Cases like this can actually be quite complicated not because of what the training provider has provided or not provided but because of how the contract is set up.
Generally, although the training provider provides the finance facility, it does it by applying through a separate loan company. So you make an application for a loan and then the money from the loan is used to buy the training.
It works in exactly the same way as if you borrow money from the bank and then it’s up to you what you decide to spend it on. In this case, you borrowed money from an entity and then decided to spend it is on the training. It then transpires that the training that you decided to buy with it is not particularly good but that’s not an issue for the lender.
Where this gets complicated is whether the lender is in fact the training provider or whether it’s a separate organisation altogether. Sometimes the training provider actually owns the lender but nonetheless they are then two separate organisations.
How this then gets dealt with is that you sue the training provider for breach of contract but meanwhile you still have to pay the loan back. Ultimately, what you want from the training provider is the full cost of the loan.
What you need to do therefore is look in detail at the paperwork to see exactly who the agreements are with because they are the ones that you take to task over this.
What I have outlined their is a common situation but it’s not necessarily the case and it may be that the training provider simply got paid by you on the drip as they provided the course. If that is the case, it makes it much more simple because you can wait until they sue you and then you defend the proceedings on the basis that they are in breach of the provisions of the Supply Goods and Services Act for failing to carry out the job (provide the course) with reasonable care and skill.
Can I clarify anything for you?