just to update - They've emailed me this time with the same letter. Don't think they've emailed me before. Funny that it uses the same wording saying they "will lift the stay without further notice" - er, you said that last time My question this time is, when will they actually give up? It's costing them more and more hassling me. Maybe that's why they've switched to emailing, save a bit of cash.

because I will enjoy sending them a copy of their own letter stating that it will be SB'd in july 2022. Just for the personal satisfaction. I realise they are already in the wrong

Roll on july

"in the event we do not hear from you, we will have no alternative but to apply to the court to lift the stay on the proceedings in order to progress legal action against you without further notice"

update - just had another letter from drydens fairfax having heard nothing at all since July 2021. The line is much the same, please pay up, we're offering a Tomlin order to help you pay us back. etc The only difference is this time it says if they don't hear back from me then they will - "apply to the court to lift the stay on the proceedings in order to progress legal action against you without further notice" So do i just write to them yet again saying it's SB'd? I know ignoring isn't usually a good policy but it's just going round in circles now. I do have it in writing from them that they believe that the debt is SB'd as of july this year so at least when that point comes I can fire that back at them. Cheers

Just wanted to report that I’ve heard nothing further about this which is kind of nice. I guess they are going to try the set aside route.

That was my assumption. Nice to see them clutching at straws

UPDATE So I filed my defence as you suggested and that's all been acknowledged by the court. I have just received a letter from Drydens 'further to the defence you have filed'. Obviously they are leaning on me to pay it off asap - by august 5th in fact - or send back forms to agree to pay it back in instalments via a Tomlin order. They claim that the loan is not SB'd "As your last deferment period ended on 19th October 2015, the limitation period was reset. As such the limitation defence which you have filed is therefore without merit." I have no intention of buckling at this point so I guess I'll see what happens next. Will they progress the legal action?

Brilliant, thanks, I've registered and looked through it all but not sent it off yet. My question is if they deny it's SB'd and the court agrees what happens next? Do i lose any rights to be able to pay it back in instalments? Does attempting to defend it negatively effect me in any way? Thanks

for clarity - last successful deferment was October 2014 so I would have sent a form in at that point. The form I sent on 29 october 2015 was the one that they said didn't have sufficient evidence and as I failed to provide any they eventually said I defaulted and began proceedings. Thanks agin

Aaargh - apologies - I last sent a deferment form to Erudio in October 2015 - I don't know why I've said 2014 in the thread and as I write this I realise I don't have a leg to stand on...... That would mean it wasn't SB'd until october this year right? Jesus. TBH I've mainly been working on the assumption that by using delaying tactics they would give up and they were just looking for the backdoor CCJ route rather than actually taking me to court. I wasnt relying on it being SB'd as my defence RIGHT! I'm getting tied up in knots here. My last successful deferment was OCTOBER 2014 They then rejected my deferment form that I sent in dated 29/9/15 as they said it didn't have sufficient evidence of my wages etc. That is where the trouble started. So I did complete the form but it didn't have the correct evidence with it. I have a copy of the completed form.

Name of the Claimant ? Erudio student loans limited Date of issue – 02 JULY 2021 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 1. The claimant demands £5,010.07 for monies due the defendant. 2.This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and the student loans company limited. Each agreement had an individual account number number as follows: .... 3. The defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s) being terminated. Notice of such is served by a default or Termination notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s) 4. The debt was assigned to the claimant on the 22nd of 11th of 2013, with a notice provided to the defendant. A new master reference number ..... was also applied upon assignment, 5. The claimant has complied with the pre-action protocol for debt claims. What is the total value of the claim? 5010.07 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? yes two Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? NO Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? SLC Loans When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 BEFORE Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? By POST Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? DON'T BELIEVE SO Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DEBT PURCHASER - i think? erudio bought debt from SLC Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? YES Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I don't believe so - only from erudio Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears” or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? yes Why did you cease payments? Never repaid any part of the debt - have deferred each year until 2016 What was the date of your last payment? last deferred oct 16 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? no Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No

Hi - so Erudio have just sent me a court claim -[ county court business centre Northampton ] - It is my belief that the debt is statute barred - As far as my records show my last acknowledgement of the debt was October 2015 - I've spoken to erudio and they said that that date was the last time I deferred the loan which i believe is the last time I acknowledged it. Drydens have repeatedly said it's not SB'd and won't be until July 2022 - "the agreement which is the subject of the proceedings was terminated as a result of your failure to comply with a default notice was issued on the 21 july 2016. .... limitation would not therefore expire until 21 july 2022' My instinct is to put the october 2015 date down as my defence. I would also add that I have never at any point earned above the threshold for repayments and that two of the debts are over 25 years old. Finally I would mention that the reason all this happened was because I failed to put in a deferment form in 2016 when I was caring for a terminally ill friend. Any advice on how to fill in the form/what language to use would be very helpful. Also - is it worth paying for any legal advice at this point?

Thanks, will do. Reassuring as ever. I know they are utter chancers but it's always good to have your back-up

The reason I have reopened the thread was because I have received yet another PAPLOC from drydensFF. I feel like I have exhausted all the previous avenues and they have already sent me reams and reams of paper. Happy to reply again saying that I believe the debt to be statute barred - last time I did this to their PAPLOC they replied saying it wasn't SB but yet again they have failed to bring any court proceedings. I seem to be stuck in a loop of them sending the same letter. Obviously I have to reply to them but is there anything else I can say or should I just repeat myself? Thanks

very sorry to hear that Foxtrot77 but very happy you have resolved this erudio problem.

Ok, read the thread - I think I understand it. Damn shame the debt isn't SB - I have been labouring under that belief for some time. The amount I owe is actually 2k less than patterns but I fear that DF will actually take this to court by the looks of things. How annoying. Their last letter just said pay within 14 days so there's no need for me to do anything at this point. Are there any other delaying tactics I can employ?

So - they sent me yet another CCA and I again replied that I believe the debt is statute barred. They have again replied with - "the agreement was terminated as a result of your failure to comply with a default notice which was issued on the 21st july 2016. The relevant limitation period[6 years] did not start until the agreement was terminated. Limitation would therefore not expire until 21st July 2022." Everything I've read on here and elsewhere says that the 6 year period starts from when I last deferred the loan [october 2014]. Am I mistaken? Either way I'm happy to try and drag this out until july 2022 if needs be.....

ah, ok. They've tried to make out that they've been nice to me by leaving me alone during lockdown, yeah right! Thanks for your help again, reassuring as ever

I did send them that letter and that's what they responded to. I guess I could clarify my position by sending it again But am I right in thinking the last deferment date is when you work from? Erudio themselves have confirmed that deferment date for me.

Hi, I recently returned my second CCA form from DF and told them the debt is statute barred as the last time I deferred it was October 2014 and this was the last time I acknowledged the debt. They've replied saying that the barring date only starts from when I defaulted on the loan - June 2016 - and so 6 years haven't passed. Who is correct? Also if I am right do I write back and assert this or do I employ the tactic of waiting until they actually threaten to do something rather than just try to scare me. Cheers i mean PAP not CCA

I guess not. The letter doesn't really say anything of any substance.....

Hi - so i sent the form as suggested above and have just received a this reply from drydensfairfax - [had to type it out, no scanner] our client: erudio acc no. xxxxxxxxxxxxx outstanding amount: xxxxxxxxxxx We refer to the above matter and confirm receipt of your correspondence, the content of which has been noted, we return your postal order as this is no longer required. Your account has been placed on a temporary hold while we contact our client with details of your query. We will inform you of the outcome as soon as a response is received from our client. We trust this is clear. However if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours faithfully, drydens fairfax. So any thoughts on where this leaves me? It's obviously put them off for now. Why have they returned the postal order? Any advice gratefully received, cheers

That sounds promising! Thanks.

it's quoting the total outstanding amount of the 3 loans as the debt but then with a breakdown into the 3 separate years of the loan so - date of loan amount outstanding 18/4/94 £xxxxxx 24/2/95 £xxxxxx 10/6/96 £xxxxxx They are totally separate as far as I am aware though, the statements that Erudio send out come in 3 different envelopes