Barclays Loan for driving course with RED

Tillygirl2016

Hello

I've just managed to find the paperwork relating to a loan I took out with Barclays Finance in 2008 for a driving instructors course with RED. Total was just under £4K. I paid off the loan in full March 2010 when the first repayment became due therefore avoiding any interest. To be honest at the time this was a huge surprise as I only thought I'd agreed to be a loan guarantor for my son who was going to do the course. Subsequently however we never received anything from RED about the course. Over the years I've tried to find out what my position is regards the course or a refund but only ever had verbal rebuttals from RED regards any obligation to me or my son. I now learn that after I took out the loan with Barclays Finance they pulled out of their dealings with RED who soon went bust!
Looking at the paperwork (which I've just come across) I notice reference to PPI on the back of a statement sheet. What could this mean? Regardless of any PPI I'd like my money back from Barclays because I think they are liable.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!

[Deleted User]

I don't understand any of that.

You took out a loan - but then thought you would jut be a guarantor?
What is it you think Barclays are liable for?
What is the reference to PPI on the statements?
What sort of loan did you/your son take/not take out?

Tillygirl2016

Thanks for your reply. Sorry about any confusion.
In late 2008 (December) I went with my son to the RED offices with the intention of being a loan guarantor (if necessary) so he could go on a course to be a driving instructor. Despite offering to pay for the whole course there and then in full we were sold the idea of taking out a loan (being told; "keep the money and earn interest on it" 'sort of thing'). RED's partnership with Barclays Finance in the matter made an impression on me at the time and we left awaiting a reply on my sons loan application. After the meeting my son received a phone call from RED and was told that he had been refused finance and would I be his guarantor. I agreed.
My son became distracted with his young family but had been lead to believe he could take up the course when he was ready. In any event we heard nothing until March 2010 when Barclays wrote to me stating payment was in arrears. I was amazed they were writing to me in the first instance and that the loan appeared to be in my name however I made arrangements to pay in full. Which I did. Next we saw on the news RED were going bust.
My son then made enquiries to find out what the position was. He was told that because we had paid Barclays in full for the course we could get our money back (from Barclays). I have just recently found the relevant paperwork from Barclays.

Hope that detail is helpful.

I was wondering if RED were going in to administration when Barclays asked me for payment e/o March 2010. If so would that have been ethical? What if Barclays knew they were about to pull out of the loan finance market in late 2008 when I signed up as a loan 'guarantor' for my son. As the finance partner, is it not reasonable to suggest Barclays would have known their actions would send RED under? Something about their involvement seems duplicitous and or unethical.

Any ideas or guidance greatly appreciated. Thanks

As an aside is there a possibility that PPI was attached to the loan agreement without my knowing it? There's a contact for Cassidy Davis Insurance Services Ltd on the back of the loan statement.

DCFC79

Is there nothing with a breakdown of the costs eg x amount for the course, x amount for PPI ?

No harm in complaining to Barclays and see where it goes.

[Deleted User]

The finance is separate from the course. There is nothing duplicitous or unethical about Barclays providing finance for a course.

However, section 75 will apply to the credit provider, if you are now unable to get the goods or service provided, so you may want to pursue that.

If you have PPI, it will be shown on your statements.

Tillygirl2016

Thanks.
That's the Consumer Credit Act I guess?
PPI is referred to but there's no breakdown on the statement not even reference to the course except that the account is opened through "RED INSTRUCTOR TRAINING" (their caps).
I was just questioning a potential conflict of interest with Barclays being a little more than just a credit provider. They were a 'finance partner' - I could have got a loan from anywhere.
Going to look at s.75 now.
Thanks both.

Tillygirl2016

Hello

I'm confused by the language (see text in bold) so does s75 apply to me? The loan was for just about £4k.
S 75 says:

Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.
(1)If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.
(2)Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.
(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—
(a)under a non-commercial agreement, F1. . .
(b)so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding [F2£100] or more than [F3£30,000][F4, or]
[F5(c)under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for running-account credit—
(i)which provides for the making of payments by the debtor in relation to specified periods which, in the case of an agreement which is not secured on land, do not exceed three months, and
(ii)which requires that the number of payments to be made by the debtor in repayments of the whole amount of the credit provided in each such period shall not exceed one.]
(4)This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.
(5)In an action brought against the creditor under subsection (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to the proceedings.
provision for liability of creditor for breaches by supplier
(1)If the debtor under a linked credit agreement has a claim against the supplier in respect of a breach of contract the debtor may pursue that claim against the creditor where any of the conditions in subsection (2) are met.
(2)The conditions in subsection (1) are—
(a)that the supplier cannot be traced,
(b)that the debtor has contacted the supplier but the supplier has not responded,
(c)that the supplier is insolvent, or
(d)that the debtor has taken reasonable steps to pursue his claim against the supplier but has not obtained satisfaction for his claim.
(3)The steps referred to in subsection (2)(d) need not include litigation.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a debtor is to be deemed to have obtained satisfaction where he has accepted a replacement product or service or other compensation from the supplier in settlement of his claim.
(5)In this section “linked credit agreement” means a regulated consumer credit agreement which serves exclusively to finance an agreement for the supply of specific goods or the provision of a specific service and where—
(a)the creditor uses the services of the supplier in connection with the preparation or making of the credit agreement, or
(b)the specific goods or provision of a specific service are explicitly specified in the credit agreement.
(6)This section does not apply where—
(a)the cash value of the goods or service is £30, 000 or less,
(b)the linked credit agreement is for credit which exceeds £60, 260, or
(c)the linked credit agreement is entered into by the debtor wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by him.
(7)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 16B (declaration by the debtor as to the purposes of the agreement) apply for the purposes of subsection (6)(c).
(8)This section does not apply to an agreement secured on land.]

Bogalot

REX didn't go into administration until 2010. What happened between 2008 and that date, how long was the training supposed to take?

Another problem you have here is the statute of limitations. You're going to be outside the permitted six years.

(Not sure why you've highlighted the line about £30,000. £4,000 is less than that.)

YorkshireBoy

The bold text (and everything before it back to the 2nd (1)) relates to section 75A (for 'linked credit agreements'), not section 75.

Tillygirl2016

"The bold text (and everything before it back to the 2nd (1)) relates to section 75A (for 'linked credit agreements'), not section 75."

Thanks. I've heard PPI claims extend beyond 6 years so why should this be any different?

Bogalot

Tillygirl2016 wrote: »

"The bold text (and everything before it back to the 2nd (1)) relates to section 75A (for 'linked credit agreements'), not section 75."

Thanks. I've heard PPI claims extend beyond 6 years so why should this be any different?

PPI is nothing to do with s 75. What is your reason for complaint?