Rich Tea, You asked a very good question and although I'm not a lawyer I can tell you what the lawyer's answer would be.... They would say 'It all depends'
Let me explain. Assume you are entitled to reimbursment for the goods or services you have not received. So you paid 12k for a course to get you (say) an Instrument Rating. When you have only half completed, the establishment goes belly-up. So what haven't you received? Have you not received the rating that you paid 12k to get and are therefore claiming back 12k, or have you got half of the service, therefore only being entitled to 6k back? This is just the sort of uncertainty that lawyers love as its what keeps them in business.
One way to resolve this is to go to another establishment and get a quote from them to train you from your present standard up to and including the rating. If they quote 8k, then thats the amount of service you have not received.
Now then, what if the original 12k was not a quote for the rating but was just an estimate based on average ability? Now the credit card company, or anyone else you are suing, can argue that you wouldn't have got your rating for 12k anyway because you were sub-standard, so what is your loss now? Obviously its less.
My (free) advice:
1. See if anything emerges from SFT or anyone else taking over the training for those in the lurch.
2. If that produces nothing, start your claim for the full amount you paid. Your arguement is that there is no such thing as half a rating. It is all-or-nothing.
3. I don't know if SFT arranged loans for students, but if they did, (e.g.loan companies forms in their office with SFT stamp on the introductions box) you might have a claim against the finance company on the basis that it was a linked agreement. Can't remember the legal term but I did once successfully sue Chartered Trust using this legislation after some sub-standard building work.
All the above given in good faith, but remember I'm not a Lawyer so please make your own checks before acting.