Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • An online news and information service for the UK’s commercial and consumer credit industry. View the full article
    • They are very nonsensical aren’t they? As far as I can tell they have no proof of ownership of debt whatsoever - it feels like they’re just hoping I cave in 🙈   I’ll get onto the CRA’s now - thank you 😊 
    • Thanks ...okay well as you are already aware you will get more sense out of your bin than talking to Arrow...so I would now escalate it by informing the Credit Reference agencies and submit a Notice of Correction ( each CRA has its own instruction's on how  to submit) and they will contact Arrow asking for details of the debt....if that fails you can contact the ICO (information Commissioner's Office) and raise a complaint re false data reporting.     See how you get on.
    • I have a sense that you haven't been reading around because if you had been you would have seen lots of draft particulars particulars of claim and lots of explanation about what is necessary. Are you familiar with all the arguments? Are you familiar with all the steps needed to take a small claim in the County Court? Maybe you should hold back for a day or two while you do some serious reading on this forum. We've got all the information here. We got the benefit of the experience of lots of people doing exactly what you are trying to do. If you stop for a moment and do the reading around you will feel very confident and empowered   I'm afraid this also confirms my view that you simply haven't done any reading at all of the sub- forum. This point comes up again and again with Hermes and there is a very simple answer to it which I have repeated in other people's threads so often that I don't think I'm going to go into it again here. Please spend the next day reading and you will soon find the answers to your questions. Once again, it will make you more confident and more empowered
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Erudio - Sent me my slc CCA - now Court Claim


Recommended Posts

Ok great thanks Andy, wow yes indeed

 

Ok im going to get something together by the weekend, and then post up here. Guessing i send hard copies to both parties once its ready

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

hi guys so just opened my post and thankfully no rubber stamp! Hearing date march 2021, documents to be submitted electronically   Andy much obliged for this, again thank you guys for the su

So ready to post this defence. Having looked at what you wrote for the other thread:   ----------------------------------- 1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).  2 T

Yes...hence the term " File and Serve " your statement is made pursuant to CPR 24.5

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part24#24.5

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 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

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 OTHERS

 

 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

Edited by patterns
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 OTHERS

 

 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 OTHERS

 

 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 OTHERS

 

 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 OTHERS

 

 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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...