Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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 276 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

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.

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

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?

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

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

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

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.

 

 

.

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

 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 5 months later...

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

.

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

@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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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 ?

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

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...