I'm having difficulty reducing the file size of the info received from drydens. Here is the notice of default and assignment and my first loan agreement will follow in the next post. There are 3 further loan agreements but the file size is too high, sorry. Any input regarding these documents is greatly appreciated. And here is my first loan agreement merged.pdf

Is the Sb clock automatically restarted by virtue of the issuing of the claim form or is there a chance it might still be running

I saw you mentioned sb in post 24 but I didn't quite understand so just after some clarification. Sorry to be a pain, really appreciate your time and effort

The 25 years maturity will be 2025 and I will be 50 in 2029 so a ways to go yet. I guess my main concern is that if it goes to court and I have no meaningful defence then it will be a ccj which will trash my credit rating. Please could I also check what the SB situation is. My last deferrment period was from September 2013-14 and I have not made any payments. Does this mean the debt will be SB'ed September 2020? Or has the SB clock be restarted due to Erudio issuing the claim form

I'll upload the following when I can - 4 x original credit agreement with SLC Notice of default Notice of assignment If I am unable to come up with any defence AND Erudio continue with legal proceedings, would I have a chance to settle with them or will it then definitely go to court. They mentioned in the letter about applying for summary judgement.

With regards to the repayment threshold I was always under the threshold and deferring with SLC. It was the year that Erudio took over I also went over the threshold and I have had no contact with SLC since I also just wanted to check what the next stage will be regarding the court if Erudio apply to lift the stay and proceed with the ccj. Will I get an opportunity to submit a further defence before it goes to court? Or would my only option to avoid court be to reach a settlement with Erudio? I never objected to repaying the loan, I just wanted to avoid dealing with Erudio, who I perceived at the time to be debt collectors

I have re-scanned the original letter without the ref number. The evidence they supplied matches the details from the SLC SAR, as in the CCA agreements and loan statements for each loan. I don't think I can scan all of the reply, there are loads of pages and I have limited access to a scanner plus the fact that there are so many references numbers etc on the documentation to redact. The one thing i have noticed is that on the POC it says 'the claim is for the sum of xxx in respect of monies owing by the defendant on a credit agreement held by the defendant with Student Loans Company under account number xxxxxxxxx' The account number given is the one for Erudio and not for the 4 seperate student loans with SLC. Would the notice of assignment cover this, or have they made an error here? 20190611134107397.pdf

Hello, after months of no activity I have received correspondence from Drydens - please see attached letter which came with all documents that it mentions. Should I wait to hear anything from the court or is it best to act now? Any advice greatly appreciated.

Just a quick update regarding how things are going with this. I received all paperwork from SLC regarding my SAR request and most of the paperwork from Erudio regarding the CPR request (they didn't send annual default notices). There has been no further correspondence from Erudio or Drysdens or the county court so I guess now i'll sit tight until I receive anything elsw.

All submitted with your above suggestion, I will keep this thread updated with any developments. Thank you so much for your help on this dx, a credit to this site

Second attempt The Defendant contends that the Particulars of Claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is noted and accepted the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with the original creditor - The Student Loans Company. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or debt. The Defendant has sought verification from the Claimant who as to date has failed to supply any relevant paperwork. 2. Paragraph 2 & 3 are denied. I am not aware of any service of a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the consumer credit Act 1974 by the claimant nor the original creditor, nor of any legal assignment or Notices of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 section 136 (1). I have never received any Notice of Sums in Arrears given that the Claimants plead they are the legal owner of any alleged debt. 3. On receipt of the claim, requests for information pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act (section 78) and CPR 31.14 were posted to the Claimant’s address on 16th November 2018. To date the claimant is in default of my Section 78 request and their solicitors have yet to reply to my CPR request. 4. It is not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and b) show how the Defendant’s alleged debt has reached the amount claimed for; and c) show the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. 5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant proves the allegation that the money is owed. 6. On the alternative, as the Claimant claims to be an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief Will go ahead and file this tomorrow - just to confirm that similar to another thread, I had multiple (4) loan accounts with SLC and the account number on the POC appears to refer to an Erudio account number

Just sent off the SAR to SLC, now got to finalise my defence before filing it by next Tuesday. I've been through all the threads and can't personally improve upon by original defence per post #7. Any additional feedback or suggestions for this are greatly appreciated.

Sorry I'm being a bit dim and not really following what your saying. I sent SLC deferment forms up until Erudio took over. It was at this point that my earnings went over the threshold. If the loan had continued to be with SLC I would have started repaying the loan. However when Erudio took over (who appeared to be debt collectors) I chose to ignore and have done so ever since. Wish I had come to this website earlier tbh. Thanks again for helping

Just to clarify my position, I had been under the repayment threshold every year with SLC but since the loan was transferred to Erudio I have been a small amount over the threshold. Plan B for myself would be to engage with Erudio and set up a repayment plan before going to court and if that is my only option then so be it

First attempt : Particulars of Claim 1. The claim is for the sum of £8,942 in respect of monies owing by the defendant on a credit agreement held by the defendant with Student Loans Company under account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx upon which the defendant failed to maintain payments. 2. A default notice was served upon the defendant and has not been complied with. 3. The balance owed was assigned from Student Loans Company to the claimant, and the defendant has been notified of the assignment by letter. Contact drydensfairfax solicitors on 0113 823 3402 The Defendant contends that the Particulars of Claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is noted and accepted the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with Student Loans Company. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or debt. The Defendant has sought verification from the Claimant who as to date has failed to supply any relevant paperwork. 2. Paragraph 2 & 3 are denied. I am not aware of any service of a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the consumer credit Act 1974 or of any legal assignment or Notices of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 section 136 (1) by the Claimant or by Erudio. I have never received any Notice of Sums in Arrears given that the Claimants plead they are the legal owner of any alleged debt. 3. On receipt of the claim, requests for information pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act (section 78) and CPR 31.14 were posted to the Claimant’s address on 16th November 2018. To this date the claimant remains in default. 4. It is not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and b) show how the Defendant’s alleged debt has reached the amount claimed for; and c) show the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. 5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant proves the allegation that the money is owed. 6. On the alternative, as the Claimant claims to be an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief