Erudio claimform - old SLC loans - stayed - now N244 **WON SJ refused**

[dx100uk]

what are drydens playing at

the debt was last acknowledged by a deferment form to SLC in 2013

the claim was well statute barred before the claimform was issued

a default notice from a debt buyer in 2016 does not change that.

[AndyOrch]

Their witness statement states at point 9 ....

 

Quote

Due to none payment or deferment by the defendant ..a default notice was issued 13th Oct 2016

 

And at 10.....

 

Quote

The Agreement was terminated 11th Nov 2016 and the ability to defer was no longer permitted along with the right to cancellation of the loan/s after 25 years.

 

The claim was issued 3rd June 2019.

[Will Goodfellow]

4 hours ago, Andyorch said:

The claim was issued 3rd June 2019.

 

So the debt is not statute barred as the claim was made even within the limitation of the Sept 2013 deferral regardless of the date of the default notice. There is no defence to the claim as far as I can see.

[dx100uk]

the issuance of a Default notice was some +3yrs after the last acknowledgement through a deferral letter to the original creditor.

 

i thought a debt buyer could not issue a default notice? thus change the cause of action under the PRA DN ruling Win~ it was not retrospective appeal win?

 

i believe we've countered these late DN's before along the lines of:

 

alternative whereby claimant intimates SB date=defaulted date and that has been registered months/years after the last payment
.
1 The Claimant's claim was issued on dd/mm/yyyy.

 

 2.The date last payment/acknowledgement made was the dd/mm/yyyy 

 

 3.The Default Notice was issued dd/mm/yyyy and served several months/years after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X months + years and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.

 

 4.Therefore the Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

 

 5.The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

@andyorch your thoughts?

[Will Goodfellow]

On 10/06/2019 at 00:54, patterns said:

Payments technically never began as I was deferred since leaving university with the SLC.

In 2014 my debt was passed to Erudio, I sent my usualy DAF and they sent me a letter stating I needed to sign their new DAF.

 

- I wrote to erudio also.

Erudio replied telling me that they investigated the matter and that my last deferment was 2009!

i dished out a letter from them stating my deferment ended in 2014!

 

On 20/06/2019 at 11:39, patterns said:

My SLC SAR clearly shows i was defered up to 2013 when trasmferred to erudio.

 

This tallies with what I've stated before, if the last SLC deferment was in 2013, the deferment ended in 2014 so there was no cause of action during the deferment period because it's lawfully deferred. Erudio confirmed the last deferral from 2013 ended in 2014.

 

The default notice date is a red herring, it could be argued that the default date is unreasonable. But at best the default date could be pushed back to late 2014 after no Erudio deferral was sent. Still well within statute barring limitations. The only difference that might make is if the default is on a credit report. And that's irrelevant when there's probably going to be a CCJ on it too unless it can be successfully argued that the SLC deferrals sent were binding on Erudio but that seems like a long shot as they would also need to be up to date.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Will Goodfellow

[dx100uk]

Its when the last deferment letter was sent, not at the end of that period.

Else the numerous court cases already adjudged as being sb'd would be wrong.

 

[Will Goodfellow]

I knew you'd disagree dx100uk but it's irrelevant as the debt is not statute barred regardless of the default notice.

[dx100uk]

why?

dx

[patterns]

Hi guys, I have uploaded some other documents that may help.

On page 3 you will see a letter dated from them in January 2019 that my last deferment was on ninth October 2008.

Notice of assignment shows November 2013

Student loans statement shows last balance entry 2013

This all started due to when the account was transferred to them, I continued to send the original deferment forms which they repeatedly refused. They have stated in these letters I was deferred up until 2014. In 2015 letters they have acknowledged all of my multiple correspondence, failing to respond to it and addressing my complaints. Even up until the letter dated 2019, they still acknowledge my ongoing complaint

None of their correspondence has given me a notice of default either despite them saying so prior to claim

 

Shall I still prepare my witness statement? And should I include these documentations or can i now only move forward with the grounds of statute barred, which seems questioned. The only thing I can see is that they state my last deferment was in 2008 in the letter from page 3 and use this if it is from the date of last deferment?

 

 

Scannable Document on 3 Dec 2020 at 10_37_40 .pdf

[AndyOrch]

Quote

I continued to send the original deferment forms which they repeatedly refused. They have stated in these letters I was deferred up until 2014.

 

Who refused ? and what date ?

[dx100uk]

erudios letter dated jan 2019 [page 3 pdf] clearly states the SLC Loan has not been deferred since 2008.

 

earlier they state in a letter dated sept 2014 you are in deferment still, which would tally with your last deferment direct to SLC before the sale in 2013 as that runs for 12mts from apr 2013

 

last deferment you agree with is 2013 too

claim issued - 3 june 2019   

 

the debt is statute barred

defence stands.

 

[patterns]

Refused maybe the wrong word but in the letters they continue to 'ignore' my deferment forms yet acknowledge my complaints

 

33 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

erudios letter dated jan 2019 [page 3 pdf] clearly states the SLC Loan has not been deferred since 2008.

 

earlier they state in a letter dated sept 2014 you are in deferment still, which would tally with your last deferment direct to SLC before the sale in 2013 as that runs for 12mts from apr 2013

 

last deferment you agree with is 2013 too

claim issued - 3 june 2019   

 

the debt is statute barred

defence stands.

 

Ok great so shall i draft a WS response to their application and send to court/dryden?

[AndyOrch]

Yes if you wish to challenge their application...if you dont it will get rubber stamped.

[patterns]

WS and docs attached

 

is this ok?

 

 

 

 

REDACTED ERUDIO WS FINAL COMPILED_compressed (1).pdf

Edited December 4, 2020 by patterns

[dx100uk]

On 02/12/2020 at 14:22, Andyorch said:

a default notice was issued 13th Oct 2016

 

wrong default date in WS?

 

dx

 

[patterns]

dammit sorry yes ive been working all night amd tired, amending now

 

Thanks again

 

im getting confused the default notice in their WS is 13 oct 2016?

 

so far i cant see a default notice but they state 13 oct 2016, im trying to find documents now

 

ive gone through all documents no DN but they include one in their application dated 13 oct 2016

 

im being an idiiot, its late, ive corrected those dates and will submit tomorrow unless someone states otherwise

[Will Goodfellow]

On 03/12/2020 at 01:12, dx100uk said:

why?

 

Assuming you're correct about the limitation running from the last date of deferral. The last deferral was in 2013 so the statute barring period would end on 31 August 2019, the money claim was made on 3rd June 2019 so is within the limitation period. Therefore the debt is not statute barred.

 

  Ignore that as I missed the deferral date before replying.

 

Even so,  I doubt it will be as clear cut a case of statute barring as it appears to be.

As a deferral form was submitted, the cause of action didn't arise until that deferral period ended in April 2014,

no action could be taken to recover the debt and no default notice could be issued.

 

It would be unfair on the creditor to allow the limitation period to run for over a year without being able to take any action or issue a default notice. We shall see I guess.

[dx100uk]

@patterns

 

your WS bundle needs to be the in right order. thus so does your list of contents

 

page 1, then page 11, then exhibits.

 

page 11 point 2.

re jig to read:

the defendants last acknowledgement of any Claimed Sum was made directly to the original creditor, the student loan company, by returning their standard deferral form in April 2013.

 

point 3.

It is alleged by the claimant that a default notice was served by them upon the defendant dated 13th October 2016. i have never seen nor has the claimant produced, any physical evidence to date nor a copy said default notice . The serving of a Default Notice many  [etc etc to end of existing point 3]

 

add to the end as point 6  the new closing statement...

NEW CPR changes applicable from 1st April 2013 ***Updated 26/02/2020 - Legal - Consumer Action Group

[AndyOrch]

The default notice uploaded at post# 125...the date has been covered but their WS states 13th Oct 2016 which allowed a period of 28 days to pay IE 8th Nov 2016....not the statuary 14 days.

 

Your statement states the Default Notice was issued 13th Oct 2019 ?

[patterns]

Yes im sorry i made a mistake i edited the WS to the 13 Oct 2016

 

Apart from that is it ok, anything to add?

[dx100uk]

there is no date on the default notice at all andy.

i have the unredacted version.

 

see below. hidden post

 

 

..

[AndyOrch]

Thanks DX......excellent an undated Notice of Default....totally invalid ...game over.

 

Your statement should start off as the following when responding to this type of application ....

 

1. I ******, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application (dated) to lift the stay and Strike Out/Summary Judgment pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a&b in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated xxxxxx. .The claimant confirms that this claim issued through Northampton CCBC on (Date)and left stayed since (date).

2.The claimants witness statement opening paragraph confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding that they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act and also be in attendance at hearing to give evidence in support of the claimants witness statement

[Will Goodfellow]

How does exhibit A1 show that the last deferral form you sent was on 10 April 2013?

[patterns]

hi Will because it states the deferment processing from that date on the statement, thats what it normally says when a deferment is applied to the account? Dx100uk did you see something different as to last reference to deferment? the only thing i can see in their letters to me is that my last deferment was 2008

 

Thanks DX100uk and thanks Andy, unfortunately the DN upload missed the top of the page when i scanned it, the one from erudio application to the courts shows 13 oct 2016, is this the one you are referring to as my posts are different to yours? presuming this is the one you are referring to from my post 123 on wednesday 12.44

 

Please see rescanned DN

Scannable Document on 4 Dec 2020 at 13_12_42.png.pdf

[Will Goodfellow]

15 minutes ago, patterns said:

hi Will because it states the deferment processing from that date on the statement, thats what it normally says when a deferment is applied to the account?

 

It might be worth finding out exactly what date you deferred your loan from in 2013. If you look at the statement, it shows the same entry on 10th May 2013. And if you check the document you posted in #137, it shows a very blurred statement showing the same entry on a date in 2014. All three entries state 'Deferral - Repayment Due Processing'.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Will Goodfellow