Jump to content

Hhog909

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Hhog909

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Having some difficulties scanning the paperwork referred to above - I will hopefully have access to a scanner tomorrow. In the meantime, here is an edited copy of the email conversation I had with the Shoosmiths rep, and a copy of the amended writ. emailspdf.pdf
  2. Thanks for your reply dx. I did read a lot of Erudio-related threads, but I guess I should have read more of them... and yes I should have kept you updated. I don't really think that the courts are somehow in collusion with Erudio etc to fleece people like me out of fees and I'm sorry I said what I said in post 38. I think what I was trying to say is that it seems wrong to me that someone like Erudio is able to issue *speculative* claims, as you called them, and as a result are able to benefit from the perceived authority of the court in their attempts to inti
  3. Yes I felt the same way about the process, there's something unsettling to me about how easily Erudio/Shoosmiths can seemingly get the court to issue a writ, which immediately puts someone like you or me in the position of having to either admit liability or stump up the fees for a challenge. I mean if you look at the writ they sent me, it's clear that Erudio/Shoosmiths didn't provide any evidence of the alleged debt at the time they raised the matter the court - it's all "we'll provide evidence to back up our claims later. IF someone asks for it".
  4. I'm sure you're right... I just found the whole situation so stressful when I was offered a seemingly simple way to resolve it I took the chance. I hope Baldyspec does better than I did, like I said before I'll post up some more material in the near future which may be helpful.
  5. Hi I've been meaning to post an update and will try to upload some relevant docs when I have time. In the end I agreed a settlement with Erudio that was arranged via the case handler at Shoosmiths. The settlement was for less than the amount Erudio claimed I owed (but not *much* less). My case has been sisted (sp?) until the agreed repayment has been made (I'm paying in installments). Part of me wishes I'd carried on and gone to court, but I just didn't feel I could take the risk of losing. I'm glad I defended the case; the
  6. Got my defences in to the court this morning and intimated to Shoos. Court clerk had a look at my docs and thought they looked OK. One thing that came up was the fact that I'd attached my CCA letter to the defences, the clerk said that supporting documents like that are usually submitted as depositions separate to the defences, but they said the letter could remain as an attachment to the defences if I wanted (I agreed). Next step is the scheduling of an options hearing. Feeling happy that I've defended the case, thanks to dx and others on this forum for your suppo
  7. Thanks for your reply dx, I've really been stressing about this. I guess when all's said and done I have nothing to lose other than the potential extra legal costs - if I admit the debt or lose the case, either way it's a court decree against me... so might as well have a go. And your confidence in the defence is certainly reassuring! So I should change 2 back to : 2. Not known and not admitted that any agreement for the sum claimed ever existed between Student Loans Company subsequentually sold to the Pursuers. But everything else is fine? I need to sign and date the de
  8. thanks very much for your reply dx. I've had another bash at the defences, incorporating your feedback. Here's the latest version: 1. Admitted. 2. Not known and not admitted that the said agreement for the sum claimed between Student Loans Company and the Pursuers exists. 3. Not known and not admitted that the said contract between Student Loans Company and the defender for the sum claimed exists. The defender made a request to the Pursuers under s77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to clarify the matter, to which no response has to date been received. Copy of
  9. Also... (possibly another dumb question!) am I supposed to sign and date the defences? Thanks again!
  10. Here are my defences, hopefully in the correct format for handing in to the court. So as I understand it I need to hand this in along with Form O7 and a copy of my CCA letter (marked 'PROD01'). Probably a dumb question but, in the guidance thread kindly linked above, there is the statement 'you should mark ‘INTIMATED’ on the backing of the defences' - does this mean that I have to write the word 'INTIMATED' on the back of each sheet of paper I submit? Thanks in advance! Court Ref No. XXX-XXXX-XX DEFENCES in causa Erudio Student Loans Limited, a company incorpor
  11. I sent off my CCA request to Erudio yesterday. I used their 16 digit reference number as the reference on the letter rather than the Student Loan numbers (hope this was the right thing to do). Here's my first attempt at my defences, which need to be lodged by Tuesday. Any and all feedback gratefully received, thanks in advance. I've copied in the condescendence from the initial writ, and added my replies in red. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to address every single point made in the writ, in this initial attempt I've kept my answers short. The Pleas in Law are copied straight fro
  12. Hi dx, yes the figure is the combined amount for all loans.
  13. Under defender they have written a figure - I left it out and replaced it with 'amount' in my post - apologies for the confusion. There is no agreement number on the writ
  14. Thanks for your reply dx, and thanks for being on top of the deadlines! Re the process that needs to be followed here, as I understand it I need to return Form O7 by the 6th (and copy it to Shoos). This form is a notice of intention to defend. I believe I then have a further 14 days to lodge my defence. Just going by the rules stated here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/sheriff-court/ordinary-cause-rules/chapter-9---standard-procedure-in-defended-causes-(2).doc?sfvrsn=8 Form O7 references Rule 9.1 (1) -
×
×
  • Create New...