Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good evening DX100   Here is a draft of my response to the court order.  I would be obliged if you could review it and avise me if I am on the right track.   Defendant Statement of Position in Response to the Order of the Sheriff   The defendant suffered Severe Depression illness almost 12 months prior to the closer of the Bank account. HBOS was made aware of the defendant illness.  A Medical Certificate dated 15 Sept 2017 was handed over to the bank as a proof. (A copy of the report will be submitted exclusively to the court review) The defendant, with the support of her ex-partner, sought a resolution from the OC regarding the escalation of her OD account, which it was mostly formed of extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. HBOS agreed to reduce the outstand OD sum to £XXX and closed the account. The defendant is confident that her ex-partner has settled the agreed sum with OC, but not absolutely certain, considering her health state at that time. She has been actively trying to reach for her ex-partner for documented evidence, but the fact that, we believe, he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad and communication has been, to put it politely, very difficult due to the nature of his deployment. As the court is aware, the defendant has been trying to retrieve the data of her dealing with/from OC which it should reflect history of the above.  The defendant has already written twice to HBOS, as well as visiting her bank branch, on 01 March 2021, in person demanding the requested data.  HBOS promised to send the data to her as soon as they can. In addition to the above reasoning and contend, the defendant refute the claimants claim is owed or payable.  Due to punitive and extortionate fees the facility became untenable. Any alleged balance  claimed will consist totally of default penalties, punitive charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety and any alleged balance was due to punitive and extortionate charges . It is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-               a.    Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and Conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.               b.    Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.               c.    Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and justify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.               d.    Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.               e.    Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.     10.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Same thing. The fact that you declared £4.99 means that is the extent of any reasonable foreseeably consequence. Just go for that small amount. If they cause any problems then you can have a laugh when they spend many times more than what you're claiming in order to resist you. In future, when you contract with somebody – you need to understand that effectively it is an exchange of the reasonable expectations which you create in each other by your agreement.  
    • Current situation: contacted myhermes website's robot talk about the parcel and waiting for their email response. Thanks @BankFodder   I understand that if I were going to pursue under contract law, £4.99 would be the amount that I am entitled for compensate. How about if I were going to pursue this matter under tort - negligence? Would this allow me to pursue them according the true value of the items?
    • Hi UncleB, thanks for responding. I did call them back and it appears to be hit & miss with Devitt and dependent upon which Customer service agent you get.   Spoke with a very pleasant lady and told her that I, like them recorded all calls and gave date time of call and specific time at which a green card was stipulated in order for me to take out the policy.   *Two days later a hard copy of the green card landed on my doorstep. *Free of charge too.
    • Have you received a Parking Ticket? - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group   please complete the above then we'll be best placed to advise further but the bottom line is no and don't ever appeal.    
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 25 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1366 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

Hello all.

 

Been following these threads and others as I am in the same leaky boat :(

 

I have sent Erudio the template letter (not their own forms) requesting deferment and three months payslips as I usually did with the SLC.

Sent it by recorded mail.

 

They completely ignored it and sent me out a new erudio application form saying my own form was undated and unsigned (it WAS both dated and signed by me.)

 

I set up a hotmail account to deal with them faster

(no way I would use my real one with these people)

will be sending all email correspondence by recorded mail also as backup.

 

I told them I would not be using their form as it was invasive etc and they had enough info to defer me.

Also stated I had no other SECRET income and would happily pay back the loan if I was over the £28k threshold.

I am being nice.

Also sent a CCA request by recorded mail as advised on various forums.

 

As it stands they said this:

 

'We can confirm that we have not received your signed deferment pack in our office,

and we are not able to accept a signed letter from yourself for deferment applications

Link to post
Share on other sites

10/10 pluthero

 

 

keep it up.

 

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
  • 1 month later...

Update.

 

I am in same situation as Zaly.

 

Have received the letter saying they are dealing with my complaint,

 

I have not received my CCa request response.

 

However I have received a request for payment letter which tells me they have automated systems just sending letters

and have not set up a case file to deal with my complaint.

 

Wrote them a stern letter detailing my DISTRESS and how I am feeling HARRASSED about their whole inadequate process.

Mentioned the recent WONGA/SLC press about unfair practices and told them to look up the Ferguson V British Gas verdict from 2009 about similar tactics.

 

Am waiting till they respond to my complaints and then will sent all details to FOS as I don't expect Erudio to defer me any time soon.

 

I may have to take them to court for breach of contract - any one on here have any advice about this course of action?

 

Many thanks and keep fighting the good fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

No real need for a new thread, in similar position to Zaly and posted in this one previously.

 

I have recieived my original credit agreements. Someone on another thread has said they needed to be counter signed by someone from the SLC back when I took them out or they are void, Is this true? How would I find this out? Only one of my three loans has been counter signed.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
No real need for a new thread, in similar position to Zaly and posted in this one previously.

 

I have recieived my original credit agreements. Someone on another thread has said they needed to be counter signed by someone from the SLC back when I took them out or they are void, Is this true? How would I find this out? Only one of my three loans has been counter signed.

 

Thanks

 

the idea of your own thread

is to publicise the scale of the issues 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

There is a report on mum's net that a woman has had her deferred loan placed on Payment holiday with a CRA! Stopped her opening new bank account:-(

 

Will this nightmare. Ever end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

A few thoughts. Just seen/remembered that above post about the woman who had the loans registered with CRA's. Not sure how true this is as have heard of no one else having had this done.

 

@Zaly Send a complaint to the FCA. They do not deal with individual complaints as such BUT if we get enough people complaining you never know they might have a look at ERUDIO. I emailed them @ [email protected]

and started my complaint :

 

I understand that the FCA does not handle individual complaints against company’s but I want to put on record my problems with Erudio Student Loans handling of the deferment process of my student loan. I believe if enough people complain about their conduct the FCA may be able to take action. Below is a brief outline of my complaint that I have lodged with the FOS....

 

 

 

They replied :

 

Thank you for your email dated 23 September 2014, making us aware of your complaint against Erudio Student Loans. I am sorry to hear of the difficulties you have been experiencing.

 

As the regulator of the financial services industry in the UK, we are grateful for you raising your complaint with us. I note that you are aware that the FCA has no authority to become involved in complaints on an individual basis and you have contacted the Financial Ombudsman Service in this respect.

 

I can confirm that Erudio Student Loans Limited are regulated by the FCA to undertake consumer credit activities. I have passed the information you have given on to our supervisory team within the FCA for their information, although I should explain that The FCA will not be able to confirm the progress of any investigation we may undertake.

 

This is because the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 requires us to keep this information confidential. I understand this can be frustrating but please be assured that all information we receive is carefully considered.

 

Thank you for writing to us.

 

Still awaiting the FOS to get back to me :(

 

Also there is a lawyer Anthony Reeves (posts on MN and MSE)who is considering taking on Erudio cases on a Pro Bono basis. Think he is some kind of expert in contract law and has become very interested in this whole Erudio omnishambles.

 

So reasons to be cheerful :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Dunno if you folks follow any MSE Erudio threads but there has been some MOVEMENT in the Erudio position.

 

 

One poster has been deferred without signing the Erudio DAF

[although they had to get a lawyer to force Erudio to do this]

 

 

Other posters have been deferred after FOS complaints about Earnings/threshold/income evidence.

 

 

There is also reports of Erudio compiling and new DAF with no CRA threats but not 100% certain of this.

 

 

Until I see it I wont believe it.

 

 

Think someone in authority has told Erudio to cut the Cr*p.

 

 

The end of this utter farce is in sight and it is as dx100uk has said all along :

they are lowlife DCA chancers with no legal leg to stand on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is more as well

but until we here on CAG see it we cannot confirm it.

 

 

the problem is

and its the same with mumsnet threads

everyone ran away from CAG to those sites as I didn't move from the stance I adopted from the very first post about this Arrows buyout Debacle.

 

 

and people sadly didn't like it.

 

 

just wait.

 

 

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
  • 1 month later...

Hi all Dx asked me to start a new threadlink3.gif.

Story so far is

 

I have been fighting Erudio since 1 may 2014.

 

I refuse to use their Phishing DAF (deferment application Form) and it went to foslink3.gif level.

 

SEE below for FOS reply.

 

This may seem like a long time but Erudio are SO bad at answering complaints (or indeed most emails or letters)

 

a few months of that was silence and threat o grams on their endsmile.png

 

Reminds of something Ghandi said:

 

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

 

Here is the FOS response to my complaint.

It was a bit inadequate to say the least and have asked them to take it further.

My FOS complaint has been upheld. Yet it still feels like I lostfrown.gif

 

Here is the outcome:

 

Dear Mr Trapped in an unwanted Faustian pact with devils.

 

The basis of your complaint relates to the business’ failure to defer your student loan.

 

You are also not satisfied with the business’ request for you to complete a Deferment Application Form (DAF)

and that details of your loan will be reported to credit reference agencies.

 

You are also concerned that it will be registered as a ‘payment holiday’ on your credit file which could adversely affect your credit rating.

 

A request to defer the loan was originally made by you on 1 May 2014,

however, you did not submit the standard DAF requested by the business.

As such, the deferment was not processed at this time.

 

You stated that you were concerned by the volume of information being requested in the DAF which you considered to be irrelevant.

This was explained in a letter to the business and instead of completing the DAF, you submitted information

i.e. evidence of your income that you considered was relevant and consistent with the information

you had provided previously to the Student Loans Company.

 

The business responded to you on 19 May 2014 and sent you another DAF to complete

– the business did not, however, respond to any of the points you had highlighted in your letter

nor explain to you why the information you had submitted was insufficient to process the deferment.

 

On 29 May 2014, you made a formal complaint to the business about your loan not being deferred.

 

A response was sent to you by the business on 12 August 2014, two and a half months later.

At this time, the deferment had still not been processed and to date, the situation has not changed.

 

In settlement, you would like the loan deferred and to be compensated for the inconvenience you have been caused.

Additionally, you do not want the deferment to be reported with credit reference agencies as a ‘payment holiday’

as this may have a negative impact on your credit rating.

 

Having considered the circumstances of your complaint, I am of the view that it should be upheld.

 

I do not consider that your enquiries and concerns were addressed appropriately

and your complaint was not responded to in a timely manner or in sufficiently clear terms.

 

Had this been done at outset, I am persuaded that a DAF could have been submitted and the deferment could have been processed without any delays.

 

With regard to the issue of the business reporting information about your deferred loan to credit reference agencies,

I would advise that Student Loans Company Limited (SLC) did not report regular information about the loans to credit reference agencies,

however, the terms and conditions of loans taken out between 1990 and 1997, as in your case,

did effectively permit the SLC (and subsequently Erudio Student Loans) to report information about loans,

including whether they are in deferment, up to date, in arrears or in default – it simply elected not to do so.

 

Therefore, in reporting information about loans to credit reference agencies,

the business is not acting outside the terms and conditions and these have not changed.

 

With regard to loans taken out from 1998, disclosure will only occur if the account is in arrears or default.

 

Borrowers with these loans are being offered the option to consent for their up to date accounts to be reported.

If consent is withheld, these loans will not be reported to credit reference agencies unless they are in default or in arrears.

As I have stated, however, this only relates to loans taken out from 1998.

 

I understand your sentiments regarding this, however, this office is satisfied that the permitted level of reporting is not unreasonable

provided the information is an accurate reflection of the account.

 

Regarding your concerns as to the completion of the DAF,

I would advise that if the completion of this is required by the business in order to defer the loan, then you will need to do so.

We are unable to enforce the business to defer the loan without the completion of the DAF.

 

The business has advised that deferments are going to be reported with the credit reference agencies as payment holidays

and I understand your concerns in respect of this.

 

 

According to Experian, however, provided these are reported as a ‘u’ in the monthly status report,

it should not have a negative impact on credit scores.

 

 

I hope this mitigates any concerns that you may have in respect of this. (The use of the word SHOULD really does not fill me with much confidence.)angry-smiley-030.gif

 

For your information, the business has advised that it has or is in the process of updating its deferment policy.

It is also currently working on a new DAF with clearer wording

As I have explained, it is my view that your complaint should be upheld.

 

In settlement, it is my recommendation that once a DAF is submitted and accepted,

the new deferment period should be back-dated 3 months before the date the application is accepted.

 

The business should also ensure that no adverse information is recorded on your credit file.

 

In addition, any arrears on the loan after the last deferment period should be removed.

 

Lastly, you have been caused trouble and upset and in recognition of this, it is my view that you should be compensated.

In the circumstances of your complaint, I consider the sum of £75 to be appropriate.

 

Having put my recommendations to the business,

I am pleased to advise that once you have completed, signed and submitted the business’ DAF, it has agreed to write off the arrears

and subsequently back-date your deferment date to ensure a continuation of your deferment.

This will ensure there is no deferment gap and, therefore, no adverse information would be recorded as a consequence.

 

You now need to consider this offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

Update.

 

Finally deferred and all arrears wiped. Only took 3 years!

 

I never used their DAF. I never backed down in my belief that using a bespoke letter was enough to satisfy the original loan terms as the various DAFs were not fit for purpose. Thanks to all on the numerous threads who helped fight these fleecing cretins.

Don’t stop fighting for your rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes

well done

 

 

the quicker people realise that just about EVERYTHING erudio state or try and make you do is just a threat like all DCA's do

 

 

said that from the start and will never waiver from it.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...