Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • 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

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


patterns
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 269 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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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 by Will Goodfellow
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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

why?

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

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

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.

 

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

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

a default notice was issued 13th Oct 2016

 

wrong default date in WS?

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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

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

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 ?

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

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

i have the unredacted version.

 

see below. hidden post

 

 

..

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Will Goodfellow
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...