Hello

I am looking for some advice about mortgage style loans from SLC 1997-2000.

I deferred successfully up until the year that Erudio took over my account, circa September 2014.

As their deferrment form seemed more invasive/complicated, I chose to ignore

here I am now, after ignoring

default notices,

letters transferring my account to Capquest/AIC and

PAP letter,

Now a CCJ county court claim form.

I have followed some guidance on this website

- completed AOS,

sent CCA request to Erudio and

then SAR request to the solicitor.

Drysden have written back to say have placed my file on hold whilst we seek our clients instructions

they have requested copy documents referred to in my SAR letter.

I need to file my defence by the 5th December

- do I still need to do this with the solicitor stating they put my file on hold

If I still need to file my defence

do I just need to say that I took out the loans a long time ago and have requested copy documentation that is not yet forthcoming so that I can review/check what I need to pay?

Thanking you in advance.

Welcome aboard...

moved to legals and retitled

not sure where any advise here says send an sar

should have been a CPR 31:14 to the solicitors.

there are numerous like threads in this forum.

just use the search CAG box of the top red toolbar

erudio drydens claimform.

sadly your main issue is you should never ever ignore everything esp the PAP letter

you might well have been able to bat this one away if you hadn't.

anyway, we have large corks and big buckets to bail people out..

can you complete the following so we have all the correct info to properly advise you.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419198-You-have-received-a-Claim-What-you-need-to-do-**UPDATED-2018**(1-Viewing)-nbsp

Thank you for looking at this. I don't know why I said SAR, it was a CPR 31:14 that I sent to Drysdens. Will complete info as requested asap

:nod:

good work

wont need so many corks then.

Name of the Claimant ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS

Date of issue 02 NOV 2018

Date to acknowledge - 20 NOV 2018

date to submit defence - 04 DEC 2018

Particulars of Claim

What is the claim for –

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

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes, letter of claim dated 26 Sep 2018

What is the total value of the claim? £8,432

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Student loan

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007?

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? No

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Account purchased by Erudio, who are making the claim

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Yes although not sure of exact date probably 2014 sometime

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? No but subsequently received from Erudio

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? I definitely received one, not sure if annually

Why did you cease payments? Loan was deferred successfully until it was assigned to Erudio whereby I decided to ignore them due to the complexity of the new form and the fact that I did not want to deal with essentially debt collectors. My salary had also gone slightly over the threshold but due to other commitments I could not afford to pay - this was also a year where they actually reduced the repayment threshold which seemed unfair

What was the date of your last payment? No payment made

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt mangement plan? Back in 2015 I said I could not afford the repayments and asked for an income and expenditure form to fill in to agree payments going forward but I chose not to do this as I thought they would ask for bank statements which I would not be willing to provide. I also discovered CAG where forums advised not to engage with Erudio

please note your corrected defence filing date.

all good then.

get reading those threads I pointed to

a relevant defence is there

post it up here first mind.

do not miss filing no matter what happens...

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

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

have you earned under the threshold all the years just omitted to send the SLC deferment forms because you thought the debt collection letters were to be ignored as they were not from SLC? [get my drift here eh?]

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

ok I didnt see you above post else wouldn't have suggested that.

ok lets see what they cough up with first.

don't forget this batch of speculative claimforms have only been issued because of 2 reasons.

the defendant has ignore everything to date

the loan is close to becoming statute barred

if they left it any longer they'd have been out of luck.

its interesting to note they've used 2 solicitors here on this batch

drydens and shoosmiths

probably because of the shear volume of speculative claimforms they must have put out [sev 10'000's I would expect]

hoping for default uncontested judgements whereby no human gets involved or people wet themselves and make contact

they certainly wont be expecting many to be defended and will hopefully make errors in their document retrieval process nor not even have them at all.

also remember they CANT add in the sums of any other agreement, ONLY the ONE they state in their POC

so check that number carefully and ensure it IS the sum they are litigating over.

in the past weve seen a chain of SLC loans added together for several £1000's when the one stated loan was only a few £1000.

a fine toothed comb on everything might win the day here.

might help to sar SLC tomorrow too

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.

1. with the original creditor - The student Loans Company.

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....to date the claimant is in default of my Section 78 request and their solicitor have yet to reply to my CPR request.

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

Personally I wouldn't say and accepted

You sent CPR to drydens

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

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.

so claim is stayed and will now cost them more money to lift the stay.

until/unless you get a letter from the COURT stating the fleecers have raised an N244 etc etc wanting to lift the stay

safe to ignore them.

so post 11

use the details in the sar and prove my thoughts.

default notices are not annual

only ONE is needed find that date in the comms log

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.

removed upload ref no. showing.

please scan up all their reply inc evidence.

does this match the info you got from slc sar?

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

in subsequent poc's they have added a line that all loans are now under erudios special number.

not in yours.

not sure if that's relevant.

all you can do is wait and see if they do proceed and the court contacts you.

on the front of being over the threshold since erudio times...

the claimant has not produced such evidence and you didn't tell slc either?

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

we'll still need to see the stuff please

but not the statements.

your issue is very much like all the others that ignored everything.

you differ in that they got their court claim in in time so thus stopped the debt going sb'd. though ofcourse now it has.

if that's of any use to you, i'm not quite sure.

and yes ofcourse you will have opportunity to defend yourself at the n244 application hearing [if one happens!] and latterly at the full sj hearing if they succeed in the lifting of the stay.. 

but exactly what bullets you have to fire is yet to be discovered..the devil is in the details and we've not seen them. 

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.