Hi All, Just a quick update...........nothing to report - no contact from ParkingEye or BPA as yet. I am sending a complaint to the ICO today as suggested as the others have had more than enough time to at least acknowledge receipt of my requests / complaints.   Thanks to all. T.

Dear (insert Name) Will you please confirm in writing payment of £xxxxxx is accepted as full and final payment of rent arrears for commercial lease (insert dates) for rental on  property (insert address) and please provide a receipt of payment. Yours Sincerely 

When you get chance please upload a redacted copy of the agreement and also this termination notice included within the LBC.

Hope there is someone who can have a look at this please? 🤞Have to hand it in in like half an hour... THanks!   INTRODUCTION 1.      As a defendant in this case I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application dated 19.09.23 to lift the stay on proceedings, for the defence to be struck out, for the Summary Judgment on the whole claim and the cost order to be made against me, the defendant in view of my Defence submitted to the County Court Business Centre in Northampton on 22 June 2019. 2.      The Claimant confirms that this claim issued through Northampton County Court Business Centre remained stayed since. 3.      Attached is a witness statement and a bundle of documents marked ‘LON2’. BACKGROUND 4.      The defendant confirms she entered into a contract with the Student Loan Company (SLC) under Loan Number ………….. on 28 November 1996. The original loan amount was £2035.00 with APR rate of 2.7%. 5.      The loan was regulated by SLC and during the time SLC was in charge of the account the defendant successfully deferred every year as she was always under the earning threshold. 6.      The defendant acknowledges receiving a copy of a loan agreement enclosed as pages [1 to 2] of ‘LON1’. NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT 7.      As per her defence, the claimant acknowledges receiving Notice of Assignment when the loan was moved over from SLC to Claimant on 22.11.2013. 8.      The Student Loan agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 9.      As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2014 REMEDIATION 10.  Defendant received a remediation pack from the Claimant on 28th August 2014 named Remedy of Account enclosed on pages [1-34] of ‘LON2’.  The cover letter explained that there was an issue under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 that resulted in Defendant’s balance being higher than it should have been so the reduction of £441.47 was applied to the account. 11.  The enclosed replacement documents in the pack showed correct situation compared to the originals with the erroneous Sums of Arrears. 12.   The defendant found this Remediation pack confusing and worrying that CCA 1974 was breached on Defendant’s account, yet the Claimant brushed it off with vague explanation and an apology. 13.  This issue puts shade on the Claimant’s requirement to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed under the Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4), as the Defendant does not admit the allegation. DEFERMENTS 14.  The defendant was granted deferrals for all the years they were with the SLC and continued to be granted deferments by the Claimant when they took over the loan as the claimant was under the earning threshold at all pertinent times. 15.  Defendant was sent and completed deferment forms for 20 years, between 1996 – 2016 without fail and no payments were ever due. 16.  Defendant had not received the 2017 deferment forms 8 weeks before the due date or the subsequent reminder that is customarily sent. 17.  Defendant had not been reminded by email about the deferment. 18.  When the Claimant noticed the Defendant’s deferment form was missing and this was unusual considering they have been at the same address for more than a decade and are on the electoral register, the Claimant did not make an attempt to call or email the defendant to communicate with them about the situation. 19.  The Claimant therefore did not treat the Defendant fairly. CCA REMEDIATON 2018 20.  As mentioned in Defendant’s Defence and not responded to in the Claimant’s Witness statement; the next communication from the Claimant that the Defendant received was the Remedy of Account pack on 1st September 2018 containing missing statutory notices that they are required to send within the prescribed timescales containing correct information to inform the client about their account as presented in pages [35-69] of ‘LON2’ 21.  Due to a system error between 2016-2018 the Claimant did not comply with this requirement and the correct statutory notices were not sent. 22.  This system error coincided with the dates the deferment forms were not received by the Defendant. 23.  The pack included annual statements some of which mentioned Sums of Arrears, much like the ones SLC used to send the Defendant in error – which was corrected by Claimant in 2014 as mentioned in points 9-12. The defendant was confused and googled the Remediation issue and found a - nothing to worry about – type of explanation on the Claimant’s website as it seems many accounts were affected. 24.  Claimant’s website stated: “What is remediation? During ongoing quality checks/reviews of our accounts, we identified an issue relating to communications that we are required to send customers as prescribed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) (CCA). Additionally, our review identified issues with the data on some of our customers’ accounts. Having reviewed all accounts for issues, along with rectifying the issues identified above, we are now in a position to resume our normal processes. We have begun writing to our customers who have had arrears on their loan(s) since 9 December 2015 (when Erudio took over the day to day management of the loans from the Capita Group). This is to ensure they have had all the required CCA notifications and their account data is accurate. This will involve sending the corrected documentation to affected customers and corrections to the data on customers’ accounts. If your account has been affected, you will receive this documentation where applicable. Any interest incurred since these issues arose will be deducted from your account balances. What does it mean for me? You don’t need to do anything. If you have been affected by any of these issues, you will receive a letter from us outlining what we have done to fix it. We will provide you with corrected regulatory letters for the period affected by these issues and inform you about any adjustments to your account balance or payment as a result of the removal of interest added to your account during that period.” 25.  The defendant concluded this error must be also why the deferment forms were not sent and trusted that the Claimant would fix the error and send the documents with an apology, after all, if there was a problem, the Claimant would have called or emailed to let the Defendant know. 26.  The Claimant was in breach of the CCA 1974 rules in letting the Defendant know about the arrears on the account, and subsequent actions taken were unenforceable as this was the Claimant’s error. LETTER OF CLAIM AND COURT DEFENCE 27.  However, Defendant was served with a Letter of Claim which was a shock. She had never been to court before and did not think she had a choice but go to court as the other option was to succumb to unreasonable offer by Dryden’s Fairfax lawyers representing the Claimant. 28.  Defendant therefore submitted defence to court. 29.  The Claimant’s witness statement has not addressed the CCA 1974 breach that was stated in point 15 or 16 of the Defendant’s defence. ADMINISTRATIVE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS July 2019 – May 2024 30.  As the Claimant’s Witness Statement reads, during the almost 5 year administrative stay, the Defendant was contacted by Drydens Fairfax layers representing the Claimant with offers to settle the ‘debt’, however the Defendant found the letters had a violent undertone, each one threatening with a CCJ unless the Defendant complied with demands. It was therefore unwise  to enter into any kind of relationship with such bullies who were well aware of the Defendant’s defence and that their client made serious mistakes and a breached CCA 1974 rules. 31.  As a result of these continual threats but the case still on administrative stay the Defendant experienced continual nightmares and stress related gut problems. She has seen the gut specialist who advised her the mind body connection and trauma can be connected with her type of gut issues and the defendant’s GP followed by referring her to trauma psychotherapy. 32.  On 8th of June 2021 the Claimant sent a letter with the statutory documentation they failed to send the Defendant even though her postal address had not changed. Again this was another CCA 1974 breach. 33.  On 16th December 2021 the Claimant sent another letter apologising for and error made in charging the Solicitor’s fees incorrectly, continuing with a series of blunders.    

I'm trying to unravel this – but I get the impression that there was no contract between you and EVRi and that you didn't even choose them but instead you decided use some third party parcel broker in the USA which organised the delivery. Is this correct? EVRi came into the picture because they were then eventually selected for part of the journey although you had no knowledge that it might be them and I suppose it didn't really matter as long as the item got to you. Secondly, I really don't understand the journey which this item made. You bought the item from somebody in the USA. They then were meant to dispatch it to you to another address in the USA but for some reason or other it came to the UK and then into the hands of EVRi at which point it was lost or stolen. More confusion here because you now tell us that EVRi marked it as being out for delivery but it was never delivered. This suggests that it was going to be delivered to a UK address but earlier on you said that it was going to be delivered to USA address. I think you need to look at the story. Maybe show it to a friend of yours who is not particularly aware of the details and ask them if they can make head or tail of it and then come back to us with clarification so that we fully understand. Also, I think we'd like to know what the item is, how was it declared, what was the value which was declared. You said it was a valuable item because it was rare and collectable. I gather from this that it is non-fungible. We need to understand more about this. Was an insurance policy purchased to cover it during the delivery process. I understand that this rare and collectable item be valued at £200. Do you have evidence this value. This could become very important. Also you have given us no idea when this happened. We need to understand the full timescale. There are a number of possibilities here including the possibility of the contract action against EVRi on the basis of your third party rights or an action for negligence but we need to know far more and we need to get a story that makes sense.   Finally, I understand that you have sent the letter of claim. What did it say? How much time did you give them? What did you expect to happen as a result of the letter of claim? Whatever the answers to those questions might be, clearly you had no idea how to proceed after having sent such a letter. A letter of claim is meant to be a serious threat of some legal action if some condition which you have stipulated is not complied with. You set a deadline for compliance and at the end of that deadline you issue the court action. Clearly you are not in a position to do that so your letter of claim is a bluff and undermines your credibility and it will find its way into the EVRi wastepaper basket – if it's not there already.