You are on page 1of 7

Over time we have received some negative press in the form of Internet Forum sites and BBC


We launched a campaign at the beginning of 2008 to see if we could work with a number of
the Internet Forums and Administrators to resolve any genuine issues that any of our students
had. After a thorough investigation a number of Internet Forums found that the majority of
the comments that were being made were untrue and defamatory to our business. The
Administrators began to examine the credibility of all the allegations.

We are now pleased to say that after they approached a number of websites to investigate the
validity of the comments, they found that many of the comments were totally false and were
not even placed by people who were our students. Up to date we have successfully
prosecuted several companies and individuals.

You will see from the following information that a number of websites removed unfounded
and defamatory content, resulting in forum threads being closed down in their entirety. We
now know that you cannot possibly believe everything you read on the Internet.

Chronology of online forum postings that were challenged

and/or removed.
Out of 17 cases where Internet Forum Threads have been closed down or edited

12 out of 17 were based on deception and lies

3 out of 17 were unfounded comments
2 out of 17 contained defamatory content
1. Consumer Action Group - "Spicey v Skillstrain"

Started May 2008 - Closed January 2009 due to deception.


Started December 2007 - Closed August 2008 due to false claims and after a thorough
investigation we found that the "student" was not listed on our records.

3. Consumer Action Group - SKILLSTRAIN

Started January 2008 - Closed August 2008 due to deception

4. Money Savings Expert

Started Spring 2008 - Closed September 2008 due to unfounded comments

5. SkillsTrain 1258

Negative posting was made about SkillsTrain which was subsequently removed.


Started July 2007 - Closed August 2008 due to false claims and later discovered that this was
a non-existing student.

7. Take Legal Advice

Started March 2007 - Closed August 2008 due to false claims and non existing students

8. Facebook - SkillsTrain "Jump on the SkillsTrain scam"

Started May 2008 - Closed September 2008 due to defamatory content by students which
were non-existent


Started January 2008 - Closed October 2008 due to lack of evidence to support claims
10. Facebook group 2

Started October 2008 - removed by Facebook soon after

11. Digital Trends

Started September 2006 - Present. We have attempted to work with the forum editor to have
defamatory content removed from this group but they are a USA based website and do not
comply with UK law. Comments have been removed when we have proved that some of the
comments are not made by our students.

12. SkillsTrain 1223

Negative posting was made about SkillsTrain which was subsequently removed.

13. SkillsTrain, "The Dark Side"

This Internet post was edited and we later found that it was linked to a competitor.

14. Watchdog

BBC programme aired October 2008. The Administrators of the websites - Forums have
since proved that the cases featured on the programme to be based on lies and deception.

15. SkillsTrain 2341

Negative posting was made about SkillsTrain which was subsequently removed.

16. ST Exposed2 - YouTube

28th December 2009, a YouTube channel was launched containing an edited video. By 30th
December YouTube had removed the channel. YouTube stated: Following your defamation
complaint, the content in question has been removed. Please let us know if we can be of
further assistance. Sincerely, Anna, YouTube LLC.

17. Facebook User Suspended

20th May 2009, a Facebook user was allowed to return to Facebook after a period of
suspension for creating defamatory groups - the user was allowed to return minus the lying
SkillsTrain groups.t
18. Consumer Action Group - Skillstrain

Started July 2007 - Closed August 2008 after a thorough investigation proving the comments
to be unfounded and libellous claims.

19. Unfounded Posts

Unfounded comments, withdrawn.

20. Consumer Action Group - Cancel my Course

Started December 2007 - Closed August 2008 due to malicious and unfounded comments

21. Inaccurate Comments

Inaccurate posts, withdrawn.


Started September 2007 - Closed September 2008 in it's entirety due to unfounded comments

23. ST Exposed - YouTube

A channel called ST Exposed launched 21st December 2009 on YouTube. It was removed 5
days later. The video made untrue claims of Trading Standard's involvement with SkillsTrain
and defamatory comments.

24. Spgurushankar - YouTube

On 23rd March 2010 a new channel was launched on YouTube with the URL The channel was operated by spgurushankar. 48
hours later the defamatory content was removed by YouTube: Following your defamation
complaint, the content in question has been removed. Please let us know if we can be of
further assistance. Sincerely, The YouTube Team

25. PC Advisor - forum SkillsTrain ? information needed please

Started October 2007 - Present. This forum has been greatly edited due to defamatory
26. Defamatory Posts

Posts removed.

27. Money Stealing Scum - Facebook

20th May 2009. A Facebook group was started called SkillsTrain and Scheidegger are money
stealing scum. This group was closed by Facebook.

28. Scheidegger - Facebook

Also a Facebook page called Scheidegger which suggested it was connected to a scam was
also closed by Facebook. The page contained defamatory comments.

29. Topic Contained Defamatory Posts

Topic closed and defamatory posts removed.

30. SkillsTrain - Facebook

In February 2009, A Facebook page called Shut down SkillsTrain! They are robbing
B******S! was closed by Facebook.

31. Ciao - Review site

Started 2005 - August 2008. One student who had posted defamatory comments on this
review site apologised to the company and removed any defamatory comments.

Copyright © 2010 SkillsTrain | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Watchdog - The Truth
Mr Chris Marquis

Our evidence in respect of Mr Marquis's claims directly contradicts the assertions made by Mr Marquis and it
appears that he may have mislead the programme. The actual facts of this case are very different to those
portrayed by Mr Marquis and an understanding of the actual events are needed.

The MOS course to which the programme referred was purchased by Chris Marquis in early 2006. The current
version of MOS is version 2007. Mr Marquis was asked to update but chose not to. Any student who is not on
the latest version of any of the course materials can upgrade free of charge via Student World by choosing the
link UPDATES TO YOUR COURSE. The materials that were supplied to the expert by Chris Marquis were not
the latest materials but those which were provided to Mr Marquis in early 2006. Mr Marquis was given ample
opportunity to update to the latest version of Microsoft Office but chose not to. Although Mr Marquis enrolled
in early 2006 he delayed his examination until 2008.

Mr Marquis claimed that he did not get the support he expected. This allegation is based on an incorrect
recollection of events. Our client's records contain a transcript of all the Webmail communications made
between Mr Marquis and its tutors. The transcript evidences extensive communications between Mr Marquis
and his Tutor Team on the subject of detailed aspects of the Microsoft Office Specialist course. It also shows a
number of reminders to Mr Marquis to update his course materials.

Mr Marquis received constant support from his Tutor Team by way of Webmails. He expressly states that he
"Never made/needed telephone contact with the team":

"Reply/ wrt Q3.1, the questionnaire asks me to rate any contact with the tutor team. As I have had no occasion
to talk to any of the team by phone, it is rather difficult to give a subjective rating! Perhaps there was a need to
have an option of 'Never made/needed telephone contact with the team'."
Mr Marquis chose not to exploit the availability of tutor support by telephone. Further extracts from his
Webmails also fail to bear out a student who is not satisfied with the level of tutor support they were receiving:

"Thank you for the quick turn round on my last assignment."

"Many thanks for coming back with thoughts - on my thoughts ;o)

And so quickly."

It is quite apparent from reading Mr Marquis' Webmails that our client dealt thoroughly and expeditiously with
the queries of an extremely demanding student. The allegation that Mr Marquis did not get the support he
expected or had been led to believe is not supported by the evidence and is untenable.

Mr Marquis alleged that he raised complaints about the content of the course and the course materials; it is true
that he did raise such concerns in Webmails to his Tutor Team. However, it is clear from the Webmails that the
concerns raised by Mr Marquis related to minor and discrete aspects of the course, and that these concerns were
dealt with by the Tutor Team. Indeed, the following Webmail sent by Mr Marquis provides clear evidence that
he was not dissatisfied with the course or the support he was receiving. We have underlined sections of
particular relevance to the allegations you make:

"It may seem pedantic of me (OK it doesn't seem - it makes me!); but I have been providing training in
Windows since v3.1 and the MS Office applications since Word 3, Excel 4 and Access 1! And all versions
since - plus training people in PowerPoint. (So why am I doing the course? I want the MOUS!)

From that experience in training and assessing (as a qualified D32/D33/D34 assessor/verifier) to people with a
base level knowledge of zero, I am only too well aware that if questions are not explicit, clear and accurate, only
confusion can reign.
I am *not* trying to slag off the course, its assessment and marking; I'm just trying to explain where I think one
or two minor 'tweaks' might be considered for future course delegates.
Anyway, thanks again for not just ignoring or shredding my thoughts. I appreciate it."
You may wonder why a person who is already a qualified trainer and assessor in Microsoft Office chooses to
undertake a MOS course. We subsequently found out that Mr Marquis has worked for one of our competitors.

Mr Marquis himself states that his concerns about the course materials could be remedied by "one or two minor
tweaks". The allegations made by a self-confessed pedant are not supported by the contemporaneous written
evidence of the facts. However, we must remember that Mr Marquis chose not to update to the latest version of
the course material via the link UPDATES TO YOUR COURSE within Student World.

Finally, we draw your attention to the fact that Mr Marquis successfully completed the Microsoft Expert exam
in 2008 and was awarded a MOUS certification. Indeed, Mr Marquis achieved a commendable score in the

Mr James Quartly

James Quartly was another student who enrolled in 2006. Once again, it was the materials that were supplied to
the student at the point of enrolment that were provided to the expert. There were several updates to Section 1
(CIW Foundation) since his enrolment. All updates are notified via Student World. The most significant update
to Section 1 was the Version 5.1.1 and then Version 5.1.2, this being a whole new manual and cover Exam 1D0-
510. He was sent several Webmails asking him to check the UPDATES TO YOUR COURSE within Student
World. Since his enrolment he connected to Student World on 59 occasions. The Apache logs show that he
connected 55 times up to 22.10.07, then he connected once in April 2008. Mr Quartly never sent his Tutor Team
any Webmails at all, however, his Tutor Team sent him 65 Webmails. There were also updates to several other
Sections within CIW, all of which were significant. We provide a letter from Prosoft, the course material
suppliers, which confirm we do indeed use the latest versions of all their course materials. However, if a student
chooses not to connect with us and not to update their course materials we are limited as to the level of service
we can provide to them.

With regard to CompTIA and CIW please find enclosed two letters which confirm the situation.

Cisco courses were conducted under Contract with Dunstable College. The students we enrol usually take more
than one subject. A common combination is A+, N+ and Cisco. We would teach the A+ and N+ subject, and
thereafter the student would go over to Dunstable College on their Cisco Academy.

Our students were not receiving the level of service that should be expected from Dunstable College and
therefore a large number of students complained. As Dunstable College was their contact point most of these
complaints would have been directed to Dunstable College in the first instance. However, as students became
more frustrated they often contacted us. Every time a student came to us with a complaint regarding the Cisco
section we did everything possible to resolve the situation.

We sent a dossier of complaints to Dunstable College in the hope of highlighting the very poor level of service
that was being provided. The complaints that were generated reflected very badly upon our company. Watchdog
reported that there were 270 complaints, we believe most of which were related to the Cisco course as
administered by Dunstable College. You may also be interested to learn, that due to these events there was a
multiplicity of postings on the Internet which led our company to issue proceedings resulting in a land-mark
decision against the Host company.

We gave Notice on the Contract with Dunstable College; the Notice period expired on 9 February 2010. I am
sure you will appreciate that we entered into the Contract with Dunstable College in good faith; we thought we
would be supplying the best possible services to the students after they completed their initial training with us.
We have since found alternative Cisco providers.

Enclosures: Prosoft letters