Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Cheesusrice

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Just to clarify - there is no time limit on a stayed claim, is there?
  2. Thanks dx. Just wanted to update this case - it was stayed after Drydens failed to respond to my defence. They did respond to my CCA request back in December, but didn't submit anything to the court. Nothing received by the court since. Should now be SB'd as I last deferred in June 2013 when it was still with SLC. Despite this, Erudio sent me another notice of sums in arrears earlier this month.
  3. Thanks dx. Appreciate your help and not trying to be awkward. Just curious as to the ins and outs of credit agreements.
  4. OK. Point taken. I was interested for future reference and for other forum users. This is my proposed defence so far: 1. The claim is for the sum of £4000 in respect to monies owing by the defendant on a credit agreement held by the defendant with the Student Loans Company under account number ############### 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 the Student Loans Company to the claimant, and the defendant has been notified of the assignment by letter. Contact drydenfairfaxsolicitors on ########## The Defendant contends that the Particulars of Claim are vague and generic in nature. Accordingly, the Defendant sets out his case below and relies on CPR 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 Student Loans Company. The Defendant has no recollection of the precise details of the alleged agreement and has sought verification from the Claimant who has to date failed to supply any relevant paperwork. 2. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are denied as the Defendant is not aware of the service of any Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 nor any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to section 136 (1) of the Law and Property Act 1925 by either the Claimant or the original creditor. 3. On receipt of this claim, requests for information pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (section 77) and CPR 33.14 were posted to the Claimant and the Claimant’s legal representative on 15th November 2018. To date, the Claimant remains in default. 4. It is not accepted that the Defendant owes any monies to the Claimant, who is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show how the alleged debt has been calculated; 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; d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity, to issue a claim. 5. As per CPR 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 the 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 1925. 7. By reason of the facts and matter set out above, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed in the Particulars of Claim or to any relief.
  5. Yeah I get what you're saying dx. But it is an interesting point and not sure whether anyone knows the answer to this?
  6. So is it OK for a Default Notice to cover more than one agreement? Or should there be one for each agreement? I can't find anything in the CCA 1974 about this, or anything specifically on CAG.
  7. If we look at the historical maximum loan amounts (for one year), it was £420 in 1990/91 (see http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/22816/1/SN01327.pdf), and when The Education (Student Loans) Act 1997 (s6) was published, the figure was £2085 for London residents. This would mean that those with a claim form for £7-8000 must have had more than one loan, yet have only been issued with one claim form. I suspect that it is the Erudio A/C# on the claim form, and not the original SLC ones (the SLC one was an 11-digit code - [YY][4-letter university code][5-digit numerical identifier])
  8. Thanks again, dx. I'll send that SAR on Monday. I suspect that some of the similar claim forms on this forum have exactly the same issue. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?491546-Erudio-Shoosmiths-Claimform-1995-98-SLC-Loans-ignored-or-returned-everything-since-2013 https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?491501-erudio-drydens-claimform-old-SLC-1997-2000-ignored-everything-since-2013
  9. That's right. I received one claim form for multiple loans. The POC quoted an A/C# that was actually the Erudio one and not the SLC one (see posts 6 & 10)and made no mention of there being more than one loan. The CCA request I sent quoted the A/C# they had put on the POC. The D/N and termination notice I received bundled everything together too, instead of being one for each loan.
  10. Thanks dx. So I'll send separate CCA requests using the original SLC numbers (which were not listed on the claim form). Am wondering if the returned PO is a trick and whether I should send new ones with the new requests just to cover my arse?
  11. An interesting development - the postal order for the CCA request has been returned in a hand-written envelope with yesterday's date. Included is a hand-written note on an Arrow Global compliments slip. It says "Please be advised Arrow no longer require a £1 fee. Please find the postal order enclosed and now considered returned to you. Many thanks" The returned postal order has the Erudio account number written on the back.
  12. Only just realised this - not sure if I've made a terrible error or not. The CCA request I sent referred to the Erudio reference number, and not the original SLC ones. So I only sent one CCA for the bundled account (with the Erudio a/c#). Is this likely to be a problem?
  13. Understood, dx. Also, thanks, Unclebulgaria. I wasn't planning on relying on the A/C no discrepancy, but would certainly use it as part of my defence. At the end of the day, I always deferred successfully with SLC and have never earned over their threshold.
  14. Worth having a read of the guidance re Right of Access from the ICO website (For organisations/Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation/Individual Rights). I can't post the link because I haven't posted enough times on this forum yet. Check this section of the guidance out: "Can we extend the time for a response? You can extend the time to respond by a further two months if the request is complex or you have received a number of requests from the individual. You must let the individual know within one month of receiving their request and explain why the extension is necessary. However, it is the ICO's view that it is unlikely to be reasonable to extend the time limit if: it is manifestly unfounded or excessive; an exemption applies; or you are requesting proof of identity before considering the request. Can we ask an individual for ID? If you have doubts about the identity of the person making the request you can ask for more information. However, it is important that you only request information that is necessary to confirm who they are. The key to this is proportionality. You need to let the individual know as soon as possible that you need more information from them to confirm their identity before responding to their request. The period for responding to the request begins when you receive the additional information."
  • Create New...