Jump to content

patterns

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by patterns

  1. haha ok, ill do that too Just checked again its blank but has the numbers on the first paragraph, ill blank it and send off tomorrow i dont see any new issues for this year in the threads, hopefully that means they are winding their neck in! Thanks again
  2. Hi guys, About to send off my deferment, just checking this is the correct form? I was contemplating just registering and doing it online, low and behold, i wasn't able to anyway, said ineligable No erudio forms online to download and if you email them, they say they will get back to you within 28 days and they do not. So i'm going to send the Original SLC forms. Id rather not go through this all again but i suspect my forms will be ignored and history repeats, lets see. Just to confirm, i fill in this form , send it with 3 payslips with employers letter? i notice thhis form i have has some figures on the first page, shall i remove/amend them or leave as is? Thanks orig def form.pdf
  3. Amazing thanks Dx Is there a timeframe i need to send within if deferrment is until 31st August?
  4. Hi Guys, After the court order, ive heard nothing from erudio. The order gave them 28 days to notify me 2 weeks ago i received further arrears notices as before Would the courts do anything here, or shall i just send my deferment with supporting documents? By court order im deferred until end of august 2023, it's getting close to having to submit deferment, which is 3 months in advance i believe?
  5. Definitely rather not and follow your trusted advice for sure, i just dont want to get myself in a headache. its a year away so ill post back closer to the time. ill update once papers come through also Again sincerest thank you for everything
  6. Essentially yes! I have the form from this forum, but is there anywhere that actually states the original form is allowed? Both you and i were looking for that but we could'nt find the official source again. Otherwise im sure the same will happen... i send old form, they say not accepted, i get defaulted. And thanks for clarification, i just saw the other post below and commented. checked the reconstituted version of my terms, indeed its 25 years or etc as you say. Alot of false info online. My debt will be wiped in the next 3 years so worked out ok in the end ive attached a good quality scan to help others Blank SLC agreement.pdf
  7. This is exactly what is on my terms, original are illegible but i have a reconstituted version But i also saw the above online so was confused, mine definitely says this though original terms of old style SL if anyone needs Scannable Document on 3 Nov 2022 at 18_51_18.pdf
  8. Sorry for the late reply, had a very long shift at work and not long woke up hearing was in the morning, i saw your reply but didnt have time to respond, thank you DX. All in all it was successful: Judge said my limitations and SB argument wasn't accepted, but also they failed to provide their WS and bring last minute case evidence. Neither of us had much opportunity to speak and based off the last hearing notes which neither of us attended, Judge granted that the deferment continue as it should have been (essentially the tomlin order). I'm deferred until this time 2023 lets see if any funny business from erudio when it comes to renewal. its agreed to be on my original terms. i'll wait for the court letter but also be sure to send my deferment on time. Having a look at erudio site, seems they cleaned up their act a bit, you cant see the form as its online but the guide states the terms are those based on your original loan etc (attached in case anyone wants). im presuming if need be i can call and speak to them as normal human beings maybe wishful thinking lets see. Was very fast to be honest, was surprised about the sb being denied but i didnt want to push it, it seemed much was decided before i walked in, or maybe my lack of experience in court. Looks like mine are written off at 65 so i have some way to go and will probably have to start repaying at some point, but the outcome could have been worse i guess Thank you all for your help, been a damn long journey and couldn't have done it without your help. i will update once court order arrives and if anything from erudio. Not sure what happens next but erudio will need to send me a confirmation im sure Erudio How to Guide 2022 - 2023 Final.pdf
  9. Hi Guys, Hearing is tomorrow, drydens only sent me the witness statement and reply today and by email! The court letter clearly said hard copies and no later than 14 days before the hearing. Can i bring this up to the judge?
  10. Phew thanks Andy! Ill be ready for the hearing and send the bundle in time!
  11. Hi all, Just an update, Court letter received today: Upon the court noting that the claimants failure to comply with civil procedure rule 27.9 (1) and noting the contents of the email dated 24 August 2022 seeking approval of a draft order. It is ordered that: 1. The claim is adjourned to the first open date after 28 days mainly November 2022 2. The claimant must attend or comply with civil procedure rule 27.9 (1) 27.9.1 is the non attendance of a hearing, so im not sure what they mean by attend OR comply with 27.9.1 Would the email draft order be the tomlin order or something else? I just looked at the previous letter from the court after the initial application hearing, im lucky they didnt attend and adjourned this because i didn't see or forgot there was a hearing on 7 september!! This things been going on for years now and ive just made it longer, i got confused, thought i would get another letter with a date. Had i attended and they didnt, would this have been struck out? Dammit, i've put the next date in my diary now though Anything i need be aware of or do now apart from make sure my WS and bundle are delivered on time and actually attend!?
  12. @unclebulgaria67 Thank you yes i understand that, im just trying to establish the weight and merit of the SB position in court and what your thoughts were as to whether this was SB or not. I was inclined to negotiate the tomlin but i cannot see how this is not SB based on their letter to me The main weight of the case rests against their letter to me that states my last deferment was in October 2008. My letter to them was dated 27 Oct 2014, which is 6+ years. I never previously acknowledged anything from them. I got a SAR from SLC. I think the SB comes down to a technicality on their behalf by admittance in their letter to me Once again thank you! after 9 years its understandable to have deliberations but i agree what is the purpose of their desire for a tomlin to reinstate an account which wont get them any money unless yet again they play underhand tactics like they did before. plus Andy pointed out errors in point 1, and also where was i supposed to sign? seems very odd I think SB stands NB. they have my email from the requested means of correspondence by the courts during covid, we had to email WS etc to the other party. So should i be responding you think to show some merit to the court, or is that irrelevant?
  13. Yes i did with my first response to their first letter to me in october 2014. i should amend that in my WS and put exact dates I guess what im asking is should i proceed with court or negotiate Tomlin? They have emailed me again today, i have until the 25th as this was when the court requested the pay for the hearing fees And either way should i reply? They have asked for me to confirm what i intend to do @dx100ukHmm yes i hear you, i agree doesn't make sense, maybe they are trying something on you're saying i go ahead with the SB? Should i reply to their recent email to me?
  14. @dx100uk 'their' letter to me stated my last deferment was October 2008, it is their own admission of this date, my last deferment in realty was probably 2013 to SLC yes indeed, as i was deferred at the time. But the letter from them in 2019 after i disputed their terms sent to me in October 2014, stated my last deferment was 2008 and as of 2016 my debt is now terminated. But so how have other 100's of 2013 cases proceeded? @unclebulgaria67 the letter from them just states October 2008. Dx is right they bought the debt in 2013, was assigned 27th march 2014 They wrote to me first time on 20th October 2014 with a new terms to sign and this is when i disputed. My first response to them disputing the new terms and forms and subsequently sending the original deferment form was 27th October 2014 i think this would therefore mean there was a clean 6 year period where there was as stated by them no communication. Their letter dated 19th jan 2019 states my loan terminated November 2016 (ignoring my letters precious) then states my last deferment was october 2008. So by their own admission thats an 8 year period Timeline: - assigned 27th march 2014 - letter from erudio with new terms sent 20th october 2014 - i disputed 27th october 2014 - continued to chase and dispute, ignored me - erudio replied in november 2019 saying my loan was terminated in 2016 and my last deferment was october 2008 - claim begins Seems SB? At the same time if not and i can get Tomlin terms altered i would be deferring until the loan expires anyway. In any case im not sure to proceed to court on not, would this just be down to the subjective opinion of a judge? Your advice would be appreciated Thanks again all correction: - erudio replied in 19th January 2019 saying my loan was terminated in November 2016 and my last deferment was october 2008
  15. Thank you as always DX100uk What do you think about unclebulgaria's comment though by me send the deferment = recognising debt? Andy what are you thoughts? Appreciate it guys, have a good weekend
  16. The letter sent to me by them stating last deferment was 2008 post 252 above has my WS if you have time to have a quick look. i sent deferments but they have not acknowledged anything in writing and ther letter to me stated my last deferment was 2008, therefore would be SB. But also this is in the hands of the judge then
  17. Hi All, I received an email today from erudio solicitors offering a tomlin order. As you will see it offers to revert back my student loans to the original state, honouring the original agreement and honouring the original deferment terms I know there is obviously the argument that this is statute barred, by the letter sent to me from erudio, however I feel this is a speculative argument and the courts are left to make their own decision on that. The initial hearing didn’t seem to care much for that argument but more so how i was mistreated with my right to defer. The weight of the argument stands with the fact that they did not originally honour to continue my deferments, as with many other students. For this reason I am tempted to accept this offer, as I am still within the deferment limit. Given my age and the length of time left, weighing up the pros and cons, it seems a safer option to accept this offer. I just wanted to know all of your thoughts, and if there is somewhere in here that they're trying to catch me out. From what I can see it is the original 1998 terms, it is very clearly outlined that is the case, and therefore the deferment will be under the same terms also. Should they play funny buggers again, i have this to proceed further with. They are obviously aware they going to spend a lot in courts, and potentially lose, however probably looking at from the perspective and hope that maybe I will earn some more money in the next few years, which is unlikely. So i see this as a win to be honest. Yes i can play/call bluff which im tempted to do. A part of me does feel I have a strong argument here and a good case to win this. But I do feel based on the previous hearing, that if I do not accept this, it might be frowned upon, and looked at as though I am trying to avoid paying. Plus either way they are not going to get any money out of me, im within the deferment limit. im just more curious about any catches or loop holes they may try but the tomlin order seems pretty lock tight. All opinions and thoughts are appreciated, i have a couple weeks. One thing I note is that they have asked me to sign and return this, I can't see where it is that I'm supposed to sign? tolmin ordered by the judge - reinstate deferement going fwd.pdf
  18. i absolutely remember a reference DX100uk, i just cant find it at all. i found this additionally, if it helps others. Independent Assessors’ Annual Report for SLC 2020 to 2021 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) im sure its part of the terms, that that the original terms are passed on to the assignee.... still looking
  19. Thank you Andy, you are right. I know this hearing was as such and need to remind myself of these procedures. Even thought you have said this and i have read this, you need to remain composed. i will focus on the hearing and thoroughly starting ti prepare. im just not sure about the terms of point 3 i raised. how does this woirk, am i waiting for submission of the claimants side to me 14 days prior, and then approve. Or should i be preparing and submit my final bundle before that, and then wait to approve no less than 7 days prior to trial? Thank you and Dx100 for all your help this far. i should have some more money in jan and ill make another donation Thanks again Thank you, i have been looking, i just couldn't fimd the official reference to it
  20. I did not forget any or your words infact they were ringing in my ears..... i was polite/blunt and said my WS says everything i have to say. but they are smart/pushy Yes! Thanks for articulating better DX100, do you have a reference point for that by and chance i cant find anything? But following references may help others: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/119164/DRN4678958.pdf https://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/erudio-student-loans-time-to-complain-to-the-ombudsman-9304826.html https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2014-07-22/206948/ https://www.pdpjournals.com/docs/887831.pdf https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/apr/08/student-loans-firm-erudio-leaves-graduates-fuming-over-latest-error
  21. I hear you loud and clear pal. I was just as surprised the hearing went this way. The 1st thing i said was about SB in the first instance. i came back to this 3 times. i even have a statement showing last payment 2007, and default wasnt until 2016.... im stumped, but i went with the questioning and reenforced each point over and over. Maybe i should have pushed my point more, but i didnt know if i could interupt. After i had spoken on 3 rounds it was concluded. What was also strange was the usher told me to talk to the other party, it was actually written in the hearing letter. I asked why and was told it is good to communicate before hand to see if you can resolve, or it can be frowned upon. All very new to me. But i may well go and attend some civil hearings actually. I need to be very prepared for this. is there anywhere that states officially by FOS that the previous deferment form was acceptable?
  22. HI Guys, Hearing was somewhat a success. i wrote down as many points as i could 1- SJ dismissed 2 - List for trial after 28 days - small claims track. so sadly no strike out. 3 - All evidence to be relisted - submited under one trial bundle by the 'claimant', served 14 days prior, to be agreed by defendant 7 days before trial 4 - No order for costs thus far. Trial will be a different matter Overall good news, although my case was strong and was really hoping for a strike out. The judge didnt have a copy of my WS or bundle, only the previous WS from Erudio side. I was allowed to pass WS and 1 or 2 exhibits over. I mentioned 3 times SB but it was not discussed any further. The other party was trying to twist words but i corrected ever point. He kept pulling the argument back to the fact i admitted i had loans with SL, that i didn't submit my defence in time (wrong), that i was not entitled to defer because my last defer was 2008 (wrong again). Was just a weak argument. The Matter of CCA wasn't really discussed either even thought i went through each point, other party kept trying to move the conversation around. Tbh i dont think it helped the judge didnt have my bundle. Maybe this hearing wasn't the place for all this. My point 12 in my WS really helped. It backed my point that i had been denied deferment. erudio sol was asked if they had proof they had sent me a copy of a form, they did not. The 2 links above of articles where erudio makes a statement to moneysaving and the guardian, they failed to attach forms and defaulted 100,000s students, really helped prove my point. Although it could not be proven i was one of those students. However final comments were: - if we can work together to mediate, and if in light of this, as an exmaple - the claimant would be willing to accept a deferment now. - if i can provide stronger evidence from either FOS or im imagining cases/evidence etc, that erudio has been at fault of not supplying forms, better than 2 articles. So i guess i need to prepare maybe a stronger case here, maybe some more detail. Any advice is welcomed. Point 3 Above - not really understanding this? As in i must submit my WS and evidence to the claimaint only by when and if they miss something out how do i challenge that? I dont want to get this wrong or rudio to try not submit some important aspects of my bundle. I will probably write to drydens, as 'recommened' by judge, to show i have tried to enter back into a deferment/mediate. I think it may help strengthen my case at trial. Unless you think not to? It seemed like the final comments were 'suggestions' to me. Overall the judge was very pleasant. Ultimately im a student who was denied my rights, i just need a stronger case. Im just surprised the SB or CCA wasn't carrying more weight here. Again maybe because they didnt have my bundle prior.
  23. Hi DX no its there still, point 4. Nothing has changed from before. They also have my original defence which was based on SB
×
×
  • Create New...