Barclays Loan for driving course with RED

YorkshireBoy

You're in possession of all the paperwork (albeit it took you nearly 7 years to find it!). If you feel there was a breach of contract (they did not provide when they said they would) or misrepresentation (they said he could go on the course 'at any time in the future' when they (RED) knew full well he couldn't), then you simply write to them (at the address on your credit agreement) stating you wish to make a section 75 claim, citing the reasons why.

As a secondary matter (although you may wish to see how you get on with the primary matter first), you ask them if you had PPI on the agreement. Although quite frankly I don't think you could have had it, since it's not separately documented. But if you had it, the premium must have been added as a lump to the bill you settled...because you weren't making a monthly repayment, as this was a kind of 'deferred interest' credit agreement.

It's as simple as that really isn't it?

Tillygirl2016

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

it's as simple as that really isn't it?

Thank you! That's what I thought and it's very kind of you to let me hear your thoughts regards my question.

PeacefulWaters

I would avoid mentioning that the course was wanted for somebody else if I were you.

tidds

Reading through the thread... something which hasn't been mentioned as far as I can see is the guarantor element in that, Barclays wrote to you to say that a payment has been missed. This would be standard as the guarantor - your son would have been making the payments, which he then subsequently has missed - resulting in them getting in touch with you. Make sure you know exactly what was missed, when, how much because this could be brought up in any discussion. Also, if this is correct, surely it's your sons loan to discuss with them and not yours?

Whilst being the guarantor does indeed make it your loan in regards to the money and owed, contractually it's still with your son.

Brock_and_Roll

Barclays came to me asking for repayment of a loan to a company that they seem to have helped drive in to receivership.

It is highly inadvisable to pursue this particular line of approach without any concrete evidence to support it. Barclays lost at least £1m directly from the collapse and no doubt Partner Finance will suffer a large amount of additional bad debts. If there were any suggestions of attempts by Barclays to prefer their position at the expense of other creditors, it would have been the Administrators duty to purse this - I have read the reports and there is nothing about this.


As has been explained here, the OPs position is potentially legally weak for a variety of reasons - especially that it appears to be the case that it was not a case of the course being "not offered" more a case of it being "not taken up".


Nevertheless, I cannot see the harm in writing to Barclays requesting a refund for the course not being provided - you never know your luck! Keep it simple!


If the OP makes "allegations" the letter is more likely to hit the desk of a more senior in-house lawyer - and knowing a few of these sharp guys, that is not a good idea!

[Deleted User]

^^^^ with an attitude like that to people on here who are trying to help, you will get nowhere, personally I don't see that you have a leg to stand on as far as getting the loan back, its not RED's or Barclays fault that your son didn't take up the training paid for.