1999 SLC SCOTTISH 1a small claims Decree, now rebadged by shoes/eruido - think i'm stuffed? No, I WON

[dx100uk]

ah wrong address

were they informed of the correct one?

[saintalan]

They always had the correct address.

They just used the wrong address.

 

I will need to dig it out to check exactly the mistake.

 

It was the correct street wrong number I think.

 

Next contact I had was when I started receiving statements at my current address approximately 12 years later I think.

 

They were "not a demand" for payment annual statements.

[saintalan]

Hello Again helpful experts.

Today I got home to find a hand delivered letter along with a debt advice booklet.

The letter is a un137 titled CHARGE FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY.

If you need a refresher probably post 11 is relevant. Anyway the letter goes on.

Erudio Student Loans Ltd etc by virtue of Warrant granted on 18th November 2014 against me at original address etc

 

To Myself at my current address

On the 20th August 1999 a decree was granted for payment of a sum of money in the above action. The decree was extracted on 4th November 2014.

 

I (New sheriff officer) by virtue of the extract decree in her majestys name etc charge you to pay the sum due as set out below within 14 days of this charge to Erudio etc.

If you do not pay you are liable to further action. May include Arrestment of earnings, arrestment of other money and moveable property, attachment and auction of property held outwith a dwelling house and if the sheriff so orders, attachment and auction of property within a dwelling house. You are also liable to be declared bankrupt (Over £3000).

The charge is served by blah blah.

 

That is about it apart from for the 1st time in 19 years some additional fees of £81.16 & £10.25 have been added.

 

This latest mob have been instructed by shoosmiths.

 

I take it this is just more limp threats ?

Or am I missing something that they could actually now do with only 9 months till the original decree reaches the 20 year prescriptive period.

 

Please let me know if any more info required ?

[dx100uk]

it would be far better if you redact this as necessary and post it up as a pdf please

read upload

[saintalan]

Okay will do probably on Monday cheers.

[dx100uk]

urm is there not a time limit here running?

[saintalan]

Here we go

 

So if this letter has any actual threat I appreciate I am short of time again.

studentloan.pdf

[dx100uk]

ref no on last line..hidden the upload for now

[dx100uk]

just read right thru

 

they are doing this because its getting closer to becoming 20yrs.

 

run with me...

 

the initial court document must have been served person to person as far as I can make out in 1999..someone check me...

this makes any service by sheriff officers at the time invalid - wasn't in person to person and they would have to have gained a signature from you too and their should be a witness sig too from the 2nd officer.

this would make the 1999 decree invalid ..IMHO

 

 

Now what and IF you can do anything about this is another matter, but its worth a try.

 

write to shoosmiths placing the account in serious dispute

inc any evidence from the SLC sar you have noted during the threads here.

 

demand that they withdraw the demand for payment immediately and write confirming such and copy in the sheriff and his officers concerned.

[saintalan]

Hello I am perhaps being a little stupid.

Are you now telling me that your quote 49 may be the key point ?

 

which fits as they would have needed to get the decree within 5yrs

wonder why you never got served with papers in 1999

the rules then were that it had to be done only by person to person by sheriff officers

 

 

Then my quote is it the key point ?

 

Next correspondence in the SAR is approx 10 months later to advise they are in receipt of an extract decree (Again they write to slightly the wrong address).

So they have clearly gone for the decree without informing me and at the wrong address.

 

Am I really just in effect trying more stalling tactics ?

 

As you believe asking for the account to be put in serious dispute I need to understand 100% exactly what I am disputing.

 

I will head up the loft to look for all my SLC SAR

[dx100uk]

I am not finding anything concrete that says otherwise.

in effect the decree is faulty/void or poss could be

 

that should hold them up a bit.

[saintalan]

Hello DX100UK

 

I have spent the morning collating all the information I either have or apparently have not been given.

Before I decide exactly what way to hold up/end/stall the process I thought I maybe should try and bring it all together in 1 post. Perhaps you can kindly decide which of this if any is the best points to attack/respond on.

 

So if we ignore all the apparent missing information in the SAR the key points are the information leading up to the "decree"

 

Timetable

2nd October 1998

Regal Credit Consultants write to the SLC informing them they have traced myself to 48 Fictional Avenue.

This address is not fully correct as I actually live at 48b Fictional Avenue. There is also a 48a.

 

6th October 1998 SLC update my file with this new address.

 

27th October SLC Legal dept write to me at 49 Fictional Avenue. (Neither the correct or the advised nearly correct Address) regarding my current balance of £2724.63. They advise me a default notice under section 87 of cca 1974 has been sent to me and has now expired (This is not anywhere in the SAR). As provided by said notice court proceedings will be instituted without further notice. You should note you will be liable for leagal costs.

 

14/1/99 A letter from myself appears from the SAR. It talks at length about my unhappiness with SLC not accepting my payment offer (Date unkown) of £10 a month and them imposing a plan of £47.11 a month. Regardless I up my offer to £15 and send a cheque for £15.

 

25/1/99 My £15 payment appears on my statement within the SAR

 

Then nothing in the SAR pack until the following

 

1/10/99 Letter from SLC to 48 Fictional Avenue We are in receipt of an Extract Decree awarded against you. Sum now including interest and expenses is £3,328.38

 

No copy of said Decree is in the pack.

 

My SAR then shows on my SLC account payments by me of £50 per month 18/11/99, 16/12/99, 11/02/00

I have written to them with an income/expenditure etc. Using my correct full address 48b Fictional Avenue

 

26/01/2001 Letter to the now correct 48b Fictional Avenue. We write to inform you that we have now been informed that sheriff officers have now served a charge on you. We are prepared to offer you a final chance to offer repayments etc.

 

Now I do not have a copy of from anyone this actual "Charge"

 

Payments are then showing on my account as follows. 30/04/01 £50, 27/6/01 £50, 31/7/01 £50, 6/9/01 £50, 3/10/01 £50, 6/11/01 £50, 6/12/01 £50, 9/1/02 £50

 

Then a gap of about a year/

 

11/02/03 Letter SLC We remind you that Sheriff officers have served a charge on you. It is now our intention to enforce decree by poinding and warrant sale if you make no contact in 7 days.

 

Mid/02/03 Letterr from me enclosing £50 cheque and indicating I would continue to make phone payments of £50 per month.

This is received at SLC on 20/2/03

No payment is shown on my account.

 

Then absolutely nothing in the SAR, My SLC internal account shows the following.

31/7/06 Caseload Litigation fees added £251.70

20/3/08 Caseflow Migration Judicial Inter??? £780.56

1/3/14 Debt Sale Balance Transfer £3209.19

 

From 1/4/08 which is a few months after I am in my current home I start to receive Annual Information only statements from the SLC. Not demanding payment and never changing in balance.

 

So we then move on to the new company that has purchased the debt.

 

16/3/14 Letter from Arrow indicating debt transfer to Shoosmiths £3209.19

 

23/7/14 Letter from Shoosmiths regarding my debt which is subject to a decree granted to the SLC

 

29/7/14 Letter from me prove it, statute barred etc.

 

19/11/14 Letter from Shoosmiths with a copy of the court decree granted 2009 detailing it is subject to a 20 year prescriptive period and thus not statute barred.

 

This copy appears to be 2 documents copied onto 1 2 piece sheet.

 

It is titled SECOND EXTRACT DECREE FOR PAYMENT.

Date of decree 20/8/99 *In absence

Defender Me at 48 Fictional Avenue (The nearly correct address).

 

The 2nd part is dated 4/11/14 to Shoosmiths.

Edinburgh 12/11/14 in terms of Section 88(3) AND 88(4) of the debtors (Scotland) act 1987, warrant is craved for all lawful execution in favour of Erudio Student Loans Ltd etc being the company to which SLC Ltd assigned its interest in said decree in terms of deed and assignation and trust dated 15,19,20 & 22 November 2013.

 

IN REPECT WHEREOFF

xxxx Solicitor Shoosmiths LLP

 

Hand Written below this is

Perth 18/11/14

Grants Warrant as craved authorising all lawfull execution herean at the instance of the said Erudio SL Ltd

Signed xxxx Seriff Clerk Deputy.

 

3/12/14 As I think im stuffed I offer £1500

 

22/1/15 Offer refused.

 

17/2/15 Offer raised to £1605 also stating subject to satisfactory receipt of SAR request.

 

19/2/15 Acknowledged letter from Shoosmiths File on hold for now.

 

12/5/15 Shoosmiths chasing me again.

 

23/11/18 Some Local Sheriff Officers drop a charge for payment of money letter through my door.

 

So we are up to date.

 

The question is what if anything has been wrong with process.

Even if fighting a process error I think the key is somehow to get to the 20 year prescriptive date of 20/09/2019

I have certainly dodged the last 4 years (Assuming the warrant is actually legal) and only 1 to go

[dx100uk]

urm very useful stuff there...

i'll comment later but looks REALLY good for you..

 

 

whilst i'm thinking

have a read around about recalling a decree and see if you get any indication that 20yrs down the line it might be possible or not.

 

 

point me to what you find.

 

I can use it to have a word with someone I know very well [a sheriff] if its possible ..

 

dx

[saintalan]

Hello

I can certainly not find any indication that a decree cannot be recalled after 19 years !!

However I am not sure I actually want to be fighting the case more just stalling it.

I have read 13.5 to 13.7 of this document.

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/sheriff-court/simple-procedure-rules/schedule-1/13-part-13-july-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=10

 

 

following on from advice here

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/rules-and-practice/forms/sheriff-court-forms/simple-procedure-forms/form_13b.pdf?sfvrsn=6

 

Being honest very little of this makes sense to me so I will await your next message.

[saintalan]

Sorry an extract from my own long post earlier today.

 

 

19/11/14 Letter from Shoosmiths with a copy of the court decree granted 2009 detailing it is subject to a 20 year prescriptive period and thus not statute barred.

 

 

I made a stupid error by 10 years !!! it should read.

 

19/11/14 Letter from Shoosmiths with a copy of the court decree granted 20th August 1999 detailing it is subject to a 20 year prescriptive period and thus not statute barred.

 

Not sure why I cannot edit the post from earlier

[dx100uk]

sadly we had a spate of people saying things to gander arguments and disprupt threads

then going back days later and changing what they had said

so edit time is now 10mins.

 

i'll sort the thread later.

 

the 'threat' of recalling the decree will be enough to stall things, now if you go thru with that, is a TOTALLY different matter.

but with all the evidence that appears to be 'useful' to me, they can be asked all these questions, then go thru the time consuming exercise of proving you wrong, that might well delay them months...… once they see that if they ever did - they'd probably lose.

 

ive lots to read here and haven't the time till later...

[saintalan]

Thanks a million.

I will look in with anticipation for your list of points I can put to them that will put the account collection on hold.

Hopefully I can write a letter in next few days.

[dx100uk]

so 13.5 1 e should apply then

the respondent did not attend the hearing.

 

though I will guess as spc didn't exist in 1999 you'd have to find the old rules for a claim under £5k

I foget what it was called now

 

ive moved you to the Scotland forum where you will find the other SPC threads

 

dx

[dx100uk]

it would have been a 1a small claim summons

ive retitled the thread too

[dx100uk]

urm post 46....

Date of Decree 20 August 1999 In Absence

so they knew you were not there but allowed it.. so might blow the above out the water if there is a 1a small claim equivalent to they shouldn't have allowed it if yo didn't attend.

 

more soon.

[dx100uk]

although this talks of the decree being called an ex-parte decree and its divorce stuff [ I think!!]

 

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/passing-of-the-ex-parte-decree-administrative-law-essay.php

 

it says:

The SC held that as the summons was not duly served the limitation began to run only when the petitioner had the knowledge of the order. Hence, as the applicant filed within the 30 day period the decree was set aside.

 

your summons was not duly served you knew nowt about the proceedings till SLC told you some 10mths later I think..

 

still reading..

[dx100uk]

ok gonna wrap things up for now

i'm quite happy that this threat of a recall of a 1999 decree can happen.

 

now what to do.

 

this all luckily centre around perth court

they are large and have good staff so should be able to help easily.

 

obv they cant give legal 'advice' but.. it appears to me from several sources ..that a mistake has been made here and the summons or claimpack or whatever it was in 1999 from the court was served to the wrong address.

 

phone the sheriff's clerks office , have the org 1999 decree number ready and the 2014 rehash to erudio if diif no.

and the sheriffs officers letter.

 

tell them you have proof everything was sent to the wrong address etc etc

 

ask then HOW you get the charge for payment atleast put on hold or cancelled or WHY until you have a chance to contact shoosmiths whom are erudios solicitors and explain your forth coming actions. don't commit to a recall etc but investigate it with them if they seem to be helping you.

 

ive found most sheriffs clerks to be very accommodating once they realise the story and the errors.

 

obv I've got more on this to be done but I just want to test the water, see what we get back..

[saintalan]

although this talks of the decree being called an ex-parte decree and its divorce stuff [ I think!!]

 

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/passing-of-the-ex-parte-decree-administrative-law-essay.php

 

it says:

The SC held that as the summons was not duly served the limitation began to run only when the petitioner had the knowledge of the order. Hence, as the applicant filed within the 30 day period the decree was set aside.

 

your summons was not duly served you knew nowt about the proceedings till SLC told you some 10mths later I think..

 

still reading..

 

 

 

Hello

The letter in the SAR informs me of the extract decree on the 1st October 1999

This is 41 days after it was granted.

 

 

27th October 1998 SLC Legal dept write to me at 49 Fictional Avenue. (Neither the correct or the advised nearly correct Address) regarding my current balance of £2724.63. They advise me a default notice under section 87 of cca 1974 has been sent to me and has now expired (This is not anywhere in the SAR). As provided by said notice court proceedings will be instituted without further notice. You should note you will be liable for legal costs.

 

 

So they have warned me they can take notice without further notice but warn me at the completely wrong address.

They then inform me of the successful decree in my absence at the nearly correct address 41 days after it was granted.

 

I have also just spotted that the SLC updated the wrong address from 48 Fictional Avenue finally to the correct 48b Fictional Avenue on the 10th May 2000 this must be significant ?

[saintalan]

10 minutes up. The SLC in the letter 1st October 1999 advising me of the decree do not send me a copy of it or even advise of it's date of effect. I only know that now.

[saintalan]

DX This is my proposed letter to Shoosmiths. Obviously edited a few things.

Perhaps you could comment ?

I think this is enough to get started ?

 

 

Without prejudice

Account Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Balance £xxxxx and Now Supposedly up to £xxxx

 

To Whom It May Concern

 

I am writing to you to request you place this account in serious dispute.

I must demand that you immediately withdraw demand for payment. I request that you write such to myself and pass on this information to your latest instructed agents xxxxx Sheriff Officer & Debt Collection Services.

 

On review of the information provided within the SAR from the SLC I have found serious issues with the Decree granted on the 20th of August 1999 that would make said document invalid. As this is the sole basis of your action to collect the balance, then again I must insist that you withdraw demand.

 

As you will further note much of this relates to the use of incorrect address information in critical correspondence.

 

I will be speaking to the Sheriff Clerks office in Perth regarding a number of points. This may result in a request to recall the decree.

Act of Sederunt (Simple Procedure) 2016 SSI 2016/200

Schedule 1 Part 13 The Decision

Sub Section 13.5 (1) (e)

 

You may wish to investigate yourselves. These communications were within the SAR pack.

You will find that the SLC Legal department write to me on the 27th October 1998 at the completely wrong address of 49 Fictional Avenue, warning that court proceedings will be instituted without further notice.

 

The next correspondence I have from the SLC Legal again writing to the wrong address but this time a different one of 48 Fictional Avenue on 1st October 1999, where they advise me an Extract Decree has been granted. There is no copy of said decree in the SAR nor any mention in the letter of the date of the decree which was the 20th August 1999 *In absence.

 

I note the copy decree you supplied myself also confirms it is for the wrong address.

I can confirm from documents in the SAR that the SLC update my address to the correct address on the 10th May 2000 which is a number of months after legal proceedings.

 

I have other questions that need to be addressed with regards to the legality of the serving or lack of serving of the summons at the time. Also with regards to the time before the communication of the actual Decree in absence was communicated.

 

I await your response.