Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Was 1997 Student Loan under my 2010 Bankrupcy? - Erudio now chasing


heidda
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2774 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Heidda, if push came to shove and you do find yourself in a position that you do need to start repayments? This will be after a few months of making their life hell with CCA , Account in Dispute, letters , if push comes to shove you can if you wish to bury this once and for all? Make a 'Full & Final Settlement Offer'.

 

Being aware that they paid peanuts for your debt means that you do have the upper hand, if you have been giving them grief for a few months and fighting them at every opportunity and refusing to meet their demands , then you write a letter offering them 10% of the total amount due in full and final Settlement . They generally accept 50% of the full amount but many have won settlement at 40-30-20 & even 10%. So, that is a final negotation attempt if you do find that they have boxed you into a situation whereby you do have to start paying. There is a template letter for 'full & Final Settlement Offer' and much advice and guidance and advice online and here on CAG. But! make their life hell for a few months and this might make a Full and final Settlement attractive to them if push comes to shove.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Excellent advice. As I mentioned earlier my deferment runs out in May. I will be sending the CCA request shortly and will have proof of postage date etc. If I don't receive response before my deferment date runs out what could be the outcome with regards to not applying for deferment or agreeing a payment plan?

Edited by heidda
Correction
Link to post
Share on other sites

we have no evidence they do or even can.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they did they would be in big trouble with FCA as it would be malicious and they would have to remove.

 

The DCA'S generally only play their trump card as a last resort,

they will do everything they possibly can to get payments from you

and if this fails and you disappear then they might play that card?

 

Very recently, infact a week ago there was a high court case where a consumer took a retailer to court over a black mark

put on their credit record when they returned computer for refund and finance company would not cancel agreement.

 

He won £8k damages but it was a bitter sweet victory as he had earlier been awarded £116k

but he fought on in principle and the result is that finance companies have now had new stricter guidelines for applying defaults.

 

If you send a CCA you are effectively disputing the debt and asking them to prove the debt is enforceable .

 

Once an account is in dispute they cannot take any action (negative action) against you.

 

If they were stupid enough to do so then the law is on your side

and will come down hard on them and they will have to remove the default.

 

.......DX (The Boss) beat me to it. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the original creditor can apply a default....as Erudio are not and you dont have an agreement with them then no they cant.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi folks,

Looking for some advice on what to do next.

 

 

I received my deferment form back in April but followed information to not sign or send Eurdio deferment form and so send a CCA request.

 

 

I received a letter from them saying that they are dealing with my request and will send it in due course but have still not received any CCA's.

 

 

Instead they send me loads of sheets with relating to different dates.

 

 

Each of these dates have Notice of arrears sheets.

 

Also included in this pack was Remedy off Account and Annual statements.

 

No sign of CCA I requested!

 

I have now received a letter saying am 2 month in arrears and owe them nearly £500!

 

 

Where they got this figure from I have no clue.

 

 

What do I do next?

 

 

Do I do nothing and wait for the CCA which will probably never show up.

 

 

I probably won't be able to defer due to my salary

just need to know where I stand because I want to fight them.

 

 

If I started paying it back they will mark the debt on my credit file which is not what I need at moment as am looking to apply for a mortgage.

 

Any advice would be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Urm...

 

The pack sounds like they are notifying you of historical arrears that were on your account when SLC was handling it.

 

Did they give you a reduction in debt when they took over?

 

It is its a refund of previous interest charges if so.

 

The historical arrears are still on your account though, and need to be paid, so this will probably be part of the £500 they say you now owe.

 

Thats a possibility, but may not explain things. And if that is the case, it should of been explained in the letter titled remedy of account, regrdless, read the letter and it should explain why it was sent!

 

If i were you - I would apply to defer and hopefully get it backdated. If they dont accept it because your earning too much then maybe you could continue to ignore them, but that wont do your credit file any good, and I expect they have already marked it due to the arrears.

 

I dont know, but it seems to me from your post that your not entitled to defer and just hoping they will go away? Sorry if that sounds a bit off, but you need to be a bit more savvy than that. A failed CCA reply doesn't mean they are powerless, and if/when they do turn up, they'll have plenty ammo on their side and you could be well behind by then.

 

I'm no expert, hopefully someone else with a better understanding will reply, but if your above the threshold then you should be repaying.

 

I'd expect the only way you could get away with not paying would be Statue Barred, which could take a very long time and would trash your credit file completely.

 

Dont shoot the messenger, but you need some advice from someone with a better understanding than me, and quickly.

 

By the way - the others that are fighting erudio are doing so either due to change in approach to calculated earnings which just pushes them above the threshold, or people who can defer but refuse to sacrifice their rights like erudio are now asking us to do...

 

Hope that helps, and I could be wrong, but dont pin your hopes on the CCA thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

rodeo are just arrows DCA in sheeps clothing.

 

 

if they've no enforceable CCA

AND the SLC did not already mark your CRA file

then rodeo cannot create a new entry on your file

only the OC can do that.

 

 

there is no evidence [unless you sign their stupid new agreement thingy]

 

 

that gives them perm to trash your CRA file.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your certainly a lot more knowledgeable than me on the subject, no denying that. I really hope your right, but the advise on-line is often conflicting, and the only thing I can add with any certainty is that the sale of student loans was covered by different legislation that any regular debt.

 

Also - My CCA agreements turned up after 5 months, so they covered their assess anyway.

 

Maybe the OP could SAR the SLC - if they have a copy then Erudio will have them eventually?

 

I've missed 4 payments now - and I haven't signed anything, I'll check my credit report soon and see if anythings happened, although given that they haven't chased for payments I may not be a good example.

 

Some reading:

 

Not sure of OFT guidance still applies, or if even relevant in relation to the sale of student debt, but...

(Bear in mind Erudio aren't original creditor)

 

Taken from section 5, point 5.7 of the OFT's:

 

Guidance on sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 – the duty to give information to debtors and the consequences of non-compliance on the enforceability of the agreement

 

The principles of enforcement action in this area are judged by the OFT to be similar to those applying to statute barred debt. If sections 77, 78 or 79 cannot be complied with so the debt cannot be enforced in the courts, this does not mean that the debt disappears, and it is perfectly acceptable for a creditor to seek to pursue the debt. It is also acceptable, in this context, to register accurately any arrears or default with a credit reference agency. However, if they were to threaten court action, knowing that judgment will not be possible and that therefore court action will not actually be taken, this would be judged by the OFT to be misleading and oppressive.

 

link for document near the bottom of this page:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/cca/unenforceable-credit-agreements

 

Hope your right DX!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies folks.

 

 

Should I send a CCA reminder to them?

 

 

Am I correct in saying that my account is currently in dispute due to me requesting this

so I don't have to pay the arrears until this is sorted?

 

 

Worst case if they do produce a CCA and I have to pay as I wont be able to defer

 

 

is there any way to do this apart from signing their DD form?

 

 

Would they take a cheque etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you pay anything you most certainly wipe out the statute barred route.

 

 

although not directly related to this thread

 

 

nor this forum

 

 

it needs to be noted that it is fast becoming apparent

some posters are not all they appear to be

 

 

i'll say no more.

 

 

be careful what you read and believe

in as far as what others have / have not done.

or what they say they have/are doing

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long would I have to wait before I can apply for it to be statute barred?

 

 

Going back to what was written earlier

 

 

the SLC did not mark my credit file before and

 

 

a few times I did not defer on time and

I got fined but I got the fines refunded and SLC sorted out my accounts.

 

 

I think this what the compliance refund was all about.

 

 

If they do send me a copy of signed CCA can I still go down the statute barred route?

 

 

In the mean time is it advisable to just to do nothing and wait for the CCA to arrive?

 

 

I have an acknowledgement letter from Erudio for the CCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

asking for the CCA does not reset the SB clock.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Above is certainly correct - SB wont be reset by asking for CCA's, but deferring will reset, so I expect you still have a long wait! 5/6 years from last acknowledgement on the debt I think.

 

You could still get it SB'd if you ignore everything for 5/6 years, but that will surely have many implications? Personally I don't know what they are, but if it were that simple everyone would do it.

 

I paid arrears by postal order, was less than £1. Is was due to those arrears that I got the reduction in debt thinngy, you may have the same, possibly a similar amount.

 

I'm not fussed about getting SB'd or anything, I honestly am of the opinion that I borrowed, and I will repay if/when I meet the threshold. In the meantime tho, I wont be bullied into new terms or do anything I'm not required to do. I paid the old arrears from 2010 to keep my account in good order so that it can be written off if I make it to the 25 year cut off. The arrears I've currently accrued are because erudio didn't accept my deferment application when they should of, so I'm fighting them on that.

 

Try sending a SAR to the SLC - if they enclose a copy of your agreements Erudio will get them eventually, in which case they will surely eventually comply?

 

I dont know if I'm missing something but I fail to see the point in a CCA request anymore. Its not an offence for them to send them outwith the timescale anymore, and when they do turn up, your back to square one with potential implications. Guess if they dont turn up within 5/6 years then your onto a winner, but thats got to be a long shot!

 

I am no expert, so, please dont take anything I've said as accurate, its only my understanding of what I've read in the last few months, and I have no previous experience of stuff like this.

 

DX - your input is very useful and appreciated, but it would be helpful if you could give some detail or ever references to support what you post as its often conficted elsewhere so is therefore difficult for novices like me to assess. Taking what someone on a forum says in blind faith is surely something we should all avoid.

 

Hope that helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

no not you you're far too green to it all.

 

 

its worthy to go read up on thesis/link/slc

 

 

and the honours student loans debacle too.

 

 

both of those are the same basically as what is now happening with rodeo.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Erudio do produce a CCA then could they mark my credit file? I will be sending a SAR to SLC to see what paperwork they have.

Wait for the SAR data before doing anything.

 

 

For clarification:

Statute Barred in England and Wales = 6 clear years with no payments or unequivocal written acknowledgment of a debt.

However the debt still exists and remains payable, until the debtor informs the creditor in writing that the debt is statute barred and they will not be paying.

 

 

Also the OFT ceased to exist earlier this year the regulator is now the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Send them everything,

all loan numbers,

Erudio ref numbers,

a blood sample,

a letter from a priest or civil servant,

a passport photo,

your birth cert,

your parents marriage cert if applicable,

your Blue Peter badge if you have one,

your student travel pass,

a photo of yourself taken in the students union

as they are so incompetent they will probably find some way to mess it up :)

 

J/k Send all original loan numbers/Erudio ref numbers. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...