Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Y daughter just told me she’s been paying off a fine for £600    a bailiff called at her next doors ,  whist there they clocked her car in the drive way , not scorn not taxed off the raid ... I know i know  broken waiting money spending on it [ Ford]  turns out the DVKA took her to court in Bristol long waynaways because she hadn’t told the DVLA she’d moved and BENETTS  bought the debt , and chased her up at the new address to collect the payments ... how horrid is that? 
    • Hi BankFodder,        Thank you for your quick reply,  we feel a bit vulnerable living here with our two very little girls,   your reply is very much appreciated.   The Letting agent is Space4Living,  they say they wont do anything about it,   they only say it is a civil matter.   The landlord's name is on the Tenancy Agreement,   with the letting agent as a 'Care of' Address.   I have just sent an email to the local Environmental Health about everything,     and we will see what they say about it all.   Because the landlord seems not to be bothered about it,    if he does nothing or very little about it,    would he be in breach of our tenancy agreement ?   Cheers,    KFC  
    • Please advise if the following is ok to use?   I will say as follows:   It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxxxxxx With recent dismissed claims such as claim no. Xxxxxxx it has come to light that the contract with the landowner stipulates 2 hours free parking at the Berkeley Centre car park and thus this case should also be dismissed not wasting valuable court time as the vehicle in question was parked for less than 2 hours.  The claimant in this case is not the proper claimant. As can be seen in their "contract". If there is a valid claimant at all it should be Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services.   Therefore, if any contract exists at all, the Landowner gave Excel Parking Services that contract. That contract is highly unlikely (although it cannot be proven as the claimant has not produced it) to give Excel Parking Services the right to assume the rights of the landowner and assign rights to another party.   While both Vehicle Control Services (Company number 02498820) and Excel Parking Services (Company number 02878122) have the same 'controlling minds',  & they are run as completely separate companies and cannot assign rights to one another on a whim and/or without the express permission of the landowner and even then, those rights can only be rightfully assigned by the landowner themselves and as that has not been produced as part of their witness statement one can only draw the conclusion that this is because that right (by way of contract of assignment) does not exist.   Further, while dealing with the so called "contract", it is not valid now and was not valid on the day that the event that brings us here today took place. As can be seen clearly on the contract, the contract was made for a FIXED PERIOD of 36 months from 25th November 2010. This means that this contract expired on or around 25th November 2010. As no renewed "contract" has been provided, again one can only assume that on the balance of probability, it does not exist.   In either case, as has been shown, Vehicle Control Services are not the proper claimant therefore there can be no cause of action as Vehicle Control Services has no Locus Standi to make or bring a claim and waste the valuable time of this court. If a contract existed at all (and there was a subsequent breach) it would either be between myself/driver and Excel Parking Services or myself/driver and the landowner. Vehicle Control Services are merely a third party and do not (as they have shown themselves in their own evidence) have a valid contract in place to manage the car park.   There is nothing said in the evidence to assert that Vehicle Control Services are acting as an agency on behalf of the actual contract holder therefore Vehicle Control Services cannot (and indeed do not claim to) have privity of contract. Dunlop Tyre Co v Selfridge [1915] AC 847, in which the action failed because although there was a contract, the plaintiffs were not a party to it and "only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it," (per Lord Haldane).     This position (Vehicle Control Services being the wrong claimant) is backed up by their own evidence bundle. I refer you to photograph 28, 29 and 30 in the claimant’s bundle which clearly shows a 'Car Park' sign. The logo in the bottom and top right of the signs is for Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services who are making the claim in this case.   Vehicle Control Services know this to be the case as there have been many dismissed cases and discontinued claims.   Vehicle Control Services -v- Ms A. C6DP7P37 at Birmingham County Court. Dismissed. Wrong Claimant. Vehicle Control Services -v- Unknown. C1DP3H5V at Birmingham County Court. Discontinued. Wrong claimant.   As well as all of the following Discontinued claims. A8QZ6666, 3QZ53955, C8DP9D8C, C2DP0H7C, C1DP3H5V and C8DP37CH et al, all discontinued when it was pointed out to BW Legal that VCS had no right to pursue the matter as they were not the rightful claimant.   It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; see paragraph 5.1a (enclosed). The car park signs are owned by Excel Parking, see claimants bundle 28, 29, 30 photographs and I have not entered into a contract with VCS. Following receipt of parking charge notices and letter before claim, I wrote to the Claimant stating that the Berkeley Centre pay and display car park is not managed by the Claimant but rather another party and invited the Claimant to drop their claim. Upon receipt of County court claim form Under CPR 31.14 on 14th August 2019 I requested evidence of the Claimant’s contract between VCS and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name, and proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.  The Claimant refused to comply with this request and have provided no evidence of their connection to Excel Parking. I have yet to receive any evidence of myself the Defendant entering into a contract with the Claimant (Vehicle Control Services) nor any evidence of planning permission granted for signage. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. ‘VCS had no right to claim damages in trespass against motorists…and that the penalty charges did not constitute, in VCS’s hands, such damages (and) that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist.’ The Claimant did not evidence any contract by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.   Thanks  
    • Latest info      Creditor Claims Of £535,636,017  This is the extent of the damage Wonga has caused... I hope this serves as a lesson to everyone. Please steer clear of PDLs.
    • Bad News - Is about 4%    
  • Our picks

sabby1978

Erudio using state benefits, refuse deferement, i want to go to court over this

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1682 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Eurido are bound by the original contract, they bought your debt for a pitance and will try every trick in the book to extract money from you. If you are below income threshhold then you are legally entitled to defer. Be firm with them and let them know your rights under the orig contract.

 

They will try to get you to make monthly payments of £xx amount, just be aware that this is a standard tactic. Just tell them to jog on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is arrow global we are talking about here

 

as bad as link.

 

dx


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If thats the case dx, ......Sabby do NOT believe a word they tell you and be as firm and hard with them as you possibly can be. Stick to your guns and do not budge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not convinced by some of the advice given.

 

The debt was sold to a dca who have no powers I get that.

 

A deferral form still needs to be completed with all my details and sent back so they will take what they want

and on one of the links provided DD could be continued to be collected under the sale.

 

I am going to contact national debt advice line tonight after work and see what they say and report back here.

 

I still appreciate any advice other than ignore then because im not sure that will actually work

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not happy you have Been given the correct advice hmmmm.

You oobviously are not getting what you are being told.

What would u like to be told?. It's obviously you think you know better. So why come here ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come on here before and received marvellous advice based on evidence and law,

the fact of the matter the debt has been sold I know to a debt collection agency,

 

I acknowledge this debt and am not trying to get out of it.

I would like to defer as I was previously (which is also advised on here)

 

however now under the new terms of deferment state benefits are being used in their calculation of gross income,

personally I don't see how this is right.

 

And under the sale from SLC direct debits remained in tact and they could continue to take them plus they will not accept my deferment with a DD form.

 

So in answer to your question Kirby

 

I have come on here because I Don't know better and am looking for support and advice about this quite stressful matter.

 

I would like to know what my legal position is with regards to this and

I have been looking through the other threads on Eurido and it seems like their is a lot of confusion.

 

For me this is not about debt avoidance I took that money out to fund university and I acknowledge that

however under the new rules I cannot afford to pay it!

 

Perhaps if you do not like what I'm asking then don't respond,

this Is a community where we are supposed to support and help each other

not be curt or short when something is unclear to the person asking,

 

Your advice was not to bother doing anything,

this does not work for me as I acknowledge my debt

and I want to defer however this becomes problematic for the reasons already outlined.

 

So again I do appreciate any advice that is being offered other than ignore them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saaby, the advice given is good advice given by people who have become hardened through dealing with DCA for many years on their student loans.

 

You must be aware that Debt Collection Agencies have a very bad reputation and often operate outside the law.

They are often dishonest, imoral and their only objective is to extract as much money as possible from people.

Just be aware that they will probably have paid the Gov a penny in the pound for your debt.

 

Now the legal position,

you are as i have said legally obliged by your original student loans T&C's.

You would be well advised to set up a DD at your end rather than letting them set one up on your behalf.

 

Further, if you have been defering and are in the position to continue doing so then you have no reason to be giving them your bank details.

 

From a legal standpoint they are not the original creditor and you have no signed agreement between you and them .

.. They will attempt to extort money from you no matter what income you produce

it will probably be £5 a month at min but they will start much higher.

 

When they caught me i was unemployed and they demanded full payment,

i was like you shocked and bullied into making a monthly payment of £5 and £10.

I later discovered that this should not have occured because i was below income threshhold.

 

The advice given by others is good advice, they are organisations that often work just outside the law and cause misery to millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in a similar position to Saaby, not on benefits but have always acknowledged debt and always deferred due to low income.

 

SLC and consequently Erudio already have direct debit information through data migration.

 

Providing a direct debit mandate (which obviously includes your bank details) was an original condition of getting a loan from SLC.

 

If you do not complete a DD mandate for Erudio I think they will say you have breached an original condition of the loan and demand repayment/place you in default. You will then be sabotaging your own ability to defer repayment.

 

I am not a debt expert but I am puzzled how anyone can advocate just not paying/doing nothing.

 

Erudio have addresses and bank details and the loans are acknowledged.

If Saaby doesn't apply to defer they will just debit payment from her bank account.

 

On what basis are people asserting that debt collection agencies have NO powers?

I don't understand this point.

In relation to what exactly - do they have no powers? They own the debt?

 

With regard to Erudio and the new more detailed Deferment forms,

I have a question on what the extra information is for and whether the borrower is legally obliged to provide the extra information.

 

They ask if you are a tenant or homeowner

- if you are a homeowner (which does not affect deferral income threshold)

- and you do not get deferred

- and Erudio cannot get your direct debit details

- can they attach a legal charge against your property.

 

Would they have to go to court to get a judgement against you for the amount of your loan?

 

I can't see how they'll get value out of the debt without doing this sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are under no legal obl to put anything on the deferment form that you don't want too.

 

as for the DD, cancel it so they cant decide to just take money.

 

benefits are for people to live on

not to pay fleecing DCA that have no legal powers whatsoever

to decide you must pay this debt

they are not bailiffs.

 

I would not be giving them any poss way or details of taking payments.

 

as banks always say

 

if there is a DD no being used cancel it!

 

dx


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think old student makes a valid point, thank you as you made my point far better than I. The DD mandate was part of the condition of being awarded.

 

If i argue that they are not sticking to the original terms and conditions i.e. gross income to come from earnings only not awarded state benefits, am i not doing the same and could they then not use this against me. I am not going to submit the DD form on the grounds that i have raised a complaint on this matter and that if necessary i will arrange at my end.

 

But to be clear are you certain they could not access my credit file and leave default notices on there, this is my primary concern....taking me to court i do not care about as i could argue my case. I just do not want to mess up my credit file! It also still doesnt answer my question about whether means tested benefits which are used to pay rent and childcare can be classed as gross income and be used in working out repayments for debts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sabby they will say that your benefits + income is how they come to their monthly DD. If you have previously been defering with SLC on the same income then that must continue with DCA. Remind them that your income net per month is £900 and therefore below threshhold. As you have already stated, State Benefit are not chargable against debt. But do not be surprised when they say they are as this is common practice, know your rights and fight your corner!

 

The credit record blemish is their only trick that they can do, but if you should be defering and they mark your record then you can report them and have the malicious mark removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sabby, I'm reading this thread at the same time as one on Mumsnet - useful info there.

 

I can see nothing in any online info or any documents I have that would mean benefits were not counted as gross income - and it is definitely gross income (not net) that repayment is based on.

 

The only benfit that is excluded form the total - is any 'disability related benefit' - if your benefit doesn't fit this description then I suspect you will be liable to repay.

 

Again, I'm no lawyer but I'm sure any error SLC made in failing to include your benefits would not bind Erudio to do the same thing.

 

Please don't get caught out on the cancelling direct debit mandate issue - I think that will be what Erudio are hoping loads of people will do and they'll go straight to court if necessary and demand full repayment.

 

They can mark your credit record. Whether this actually affects you or not is debatable. If you're in deferment, a prospective lender may see you have outstanding debt but if they see you don't have to repay it they may not be unduly worried.

 

However, if you go into default, or don't pay by direct debit this will definitely adversely affect your ability to get credit. Someone posted this link on Mumsnet detailing the changes the Govt allowed to let SLC mark peoples credit records:

Telegraph - Government toughens stance over non payment of student loans (can't post links here yet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks old student, this is really worrying. I think that i will write and say that i am disputing that housing benefit and child tax credits should be included in that income and that while the account is in dispute that they cannot recover money until the matter is resolved, i will escalate to the ombudsman if necessary.

 

It really is not worth me working me working and i think your right in what you are saying because they referred to JSA and ESA. I am going to contact Gingerbread and National debt line direct this evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when you get the chance old student, can you post the links :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Afraid I can't post links yet as you have to have made more than 10 posts before you get link posting rights!

 

The Mumsnet Erudio thread has links posted to the original legislation which seems to indicate that only disabilty related benefits are excluded so although it's worth disputing, I suspect you're on a sticky wicket - even if SLC treated your application differently.

 

However, unless you want to risk a full repayment demand, I would seriously consider using the form they sent to reinstate the direct debit - regardless of the dispute element.

 

I'm only saying that because I think that the technical condition is that you must provide an active DD mandate (whether you are repaying or in deferment) or else you are in breach of the agreement.

 

Erudio won't be able to take a payment from your account without writing to you to tell you when they will take the first payment (that's a condition of the banks DD Guarantee scheme) - if they do, and you dispute it, your bank will refund the money to you ... and then Erudio would pursue you for payment etc...

 

Last year SLC said my loans would cost me £150 or so per month if I started repaying but I was able to defer and I know I haven't earnt enough to repay this year. But I'm suspicious of Erudio and they will look for any trick to get you to pay (unlike SLC, they have no moral or ethical restraint). I know I'm below the threshold, but if I had to repay, I'd rather do it at £150 per month than be brought to court for all the cash in one go. Don't know what would happen then - not been down that road...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can demand full payment all they want. If you cant afford it, theres nothing they can do. If they took it to court, you could show their actions are vexatious and you cant afford the repayments. The judge would likely tell you to pay £1 for a set period of time then relook at your finances. Just because a DCA is threatening you, doesnt mean they can do, or even have the legal right to do anything to you.

 

Can i ask if you have actually checked to see if the DCA holds the correct paperwork for the debt? If such a large amount of debt has been sold for a pittance and not simply contracted to a DCA to chase, then you need to be asking why.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would want them to take me to court because as Rene says it wud be viewed vexatiously and I'm sure the courts too would not consider using welfare benefits to repay debt, they are supposed to ensure that u have a basic standard of living. My credit rating however I am concerned about. I received a NOA from the SLC a few weeks back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take on board what you're saying Rene and Sabby - I don't think I would enjoy the stress of the 'journey' though.

 

The debts have been sold entirely by SLC to Erudio. Why? Because they're practically worthless to the SLC but a private DCA sees some potential for return by putting everyone through the mill - an option closed to the SLC.

 

What's a NOA Sabby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh there would be stress. No doubt about that, but the plus side is, IF a judgement is made, then the creditor cannot change it, but YOU can. I still think you need to check to see if this DCA even holds the correct paperwork.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi old student,

NOA is a notice of assigment which is what u get or should get when there is a change in ownership of the debt.

 

I think court may be a little stressful but perhaps worth it,

 

look at all of those successful claims for ppi.

 

Think how stressful paying out 150 will have on u and the impact on the quality of your life.

 

I'm like you not avoiding the debt,

I owe it but that is money I could spend on my child and I would give it to her not these ppl.

 

Nrly home so I'm going to contact some debt advice charities and see what they say and ill report back here :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers guys -

Ah! I've had a NOA too - lots of food for thought.

 

I think I would have to go through the process for deferral and if they rejected that application on the basis of some spurious omission on the form,

address status, or telephone number for example,

 

then I would let them go through the court process on the basis that no reasonable person/judge would consider an attempt to obtain a judgement

for full repayment because of an omitted phone number, to be anything other than vexatious.

 

If they play by the rules - I should get deferred - but they're only in it for the money - so let's see what happens - I'll post here with any updates too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't forget the bottom line here

 

Erudio are a DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY. [Arrow Global in Sheeps clothing]

 

they will pull any stunt to get money out of you

or a method of securing that at a latter date.

 

the dates of your loans puzzle me

 

if you took them out in 1998 & 2001

they are the new style loan so wont effect your credit file?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/2785070/Government-toughens-stance-over-non-payment-of-student-loans.html


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sabby, I didn't realise your loans were from a different era to mine. Mine are mortgage style loans pre-1998 which were sold to Erudio in November last year - I think. Sounds as though you are getting similar paperwork to me - I'm fairly sure the same benefits as income rules apply though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oldstudent, since your loans are so old, have you checked the enforceability of them? chances are they are that old, Arrow wont have the paperwork that they need to enforce it.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...