are recognised as the industry's market leader.”
To Mr. Oritt we say; if Computeach is closely aligned with Advent, how long will they be in business?
And our final question is, if one of our BRAVE HEROES is suffering the way he clearly is, how many more students will continue to suffer at the hands of BPF and Jon Orritt and for how long?
Therefore, to ensure fair play to all, others who wish claim their rights should contact the Adjudicator of the Financial Ombudsman Service, who has already instigated full refunds for both Advent and Access students. The name of the Financial Ombudsman Adjudicator is Mr. Johan Grefstad. His email address is johan.grefstad@financial-ombudsman.org.uk or write to Financial Ombudsman Service, South Quay Plaza, 183 Marsh Wall, London E14 9SR. Telephone 0207 0935 968 or fax 0207 0935 969.
Now some brief facts, available in the public domain, which portraits the pathetic and ridiculous chose of the Knight in Shining Armour called Computeach.
This relates only to students who are studying IT subjects. For your information there are other students training in trades such as plumbing, electrical etc to whom Jon Orritt doesn’t make any reference, goodness only know how long they will be waiting for the good news?
I have now advised my son to cancel his direct debit with the bank it is just unfortunate that he has paid every instalment to date not knowing about this and you have not offered any alternative other than to enforce court action for default knowing that this decision had already been administered. The agreement is finished in April 2011 with the sums paid , however payments will cease as from today and a decision as to your intentions to refund all monies already paid.
I look forward to your reply in respect of this matter.
Yours sincerely.
Mrs Booth
Mr Booth
Cc johan.grefstad@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Mis-sold loans with guarantors unaware thinking they were witnesses.
Customer Services
Barclays Partner Finance
PO Box 3979
Glasgow
G51 1YL
Subject:- Account Number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anne Smith
Communications Manager.
With reference to the above subject I have to report that on 21/04/08 my son enrolled on a training course with The Skills Centre, this course was funded in partnership with your Company Barclays Partner Finance.
Mr Brian Robertson the representative and sales agent of the Skills Centre arranged this course and the finance in the form of the loan from yourselves, he signed the loan agreement for and on behalf of Barclays Partner Finance.
On attempting to book dates for his week one exams at the Aintree Training facility he was informed that they were no longer accepting students from the Skills Centre as there was a problem with funding.
A short time later he received a letter explaining that the Skills Centre was in the hands of Administrative Receivers but could continue with the course through ATL as they had taken on the partnership and he should wait contact from them and should continue to pay his loan repayments as usual, this he did.
Having not been contacted by them after a period of 6 months he contacted them to book his exams, they were unable to avail him of a suitable date or venue to sit these necessary requirements.
Every date he offered there was no exam being run that week or month for that matter further more the only venue offered was in Southampton a vast difference from that of Aintree.
Southampton is 11hrs drive away from his home, Aintree is 3 hours.
As he works away from home 6 months away 3 months at home the dates offered did not even work in even after trying to book ahead when he knew he would be in the UK all dates offered were during his period of deployment.
This is not what he signed up to and I countersigned as witness who now appears to be guarantor but was not informed that at the time by Mr Robertson who stated it was as witness to the signatures.
It is apparently obvious that this new Company do not want to take on the students of the Skill Centre and are making representations that will not suit deliberately to put the students off from continuing their studies with this form of further education.
This course was to enable him to secure employment here in the UK, 3 years down the line he has no course no qualification is still working in hazardous environments overseas and is out of pocket to the sum of £8845:66 with nothing to show for it.
Neither he nor I are prepares to accept this form of misrepresentation from any of the Companies involved , I do not appreciate either your call centre staff calling my home phone at 0800 hrs and late evening for payment requests.
Any further communication should be placed in writing no phone calls will be accepted.
We did not enter in to any agreement with ATL you have, they are unable to provide the service required the options offered are unreasonable and would place further hardship on an already stretched availability of our resources.
As the agreement was signed by a skills centre employee on your behalf and the alternative course objectives being unsuitable and having had no contact what so ever from your chosen provider I consider this a breach of contract and invoke my rights under the consumer credit act 1974 to hold you equally responsible as the course provider in that you supplied the partnered finance.
Under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 this is a breach of contract under the original terms of the agreement, I require Barclays to furnish a full and immediate refund and relinquish all further obligations in respect of this agreement.
I draw your attention to a catalogue of already adjudicated claims in this manner
One student, who wishes to remain nameless for fear his other Barclays loans will come under threat, contacted the Financial Ombudsman Services based in South Quay Plaza in London. The Adjudicator ruled on behalf of the student, who enrolled on a course with Advent/Access, who has written to BPF stating that BPF should “refund the monies [Mr XXXXX] has already paid under the loan agreement” and asked that BPF “cancel his remaining obligations”.
After a review of the documentation, the Adjudicator took the view that under the Supply of Goods and Services Act the fact was that as the student was using the course to gain employment and therefore there was a sufficient case for the course to be supplied within a reasonable time. As the student has waited since January of 2009, the Adjudicator took the view that it was not reasonable for the student to wait any longer for his practical training.
In another case connected to BPF, the London based Adjudicator responded on behalf of another student who has also fallen at the hand of a failed training company. In this case training has started before the training company went into administration. In other documentation, it was revealed that even though the student has studied for 4 months it held no significance. Furthermore, whilst the student had been offered a new structure of training from BPF it was still a breach of contract because it represented a fundamental change in performance. Citing the Consumer Credit act 1974 Section 75 the Adjudicator concluded that as Barclay Partner Finance was/is equally liable for the supplier’s breach of contract and therefore the student was entitled to a full refund. He expressed his findings to the bank and gave the bank 10 days to repay the monies already paid out and to cancel any further liabilities.
In a separate case the Adjudicator found in favour of an Advent student. He considered the course had been miss sold to the student. The Adjudicator cited evidence of the representative of Advent saying the student could forego a number of training days and still ultimately obtain the qualification he sought. Because of these false statements the Adjudicator ruled that Barclays Partner Finance has to repay, under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, because BPF was “...equally liable for the Supplier’s misrepresentation”. Therefore, “I would be grateful if the bank would repay the monies Mr X has already paid under the loan agreement and cancel his remaining obligation and if there is any reason why you will be unable to reply I would be grateful if you would let me know”. The student has received a full refund from Barclays Partner Finance within 10 working days.
In a further development, a massive public relations exercise was instigated, aiming at reducing student complaints, with the help of BPF. This campaign attempted to show BPF were helping students from failed training companies. However, the so-called saviour of BPF was announced as Computeach. This training organisation already has a FaceBook group headed “Legal Action against Computeach”. An entry on that FaceBook group reads as follows: “I was a soldier who was medically discharged from the Army after 3+ years of duty, I served in Iraq and after joint issues it was found I had hyper mobility which as a solider isn’t a good thing. After contacting Computeach they cancelled my course after a letter from my doctor but left me with the debt from BPF. The fact is Computeach have made free money at the cost of my suffering. This will not end and I will not back down, I have written the BBC watchdog and awaiting a reply from them, it’s not my fault I was discharged from the Army, Computeach sure makes it seem like it, no compassion and no respect for those that have served so big companies like them can continue to let people down.”
BPF claimed they were offering students the opportunity to gain training from Computeach giving the following reason. Jon Orritt from BPF said that the company was glad it could help these thousands of students continue with their education, despite the problems thrown up by the recession. He continued: "We chose Computeach because their services are very closely aligned with Advent's and they are recognised as the industry's market leader.”
To Mr. Oritt we say; if Computeach is closely aligned with Advent, how long will they be in business?
And our final question is, if one of our BRAVE HEROES is suffering the way he clearly is, how many more students will continue to suffer at the hands of BPF and Jon Orritt and for how long?
Therefore, to ensure fair play to all, others who wish claim their rights should contact the Adjudicator of the Financial Ombudsman Service, who has already instigated full refunds for both Advent and Access students. The name of the Financial Ombudsman Adjudicator is Mr. Johan Grefstad. His email address is johan.grefstad@financial-ombudsman.org.uk or write to Financial Ombudsman Service, South Quay Plaza, 183 Marsh Wall, London E14 9SR. Telephone 0207 0935 968 or fax 0207 0935 969.
Now some brief facts, available in the public domain, which portraits the pathetic and ridiculous chose of the Knight in Shining Armour called Computeach.
This relates only to students who are studying IT subjects. For your information there are other students training in trades such as plumbing, electrical etc to whom Jon Orritt doesn’t make any reference, goodness only know how long they will be waiting for the good news?
I have now advised my son to cancel his direct debit with the bank it is just unfortunate that he has paid every instalment to date not knowing about this and you have not offered any alternative other than to enforce court action for default knowing that this decision had already been administered. The agreement is finished in April 2011 with the sums paid , however payments will cease as from today and a decision as to your intentions to refund all monies already paid.
I look forward to your reply in respect of this matter.
Yours sincerely.
Mrs Booth
Mr Booth
Cc johan.grefstad@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Comment