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

[patterns]

Hi Andy yes sure. im not sure i can manage to before i post but ill try

 

Actually i just popped out and redacted it quickly.

 

Here you go, if something i should add/remove let me know, ive got until 3.30pm to post

MY WS FINAL ERUDIO FOR CAG - Updated for Dec 2021-updated.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Okay just a few minor adjustments......they have lifted the stay so your references to the stay being denied should be removed and refer only to their application for summary judgment.

[patterns]

Thanks Andy, i'll do that and reprint

 

[dx100uk]

Why has the debt being already statute barred at the issuance of the original claimform all but disappeared?? And you now relying upon unsigned cca's as your main point?

[patterns]

Hi DX no its there still, point 4. Nothing has changed from before. They also have my original defence which was based on SB

[patterns]

HI Guys,

 

Hearing was somewhat a success. i wrote down as many points as i could

 

1- SJ dismissed

2 - List for trial after 28 days - small claims track. so sadly no strike out.

3 - All evidence to be relisted - submited under one trial bundle by the 'claimant', served 14  days prior, to be agreed by defendant 7 days before trial

4 - No order for costs thus far. Trial will be a different matter

 

Overall good news, although my case was strong and was really hoping for a strike out.

The judge didnt have a copy of my WS or bundle, only the previous WS from Erudio side. I was allowed to pass WS and 1 or 2 exhibits over.

I mentioned 3 times SB but it was not discussed any further. The other party was trying to twist words but i corrected ever point. He kept pulling the argument back to the fact i admitted i had loans with SL, that i didn't submit my defence in time (wrong), that i was not entitled to defer because my last defer was 2008 (wrong again). Was just a weak argument.

 

The Matter of CCA wasn't really discussed either even thought i went through each point, other party kept trying to move the conversation around. Tbh i dont think it helped the judge didnt have my bundle. Maybe this hearing wasn't the place for all this.

 

My point 12 in my WS really helped. It backed my point that i had been denied deferment. erudio sol was asked if they had proof they had sent me a copy of a form, they did not. The 2 links above of articles where erudio makes a statement to moneysaving and the guardian, they failed to attach forms and defaulted 100,000s students, really helped prove my point. Although it could not be proven i was one of those students.

 

However final comments were:

- if we can work together to mediate, and if in light of this, as an exmaple - the claimant would be willing to accept a deferment now.

- if i can provide stronger evidence from either FOS or im imagining cases/evidence etc, that erudio has been at fault of not supplying forms, better than 2 articles.

 

So i guess i need to prepare maybe a stronger case here, maybe some more detail. Any advice is welcomed.

 

Point 3 Above - not really understanding this? As in i must submit my WS and evidence to the claimaint only by when and if they miss something out how do i challenge that? I dont want to get this wrong or rudio to try not submit some important aspects of my bundle.

 

I will probably write to drydens, as 'recommened' by judge, to show i have tried to enter back into a deferment/mediate. I think it may help strengthen my case at trial. Unless you think not to? It seemed like the final comments were 'suggestions' to me. Overall the judge was very pleasant. Ultimately im a student who was denied my rights, i just need a stronger case.

Im just surprised the SB or CCA wasn't carrying more weight here. Again maybe because they didnt have my bundle prior.

[dx100uk]

well surely a deferment 'now' is irrelevant as the debt was and remains SB'd so there is nothing to defer and nothing can unbar a debt, not even a judge as far as i'm aware?

[patterns]

I hear you loud and clear pal. I was just as surprised the hearing went this way. The 1st thing i said was about SB in the first instance. i came back to this 3 times. i even have a statement showing last payment 2007, and default wasnt until 2016.... 

 

im stumped, but i went with the questioning and reenforced each point over and over. Maybe i should have pushed my point more, but i didnt know if i could interupt. After i had spoken on 3 rounds it was concluded.

 

What was also strange was the usher told me to talk to the other party, it was actually written in the hearing letter. I asked why and was told it is good to communicate before hand to see if you can resolve, or it can be frowned upon. All very new to me. But i may well go and attend some civil hearings actually. I need to be very prepared for this.

 

is there anywhere that states officially by FOS that the previous deferment form was acceptable?

[dx100uk]

you most certainly should not enter into 'little chats' before any court hearing, smile walk away.

 

not sure what you mean about deferment forms, if you mean the 'new' erudio one (from their inception and purchase of these 'debts' en-masse 2013 after the gov't sake) , they were castigated by the FOS for some of the required info that differed from the original SLC Form, and were told to revise it. they did. 

[AndyOrch]

Well done.....dont forget this hearing was only to look at their application for Summary Judgment and whether they could get judgment without the need to proceeding to a full trial... a defence to a claim or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial.(CPR 24.2)  it failed...if they fail an application for SJ the whole basis of their claim is on shaky ground.

 

Summary judgment applications should not be used as a mini trial of issues. A Claimant must assess whether the legal and factual issues raised are complex and whether there are real and genuine issues of fact which ought to be tried and also consider whether there are documents or facts known which might afford a complete or partial defence to the claim and which are disclosable at the trial stage. If so, summary judgment should not be sought.

 

Well done.

 

Andy.

 

 

.

[patterns]

 I did not forget any or your words infact they were ringing in my ears..... i was polite/blunt and said my WS says everything i have to say. but they are smart/pushy

Yes! Thanks for articulating better DX100, do you have a reference point for that by and chance i cant find anything?

But following references may help others:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/119164/DRN4678958.pdf

https://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/erudio-student-loans-time-to-complain-to-the-ombudsman-9304826.html

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2014-07-22/206948/

https://www.pdpjournals.com/docs/887831.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/apr/08/student-loans-firm-erudio-leaves-graduates-fuming-over-latest-error

[dx100uk]

Pretty sure its mentioned in many threads of a few years ago in our slc forum. Ill have to look tomorrow.

 

[patterns]

Thank you Andy, you are right. I know this hearing was as such and need to remind myself of these procedures. Even thought you have said this and i have read this, you need to remain composed.

i will focus on the hearing and thoroughly starting ti prepare.

im just not sure about the terms of point 3 i raised. how does this woirk, am i waiting for submission of the claimants side to me 14 days prior, and then approve. Or should i be preparing and submit my final bundle before that, and then wait to approve no less than 7 days prior to trial?

Thank you and Dx100 for all your help this far. i should have some more money in jan and ill make another donation

Thanks again

On 14/12/2021 at 01:54, dx100uk said:

Pretty sure its mentioned in many threads of a few years ago in our slc forum. Ill have to look tomorrow.

Thank you, i have been looking, i just couldn't fimd the official reference to it

[patterns]

i absolutely remember a reference DX100uk, i just cant find it at all.

i found this additionally, if it helps others.

Independent Assessors’ Annual Report for SLC 2020 to 2021 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

im sure its part of the terms, that that the original terms are passed on to the assignee.... still looking

[owk]

Hi to Patterns, 

Many thanks for posting the student loans assessors report and your links.  I have a final hearing coming up with Erudio. I’ve found some useful info - it’s the original Sale Purchase document between SLC and Erudio 2013 

Sale and Purchase Agreement.pdf

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened.

 

HB

[patterns]

Hi All,

I received an email today from erudio solicitors offering a tomlin order.

As you will see it offers to revert back my student loans to the original state, honouring the original agreement and honouring the original deferment terms

I know there is obviously the argument that this is statute barred, by the letter sent to me from erudio,

however I feel this is a speculative argument and the courts are left to make their own decision on that.

The initial hearing didn’t seem to care much for that argument but more so how i was mistreated with my right to defer.

The weight of the argument stands with the fact that they did not originally honour to continue my deferments, as with many other students.

For this reason I am tempted to accept this offer, as I am still within the deferment limit.

Given my age and the length of time left, weighing up the pros and cons, it seems a safer option to accept this offer.

I just wanted to know all of your thoughts, and if there is somewhere in here that they're trying to catch me out.

From what I can see it is the original 1998 terms, it is very clearly outlined that is the case,

and therefore the deferment will be under the same terms also.

Should they play funny buggers again, i have this to proceed further with.

They are obviously aware they going to spend a lot in courts, and potentially lose, however probably looking at from the perspective and hope that maybe I will earn some more money in the next few years, which is unlikely.

So i see this as a win to be honest. Yes i can play/call bluff which im tempted to do.

A part of me does feel I have a strong argument here and a good case to win this.

But I do feel based on the previous hearing, that if I do not accept this, it might be frowned upon, and looked at as though I am trying to avoid paying.

Plus either way they are not going to get any money out of me, im within the deferment limit.

im just more curious about any catches or loop holes they may try but the tomlin order seems pretty lock tight.

All opinions and thoughts are appreciated, i have a couple weeks.

One thing I note is that they have asked me to sign and return this, I can't see where it is that I'm supposed to sign?

 

 

tolmin ordered by the judge - reinstate deferement going fwd.pdf

[unclebulgaria67]

Might be worth looking at stature barred argument more closely.

 

What is the basis for thinking the debt is stature barred ?

 

Deferment is acknowledging the debt and keeping it live.  So when has there been 6 clear years of no payment or acknowledgement?

 

 

[AndyOrch]

Applications for future action IE Summary Judgment are not dismissed by a Consent Order but should be withdrawn by the claimant.

The claimant can withdraw the application without a consent order and let the claim remain stayed.

 

Tricky wording in that point 1 alarm bells ring. Possibly a veiled attempt to get you to acknowledge this debt and reignite.

 

Andy.

 

.

[patterns]

@unclebulgaria67 The letter sent to me by them stating last deferment was 2008

 

post 252 above has my WS if you have time to have a quick look. i sent deferments but they have not acknowledged anything in writing and their letter to me stated my last deferment was 2008, therefore would be SB. But also this is in the hands of the judge then

 

@AndyorchHmm so you mean this could be them trying to get me to sign something and use it as weight against me?

 

What are your thoughts, shall i go back and ask for amended terms?

Continue with trial?

I can call their bluff see if they attempt to go to court or withdraw.

 

This issue will be i think that they have tried to resolve this and i did not respond.

Then i must carry my argument in the weight of SB.

I remember the hearing judge said it would look favourable if i attempted to try to work this out in the mean time

 

Has the debt already not been acknowledged though, or you mean in terms of reinstatement?

[AndyOrch]

You could ask that they amend point 1 to read that the application be withdrawn rather than dismissed...but given that the hearing for said application be vacated in reality means one and the same....the rest of the contents seem fine and will stay the claim.

[unclebulgaria67]

Brought this partial information forward from your WS

 

"4.last deferment being October 2008.
showing the last payment being 2007.
5. The claimant refused to accept my next deferments dating October 2014, October 2015, October
2016 and October 2017, refusing to acknowledge the standard deferment form used by SLC "

 

My thoughts on this in regard to stature baring.  Hopefully @Andyorchwill confirm or correct me.

 

You deferred in October 2008, but you then acknowledged the debt in October 2014 by sending the deferment form, even though they refused to accept.

 

By my recogning, because of the deferment form you sent in 2014, you probably kept the debt live, as 6 clear years had not passed since last acknowledgement or payment.

 

Do you have exact dates for the deferments ?

[dx100uk]

dont detract from your filed defence

the debt was SB'd upon issuance of the claimform END OF.

 

i would NOT agree with the tomlin its a trap and the loans SB period will also start again, 

 

std practice from drydens.

ignore them.

 

dx

 

[patterns]

Thank you as always DX100uk

 

What do you think about unclebulgaria's comment though by me send the deferment = recognising debt?

 

Andy what are you thoughts?

 

Appreciate it guys, have a good weekend

[dx100uk]

On 13/12/2021 at 23:25, dx100uk said:

well surely a deferment 'now' is irrelevant as the debt was and remains SB'd so there is nothing to defer and nothing can unbar a debt, not even a judge as far as i'm aware?