Jump to content

owk

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by owk

  1. Having reviewed my previous response, whilst the overall position remains the same, where I referred to a Default, this should have referred to the full amount falling due for payment/the demand for full payment. I apologise for any confusion that this may have caused and have amended my explanation below to replace any reference to the Default Notice. Our client’s records show that the last deferment date was the 24 April 2011. Once deferment ends, the agreement takes effect in accordance with the terms thereof – i.e. the monthly payments fall due. The relevant limitation period in respect of this type of agreement is 6 years, pursuant to section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 (‘the act’). In respect of this type of agreement, limitation starts to accrue when the full amount owing falls due for payment, as the creditor does not have a cause of action to bring proceedings for the full amount of the claim until that time. The full amount owing under the agreement becomes due (and the cause of action accrues) in one of two ways, namely: 1. If the customer fails to make required payments, the creditor can serve a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In the event that the customer does not pay the arrears in accordance with the Default Notice, the creditor can terminate the agreement. Limitation then starts to accrue from that date; or 2. If the agreement is not terminated due to failure to comply with a Default Notice, the full amount falls due for payment when the full term of the agreement expires. Limitation then starts to accrue from that date. In this case, the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice. The cause of action and hence, the limitation period therefore, started to accrue from the date when the term of the agreement expired. This was a 60 month agreement. When a student loan account reaches its 60th month and there is still an outstanding balance, the account matures. This means it will exit the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and the balance becomes due in full. The maturity date is moved on by 12 months with each deferment period meaning that this account matured on the 31 March 2016, which is when the relevant limitation period therefore, started to accrue. Limitation would not therefore, have expired until March 2022. As you are aware however, proceedings were issued against you in June 2019 – i.e. comfortably within the relevant limitation period. Further to the above, even if limitation did not start to run from the date specified above (which it did) and actually started to run from the date of last deferment in 2011 as you incorrectly allege, you did make some payments in respect of the debt, the most recent of which was on the 28 March 2015 in the amount of £90.73, which was paid to Capita under a direct debit. Pursuant to section 29(5) of the act, the relevant limitation period accrues afresh upon each part payment. In view of that payment, even if your view of when limitation initially started to accrue was correct (which it is not), it would have accrued afresh based upon the payment and would not therefore, have expired until March 2021. Again, as proceedings were issued in June 2019, this was comfortably within limitation. The Subject Access Request supplied to you by Erudio enclosed a number of letters that were issued to you throughout 2016, in which they clearly informed you that your account was in arrears. These letters made it clear that the client wished to work with you to agree an affordable repayment arrangement and that failure to do so may result in a Default being registered against you. Unfortunately, they were unable to reach an amicable resolution resulting in a Final Demand being produced on the 12 January 2017 and issued to you on the 14 January 2017 and it ultimately, becoming necessary for our client to then issue proceedings against you due to non-payment. As such, whilst I apologise if you feel that our client deliberately delayed the cause of action in order to prolong the limitation period, I assure you that is not the case. As set out above, as the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice, Erudio were contractually obligated to allow a 60 month period between the last deferment date and the account maturity date. They then acted in a fair and reasonable manner by allowing an additional 10 months after the account maturity date to give you the opportunity to resolve the matter before the Demand in Full was issued. I have also had sight of an email that you sent to my colleague, Richard Senior in which you requested us to confirm that we have complied with FCA regulation. Having reviewed the matter, I am satisfied that throughout our instruction we have acted in accordance with the relevant FCA regulation.
  2. I know what you are saying but the court route so far has almost doubled the claim
  3. Thanks I’ll hit them with this point again. I’m running everything by their head of compliance for clarification
  4. Happpy Erudio Friday!!! I never received a default and nothing has appeared on my credit file? What does this mean?
  5. Thank you for your email. As previously advised, your queries relate to your most recent complaint and as such your correspondence will be processed by our Complaints Team. Following review of your email dated 18 May 2022, my understanding is that you are alleging that there was a delay in issuing the Default Notice in order to prolong the limitation period. Therefore I felt it was essential for me to fully understand the chronology of the account before addressing this dispute. Our client’s records show that the last deferment date was the 24 April 2011. The relevant limitation period in respect of this type of claim is 6 years pursuant to section 5 of the Limitation Act meaning that based on your last deferment date, the account would not have been considered Statute Barred until the 24 April 2017. However a Default was registered against you on the 12 January 2017, and pursuant to section 29(5) of the Limitation Act, the relevant limitation period accrues afresh on the date of default. When a student loan account reaches its 60th month and there is still an outstanding balance, the account matures. This means it will exit the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and the balance becomes due in full. The maturity date is moved on by 12 months with each deferment period meaning that this account matured on the 31 March 2016. The Subject Access Request supplied to you by Erudio enclosed a number of letters that were issued to you throughout 2016, in which they clearly informed you that your account was in arrears. These letters made it clear that the client wished to work with you to agree an affordable repayment arrangement and that failure to do so may result in a Default being registered against you. Unfortunately, they were unable to reach an amicable resolution resulting in a Default being registered on the 12 January 2017. As such, whilst I apologise if you feel that our client deliberately delayed issuing the Default in order to prolong the limitation period, I assure you that is not the case. As set out above, Erudio are contractually obligated to allow a 60 month period between the last deferment date and the account maturity date and acted in a fair and reasonable manner by allowing an additional 10 months after the account maturity date to give you the opportunity to resolve the matter before the Default Notice was issued.
  6. their response.. Please refer to the email sent to you on the 4 May 2022, in which we informed you that the information supplied to us by our Client indicates that a Default Notice was issued on the 12 January 2017. As such, the limitation period would begin again from this date therefore, the debt is not Statute Barred. In order for us to come to an amicable resolution regarding this matter, please respond to the email dated the 5 May 2022, in which we advised you that we would be prepared to offer you an arrangement under a Tomlin Order for repayment of the outstanding balance at an affordable amount.
  7. sorry but they are still saying this date was the initial breach?? I can confirm that the initial breach occurred on 28 October 2016, as outlined in the attached Witness Statement.
  8. Good afternoon The information supplied to us by our client indicates that a Default Notice was issued on the 12 January 2017. As such, the limitation period would begin again from this date. Kind regards
  9. i've never signed their terms? they will have no payments from me? there is no default notice only a termination letter, they said there was a default notice? how is the initial breach 2016 when erudio took over in March 2014? they confirm my last deferment was 2011 to the student loans company in the erudio SAR I have letters with incorrect amounts stated for initial SLC loans.
  10. Update of this Court Case Good afternoon I can confirm that the initial breach occurred on 28 October 2016, as outlined in the attached Witness Statement. I have also attached all of the Witness Statements issued in relation to your case. It is our position that your defence does not raise any grounds with reasonable prospect of successfully defending the Claim and there is no good reason why the matter should be disposed of at trial. As such we would be prepared to offer you an arrangement under a Tomlin Order for repayment of the outstanding balance at an affordable amount. If you would like us to draft a Tomlin Order, please confirm your offer of repayment by return. ****The court case is scheduled for July*** this does not seem correct in terms of dates to me with regards to initial breach? I have not signed any paperwork received a default and they have conceded they did not contact me for two years after the sale. Should I send them a CPR request now? The court costs they have now added for themselves are over £1.5k and the original debt they say was £2.3K.
  11. Adjournment for a face to face hearing in April, they came with none of their correct paperwork.Rep saying they have not received all of the docs when judge had them. not seeming to recognise the statute barred situation. Maybe that will be better face to face?
  12. Costs reserved to final hearing I do some part time self employed work but that’s it. I’m not above the SLC threshold - only 1 year above it since 2013
  13. It’s a teams hearing can I send it in afterwards? Also I’ve found a missed payment from July 2013 and a letter of default from SLC is this worth a mention?
  14. I’m scared -but it’s nothing compared to other stuff going on in the world. I will post all afterwards either way in the hope it may assist others! Thanks
  15. I’m scared -but it’s nothing compared to other stuff going on in the world. I will post all afterwards either way in the hope it may assist others! Thanks
  16. I’ve got my final hearing tomorrow will keep you posted. Will stick to your advice ..
  17. Thanks! just to be clear my last confirmed deferment with SLC 2011. 2012 I tried to defer and it wasn’t processed by SLC correctly. Payments continued to be taken until sold to / assigned to Erudio Nov 2013. no payments or forms signed to Erudio. Ccj registered July 19. phantom payment March and April 14 reversed by bank. Ccj set aside April 2021. Which bit means it’s statute barred before claimform issued?
  18. Hello, my main focus is that any debt was statute barred before issuance of claim form. what is the exact legislation I need to quote in the final hearing please? Do you have any tips for the final hearing next week? Thank you!!
  19. Hi to Patterns, Many thanks for posting the student loans assessors report and your links. I have a final hearing coming up with Erudio. I’ve found some useful info - it’s the original Sale Purchase document between SLC and Erudio 2013 Sale and Purchase Agreement.pdf
  20. Ok so apparently the final hearing fee has been paid on time according to the court. Do Erudio/Drydens normally take it this far? My last successful deferment as per SLC sar was 2011. I have not signed any Erudio paperwork or made any payments to them. Apart from their two dds made without my consent in March / April 14? Should I go ahead with the final hearing? Thanks again for your help!
×
×
  • Create New...