Jump to content

lwoodbine

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About lwoodbine

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yup, early days yet. Let's see how they respond.
  2. Thanks for all your help. I'd already submitted the original defence by the time this got through but emailed through an updated one. Either way I hope this can be solved through mediation before (if ever it gets to trial).
  3. The only other thing to add is that there are two years of loans because I changed courses - these are the two from the course I switched to. However when I did that the SLC messed up and separated my loans - now the two loans from my original course are with Honours and the two loans from the course I switched to are with Erudio. Don't know if that has any legal impact. Regarding the defence, unfortunately I need to go to work in a minute and was going to submit it before I left. Should I stick with the original defence in post 15?
  4. Thanks DX, could you delete that one? This one should have them all redacted. Andy, the notice of assignment had the original SLC mortgage loan numbers and an SLC account number, but not Erudio's new account number. I wasn't making payments, however on a deferral form I sent to Erudio in 2015 I had filled in a direct debit so had assumed they would take payments if I wasn't in deferral. erudio-edit.pdf
  5. here we go. Apologies for the quality, had to use a scanning app on my iPhone but they're in date order and legible. I've attached two remedies of account if that helps. I haven't scanned the notice of sums in arrears or annual statements.
  6. ok, if you're happy to look through it before tomorrow's deadline. I'll upload it tonight.
  7. I'm about to head home so will submit the defence when I get in. Then the ball's in their court...
  8. Thanks, that was my thinking too. I believe I received them in 2013 so let's see what they can produce.
  9. Thanks Andy, good point with the PAP letter. I don't know how to check if both are legally valid and what prescribed terms are required to make said notices valid, I'm guessing there is information here though.
  10. I received the PAP, unfortunately I'm not at home at the moment so can't check but I'm sure I was sent a notice from Erudio when they bought the loan. I assumed that was the notice of assignment. I can upload it when I get home.
  11. Just to make sure, Andy orch are you saying the defence in post 15 is OK? Presumably as I have deferred to erudio it should be the defendant acknowledges the notice of agreement - so para 3 should be denied while 4 is accepted? Thanks again for your help.
  12. thanks. Revised version below. If it looks good to you I'll get it sent over tonight. 1.The claimant claims £5,677.64 for monies due from the defendant. 2.The debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement between the defendant and the Student Loans Company Ltd. Each agreement had an individual account number as follows… 3.The defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement being terminated. Notice of such is served by a default or termination notice subject to the terms of the agreement. 4.The debt was assigned to the claimant on 22.11.2013 with a notice provided to the defendant. A new master reference number xxx was also applied on assignment. 5.The claimant has complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. 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.Paragraphs 1 and 2 are 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. Paragraph 3 is denied as the Defendant is not aware of the service of any Default or Termination Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 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 2 July 2019. 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.
  13. from reading other threads, I'm wondering if it's worth sending two individual CCA requests to Erudio, rather than one for their 'master reference number'? Could get them off tomorrow in that case, then file the defence.
  14. OK, here's the defence. 1.The claimant claims £5,677.64 for monies due from the defendant. 2.The debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement between the defendant and the Student Loans Company Ltd. Each agreement had an individual account number as follows… 3.The defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement being terminated. Notice of such is served by a default or termination notice subject to the terms of the agreement. 4.The debt was assigned to the claimant on 22.11.2013 with a notice provided to the defendant. A new master reference number xxx was also applied on assignment. 5.The claimant has complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. 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.Paragraphs 1 and 2 are 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. Paragraph 3 and 4 are noted.The Defendant is aware of the service of a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 however the breach alleged is not a valid reason for issue given the agreements were deferred previously.Furthermore should that default notice be judged to be valid the original creditor nor its assignee failed to serve Notice of Sums in Arrears pursuant to section 86b (2b) of the CCA1974 and is therefore prohibited to enforce any agreements. 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 2 July 2019. 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/s; 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.
  15. There are two slc agreement numbers - 99 and 00, to which erudio says it has assigned a single master reference number.
×
×
  • Create New...