barclays rip off students

rabthejab

my son went on a course with access2trades and signed a contract for the supply of the course. problem is Barclays partner finance forced access into liquidation. six months later they took it upon themselves to elect OLCI as the course provider which most students did not want, my son was refused essential course materials OlCI even refused point blank to supply these books when we asked Trading Standards to try, this appears to be a clear breach of contract and the delay in the alternative course forced on students should be covered by the consumer act S:mad:75 as the course was paid for in full yet not provided we have tried FOS who seems to think its ok now to supply the missing course materials after argueing to get them for 2 years, this has to be a case of failing to provide a duty of care, not according to the FOS. there are lots of students in the same boat can anyone offer advice or help.

System

Its difficult to understand from the post. Why are Barclays ripping off Students?

I may have misunderstood but it appears the people your son signed up for went bust and were then replaced by another company who are not honouring the original terms? Is that right?

bod1467

Essentially yes. There are often consumer rights articles in the papers about this subject, and Barclays have been the "Finance Partner" for many of these schemes.

AFAIK Barclays are using a highly-dubious and morally-bankrupt (yet legally-correct) get-out to avoid their S75 liabilities, and the FOS are just rolling over and accepting it.

wealdroam

bod1467 wrote: »

AFAIK Barclays are using a highly-dubious and morally-bankrupt (yet legally-correct) get-out to avoid their S75 liabilities, and the FOS are just rolling over and accepting it.

But if Barclays are acting legally, then surely the FOS cannot find against Barclays' action without risking court action themselves?

bod1467

When I said "legally-correct" I was being kind. I'm not absolutely sure it IS a legally-correct get-out (and neither are many other people, including consumer rights people - such as Which?), hence FOS should investigate but (AFAIK) refuse to do so.

Caveat: my info comes from reading newspaper articles hence may not be 100% correct. See also my signature.