drydens '93 SLC loan with old CCJ 14+ years no contact

[camdbug]

Brief history;

 

Obtained two student loans in around 1993 and 1995 on the "old" mortgage style agreement.

 

Paid some of the loans back and then moved to Ireland around 1997 where I continued to pay money back.

 

However, ultimately my wages dropped, and moving house a few times

I contacted them to update my address and request deferment forms.

None were ever received.

 

Tried contact a few more times with no success, then moved again and in the way of things got on with my life.

 

After around 5 years in Ireland I moved back to the UK in 2002 before heading off to Australia where I stayed for over a year.

 

Arrived back in the UK in early 2005.

 

It was towards the end of 2005 that I discovered I had a CCJ against me

(I did a credit check with Experian as my partner and I were beginning to think about a mortgage and settling down).

I did not know what the CCJ was for, but it was due to expire in a matter of months

so I decided to leave it as it was not going to impact on our plans.

Subsequent application for a mortgage in late 2006 was successful.

 

A few years back I started receiving "statements of account" from the SLC stating the outstanding balance

and also that "This is not a request for payment".

 

I did nothing with them as over 10 years had now passed with no contact.

 

A few months back I received notice that Erudio was taking over the loan.

 

Then earlier this week that they had passed the account to drydens fairfax.

 

Yesterday I received a letter from drydens stating that;

 

• The CCJ was for the loan and was awarded on 2nd March 2000.
  
• "Where we have information that suggests you are employed, our client may look to obtain an attachment of earnings order (AOE) against you. A fee may be added to the outstanding balance and the court may make an order that requires your employer to deduct payments from your wages until the judgement amount is repaid."
  
• "Where the judgement is over 6 years old we may apply to the court for permission to issue a warrant of control enabling a County Court bailiff to attend at your address to take good where appropriate to the value of the judgement amount.
  
• If the judgement is less than 6 years old we can issue a warrant without permission."
  
• "If we have information that suggests you are a homeowner, our client may also secure its position by applying to the court to obtain a Charging Order over your property."
  

They enclose a financial questionnaire as well.

 

 

What strikes me is;

• The number of times the word "may" is used in all of this.
  
• I was totally unaware of the existence of the CCJ until about 4/5 months before it expired. Does that have any relevance to anything?
  
• It has now been over 8 years since the expiry of the CCJ (over 14 since it was issued). My understanding is that they would need to get the CCJ reinstated or something which is very unlikely given the length of time and the fact that I have done nothing to hide myself other than being in other countries for a number of years.
  
• It has probably been around 15 years since I last contacted the SLC or anything regarding this loan.
  

So. Is their letter just an attempt to scare me into doing something stupid

when they can do nothing at all on this matter any more?

 

If so, what response should I make to them

- should I be requesting details of the alleged debt, copies of the contract, etc.?

[dx100uk]

I concur with you.

 

they are trying to spoof you.

 

they were not the claimant

and it would be a VERY VERY rare for a judge to let them:

1 be substituted as the claimant

2.be allowed to enforce the debt.

 

the 'system' has had more than 6yrs to enforce the CCJ.

 

dx

[fkofilee]

Agree.... Too many "May" and no will... Scare tactics...

 

Over 6 years... I'd find it hard to believe a judge will turn it over to them...

 

I'd still be careful with DF though...

[camdbug]

Ok, thank you both for those comments.

 

I am also aware that DF appear to be a relatively real solicitors firm,

so I am going to initially respond with a CCA s78 request as this seems to be a reasonable first contact on subject such as this,

and they should "appreciate" the formal request I suppose.

 

I do not seem to be able to find the templates (actually the area containing them is stating I do not have enough access!)

so was thinking of sending something along the following lines. Let me know if this seems grossly wrong, otherwise I'll get it sent out on Tuesday:

 

 

CCa removed

 

Will send a postal order rather than cheque and was debating creating a "new" signature just for this letter (it's been so long that I could very realistically have changed my signature and I'm curious whether they will step over the line and use any signature I supply for "incorrect" purposes) - otherwise I'll just send it unsigned if that is seen to be better.

Edited August 3, 2014 by dx100uk
please dont publish templates in the open

[dx100uk]

IMHO I don't agree sending anything.

 

however for ref:

 

CCA request

 

send a BLANK £1 PO do not sign the letter.

 

dx

[camdbug]

Complete silence is a better approach?

 

Ok to follow that if you believe it to be a valid approach,

 

just that I've generally felt that some action is better than none.

 

But I think you have more knowledge in this arena than I do,

 

so will await the next contact from them by all means if you think it is a safe way to tackle it.

 

Btw; Having read the comments at the top of your linked template I apologise for posting wording of my proposed response - and thanks for removing it (I assume you did that). Will spend longer searching next time and maybe ask for the links first!

[dx100uk]

hey no sweat.

 

we're here to help.

 

if you are not used to threat-o-grams

 

it can be daunting

 

just remember the bottom line

 

a DCA or their fake/tame solicitors

 

ARE NOT BAILIFFS

 

and have

 

NO SUCH LEGAL POWERS.

[Swerve_007]

Hi there Camdbug, I have received the exact same letter and would be interested to hear how you have been getting on with the "wall of silence approach"?

[dx100uk]

Hi there Camdbug, I have recieved the exact same letter and would be interested to hear how you have been getting on with the "wall of silence approach"?

 

please start a new thread

 

of your own

 

dx

Edited August 19, 2014 by citizenB

[camdbug]

As dx100uk says, probably best to start a new thread, but so far I have heard nothing more at all. So silence all around.

 

I did debate sending off a CCA request as you would have seen from the posts above,

but with some of the comments made here,

and the fact that I do not believe they have any real ability to do anything (in my case at least),

I have decided to wait and see what happens next.

 

Whatever they choose to do next,

there will be time and opportunity for a CCA

or for other similar approaches as I have something like 15 years of "no contact" in this case.

 

If you start a new thread, PM me the link and I'll keep an eye out so that we can see how it all develops in each others cases.

[havinastella]

A CCA has no standing here as a CCJ has been awarded, so utterly pointless in sending!

[dx100uk]

yes but like an Irishman in a barrel

 

its worth the test

 

dx

[camdbug]

Well, that was interesting.

 

I have just received a call on my mobile from a "Leeds" number (0113 823 3490).

 

Very professional sounding lady who explained she was from Drydensfairfax and

 

would like to take me through some security questions.

 

I immediately asked her to stop the call and explained that I would prefer to do everything in writing.

 

She said that they had already sent me a letter, to which

 

I responded that I had received it and was surprised by it,

and was currently considering the most appropriate response.

 

She pressed me further at which point I reiterated that I wanted to continue all correspondence in writing.

 

She accepted that, said she'd put a note on my file, and left it at that.

 

So; where they got my mobile number from is a curious one, as I have elected not to have it published anywhere (for what little that is worth these days). But it appears that a response of some type is now due.

 

Would welcome advice on the first contact therefore. Should I proceed with the CCA request anyway?

[dx100uk]

they get all you detail from places like credit files etc.

or online stuff like facebook 192.com etc etc.

 

 

pers i'd await their next letter

 

dx

[camdbug]

Here you go then in this morning's post, also received a short letter from them stating;

 

15th August 2014

 

We are writing to you again as you have not responded to our recent correspondence and the above outstanding balance remains unpaid. According to our records we have still not received a completed Income and Expenditure form from you which was also sent in our previous correspondence.

 

We would like to work with you to establish how you can repay this debt at a rate that is in line with your current financial circumstances. Please contact us on 0113 823 3402 or write to us at the address detailed below.

 

Overleaf you will find information on methods of repayment... blah blah.

 

If we do not hear from you within 14 days from the date of this letter, we will revert to our client to seek instructions regarding enforcement. We urge you to take advantage of the opportunity to propose a payment arrangement for this account.

 

They also provide a "useful link" to an FAQ section regarding Student Loans with CCJs: http://www.drydensfairfax.com/Erudio/

 

The implication from this "FAQ" is that Erudio+Drydensfairfax are primarily handling the CCJ cases. Not much there other than implications that you have to pay and they will work with you to find suitable repayment plans.

 

Basically, the letter is making no threats (other than going back to Erudio regarding instructions on enforcement), just trying to sweet talk into starting a repayment scheme. Obviously not going to step onto that land-mine ridden path.

 

Advice welcome!

[dx100uk]

yes just read it

 

this bit is a very wide ranging comment and is not totally true:

 

Please note that the judgment is capable of being enforced by further court action

if you fail to pay the amount due or reach an agreed settlement based on your ability to pay.

 

not if you were not the claimant its not

and not after 14yrs!!

[camdbug]

My temptation at this stage is to skip the CCA stage and go straight for a SAR, asking specifically for (as they they have already mentioned all of these things);

• Copy of the original credit agreement
  
• Copy of the CCJ (as I have never received anything on this, nor even really knew about it as mentioned in the earlier posts)
  
• Copy of all transfer of ownership of the CCJ (will get the correct name for this, but suspect they don't exist anyway)
  

As the loan was only transferred to Erudio earlier this year, and Erudio are not the clients, I cannot see how they have any claim at all, given that the transfer occurred 14 years after the CCJ was issued and 8 years after the CCJ "expired" (ok, it hasn't expired, but you know what I mean).

[dx100uk]

cca goes to rodeo

sar goes to SLC.

 

rodeo will say there is no need for the CCa as the CCJ trumps it.

 

rodeo are the client [owners of the debt]

 

I think you mean 'claimant'

 

just remember you are one of p'haps 10'000's they are trying this on with.

the others will prob start coughing without questioning what you have been told here.

 

and they'll forget about you in the long run.

 

i'd pers NOT enter into any letter tennis with rodeo

 

get the info out of slc. by an sar

[camdbug]

Thank you dx. I shall do that with SLC then, and if I hear anything further from the other side then I will send them a brief one-liner stating that I am waiting on a response to a SAR from SLC.

[Pamela77]

Hi all! I registered just a few minutes ago as I'm having exactly the same hassle as Camd, but I'm a few days behind. I've had the same letters, and have just had my first call from Leeds.

 

Fairly similar history, took student loans out in early 1990s, paid a bit off, moved around, ended up with CCJ in 2002, which is what DF is trying to enforce.

 

Following with interest and happy to contribute, commiserate etc etc...

 

P

Edited August 20, 2014 by Pamela77
Identifiable info

[camdbug]

Hi Pamela. As I'm sure others will tell you if I don't get in first

best thing is to start your own thread as I'm sure there will be differences in what happens.

 

However feel free to pm me your thread or post a link to your thread here (I assume that's allowed)

and I'll keep an eye on yours just as you are watching this one.

 

It looks like erudio were given a new batch of loans earlier this year and drydens are gearing up and working through them all now hence our coincidental timings!

 

Will update this evening on what I'm doing.

 

Ps.again as others will say;

do not talk to them by phone.

 

If you do, only say that you want to do everything in writing and then hang up.

 

There is also a good service being offered here which will give you an image of your signature that is hopefully impossible to copy.

 

Helps if your signature has changed since you signed anything with slc as well.

 

The template letters have a link on the signature bit which takes you to this service.

 

When I get home I'll send you the details otherwise.

 

Just ask for advice on your thread before communicating anything to them!

[Pamela77]

Thanks for that!

I did consider starting my own thread as I was writing my first post earlier, so I'll do that.

 

Catch you all soon, p

[cryface01]

Camdbug - did you have any luck with the SAR to SLC?

 

I had the same phonecall / you've got 14 days to make contact with us letter.

 

Trying to work out my next step.

 

Thanks,

[camdbug]

Apologies for not replying sooner.

 

I posted an extremely short letter to drydens saying that I had submitted a SAR

and was waiting on the response before I would take any further action.

 

I also posted the SAR with £10 postal order.

 

Both sent "signed for" at the same time in the same post office.

 

Dryden's arrived.

It appears that Royal Mail have "lost" the other.

 

I am waiting on confirmation whether it ever arrived, while simultaneously taking out a claim against Royal Mail.

 

If it did not actually arrived (the tracking info was shocking, I genuinely do not know whether it got there or not

then I will have to submit another, which will happen imminently. So no real progress.

 

I have however heard nothing at all from drydens in the meantime. Will update if there is any progress.

[camdbug]

RM apparently lost the original SAR request to SLC,

I had to spend a long time waiting to try and find out whether it was actually delivered or not

- as I did not want to send another £10 PO unless the original really was lost.

 

ij decided to trace the whole thing back instead and while waiting sent a SAR to Erudio.

 

Interestingly I received their response this morning.

 

a load of what look like screen dumps from what is a very basic piece of software, which make it quite hard to interpret anything.

 

However, there is very little info in there.

The only reference to the CCJ is a single cryptic entry stating that one was issued in 2000.

 

Definitely nothing indicating that it was transferred to them at any point.

 

I guess this was obvious, but they have nothing to indicate that they are in a position to do anything.

 

As it's clear SLC has not received anything (still waiting on RM to reimburse me!),

 

I will now redo what I had originally done and resend the SAR to SLC

 

More waiting!