Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

WindySock

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    145

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by WindySock

  1. WindySock
    From what I recall of the regulations, an over payment during deferment would result in a reduction of the monthly sum due NOT them number of repayments, but it would not be recalculated and applied until the following September.
  2. WindySock
    Did it cause you any embarrassment, distress, or problems with work?
  3. WindySock
    At the very least the FCA rules. CONC 7.9.15 01/04/2014 FCA It would normally be inappropriate to visit a customer at the customer place of work or at a hospital where the customer is a patient. CONC 7.9.7 01/04/2014 FCA When contacting a customer: (1) a firm must ensure that it does not act in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the customer; and (2) a firm must take reasonable steps to ensure that third parties do not become aware that the customer is being pursued in respect of a debt And then of course there would be a breach of data protection if they were to give any details to your employer.
  4. WindySock
    Should look like this one. http://www.slc.co.uk/media/758487/post_98_ms_credit_agreement.pdf
  5. WindySock
    That is the standard SLC 1998 CCA. There should be a 2nd page of T&Cs to go with that.
  6. WindySock
    Not true. There was plenty of that advice (and still is) on the mumsnet forum, MSE forum, no2erudio site and others from the start right up until now, so that is not in the slightest bit true. I have read the threads here and have not seen such a ruling against Erudio, hence me asking where that was? If there was such a ruling I would be very pleased to see it.
  7. WindySock
    Where is this 'ruling' against Erudio please? Thanks.
  8. WindySock
    It's 60 months presuming you haven't paid off any already. Say if you had previously paid for 12 months the remainder now would be divided over 48 months. But sound like you have the full 60 still to go. Sure Erudio will blame it on an admin mistake, but they are always mistakes in their favour, so make of that what you will.
  9. WindySock
    If hiding or not updating your address really stopped a debt becoming statute barred, CAG would be swamped with cases of DCAs using that argument. Its not, and they don't, as even most DCAs realise its compete tosh.
  10. WindySock
    No. That's the whole point. That whole argument of theirs is complete tosh. Doesn't matter if you hid, as they could have still taken a CCJ out using you last known address. They were too lazy asred to do so, so have let it become statute barred. That is their silly fault. As I posted on the previous page: This is an extract from the Money Advice Trust training materials. 'It is for claimants to prove that they could not reasonably have discovered the facts concealed by the defendant (Paragon Finance v Thakerar 1999). The mere fact that a defendant cannot be traced, with the result that the claimant does not commence proceedings, does not prevent (a cause of action from accruing and) time from running. Even where a person is deliberately hiding from a claimant the 'concealment' provisions relate only to concealment of the cause of action and not to cases where debtors conceal themselves from the claimant (Lowsley v Forbes 1999)
  11. WindySock
    I seem to recall SLC using the same flawed argument in the past and as far as I know they were always forced to back down in the end and didn't dare try it in court. HSL could be that mad, but I doubt it.
  12. WindySock
    Yes that is a trick Erudio have been trying on. Unlawfully trying to shorten the period of the loan in flagrant breach of the original terms. Cancel the DD and claim them back under the DD guarantee.
  13. WindySock
    I suspect they may have taken your lack of reply as a sign that you might have believed their rubbish.
  14. WindySock
    Reply pointing out the information from earlier in the thread refuting their claim. Say that if they bring proceedings you will defend and point out to the court they were warned about the false claims they made. You will also make their attempted deception on that point as public as possible.
  15. WindySock
    The precise method is not set down in law anywhere. Its just. From the 1998 regulations which replaced all previous ones, and replaced the agreement terms in the older type written agreements. So all the law says is that you have to "show" Erudio that: a) Your income for the month before the month you apply for deferment was below the threshold and b) You income for the 3 months following that month will not or is likely not to be above the threshold. Its (b) that causes the problems, as its subjective opinion based on evidence you supply, where the type and duration of the required evidence itself is not specified in law anywhere. SLC for wageslips at least, routinely used the last 3 months worth in most cases. However, they had discretion on that such as in your case where they might have cause to think that the 2 months were more representative evidence of what your income over the next 3 months might be. Nothing is set down in law saying the HAVE to use 3 months worth. Leaves a big hole for Erudio to exploit. Which they have done with their new forms and demands. Only 2 ways you could force Erudio to apply fairer conditions is: - Go to FOS and hope they agree that Erudio are being unreasonable, and then get a final adjudication that would be enforceable in court. - Go to court off your own back and ask a judge to decide what is reasonable. Government should have put stricter and more certain conditions in place in law before they sold the loans to protect ex students from the predatory practices of Erudio/Arrow, but they were too keen to get their pound of flesh, and probably didnt care less anyway.
  16. WindySock
    They know it's complete BS so can't imagine they would try anything.
  17. WindySock
    It is complete rubbish. HSL know that, but they often try this hoping that you can be fooled as it sounds slightly plausible given what the legislations says. This is an extract from the Money Advice Trust training materials. 'It is for claimants to prove that they could not reasonably have discovered the facts concealed by the defendant (Paragon Finance v Thakerar 1999). The mere fact that a defendant cannot be traced, with the result that the claimant does not commence proceedings, does not prevent (a cause of action from accruing and) time from running. Even where a person is deliberately hiding from a claimant the 'concealment' provisions relate only to concealment of the cause of action and not to cases where debtors conceal themselves from the claimant (Lowsley v Forbes 1999)
  18. WindySock
    As said can only be backdated for 3 months, and in theory are carried over to Erudio. Whether Erudio have the faintest chance of enforcing them or the agreement against you is another matter. They can't be reported on credit files now if you had a previous default that has dropped off
  19. WindySock
    Yes those are the standard agreements used by SLC through all those years. Mine are the same. Both original and copies supplied under a previous request to SLC when they had the loans.
  20. WindySock
    It is complete rubbish. HSL know that, but they often try this hoping that you can be fooled as it sounds slightly plausible given what the legislations says. This is an extract from the Money Advice Trust training materials. 'It is for claimants to prove that they could not reasonably have discovered the facts concealed by the defendant (Paragon Finance v Thakerar 1999). The mere fact that a defendant cannot be traced, with the result that the claimant does not commence proceedings, does not prevent (a cause of action from accruing and) time from running. Even where a person is deliberately hiding from a claimant the 'concealment' provisions relate only to concealment of the cause of action and not to cases where debtors conceal themselves from the claimant (Lowsley v Forbes 1999)

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...