Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

SLC Threshold, Yearly or Monthly?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2036 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I have not earned enough to pay back my student loan for the last ten years.


I now find I am slightly above the threshold, if indeed it is a monthly threshold.


Over the course of the last year I have earned less than the yearly threshold.


Over the course of the last three months I have earned less than the threshold (divided by 4).


However, the fact remains that my monthly salary is currently above the threshold and has been for the last two months.


How is the threshold calculated?


Is it on the previous years earnings divide by 12?


On this months earnings?



Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have a question about thresholds. There seems to be a monthly threshold and also a yearly one.


My deferral should have started a in mid-November.


I changed jobs mid-year and spent two months with no income.


If you look at my salary for the year before the deferral date, I earned less than the yearly threshold.


If you look at the three months before the deferral date, then I also, on average, was well under the monthly threshold.


However, my current employment pays over the monthly threshold.


Two pay cheques from the job fell in the year period before the deferment date (September and October).


Should I start paying it.


To my mind, if I haven't met the yearly threshold in the year before the deferment date, then I should be able to defer.


Is that correct.


The purpose of a threshold is something to be met over a period, no?


I will probably be in this job for a few years, and I know that next year I won't be able to defer, and I'm ok with that.


However, I don't think that in my current position I should be being it now.


I am going to email them one more time and ask them this.

If I don't get an adequate response I will ask for a copy of the original contract (CCA?),


That will either clarify the situation or, if they wish, bring it to a halt.




Is the threshold amount based on the year before deferment or the year of deferment.


I've always understood it the be total slary for the year before deferment (meaning a threshold to be reached).


My total wages for the year before the deferment date were less than threshold,

but during the period of deferment I am asking about my salary will be higher than threshold.


I just want to confirm that the threshold needs to be reached before the deferment date,

as opposed to a future projection of what will be earned during the deferment period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I just want to bump this up.



The posts above were written over a period of six weeks, but only posted in the last few days (thank you dx100uk),

so might look like ramblings. This is where I'm at as of today.


I am questioning the way Erudio judge how people reach the threshold.



The student loan company only states a yearly amount (currently £26,727) and refers to it as a threshold,

the dictionary definition of which is, "the point at which a stimulus is of sufficient intensity to begin to produce an effect."



to my mind that means I can defer until I reach the threshold amount in the year before deferment.



I ask this because I recently started a job which, if based on a monthly threshold, would appear to be over threshold.



However, this new job followed two months with zero income.



In the year before deferment I earned less than the yearly threshold.



In the three months before deferment I, on average, earned less than the monthly threshold (because in one of those months I earned zero).


I asked Erudio to lay out their criteria for deferment.



They cut and paste this from another document,

"we use copies of your wage slips confirming your gross income for the last three consecutive calendar months

to calculate your average monthly figure for the previous 12 month period."

On this basis I am well under threshold,



however, when I questioned Erudio as to why I am not being deferred

they said they were only using the two payslips I provided and not including the third month, when I earned zero.



As a consequence, this pushes me over the monthly and yearly threshold.

But, this also means they have ignored their own criteria,

by excluding one of the three months before deferment.

Erudio have ignored their own criteria in order to bump up my salary average.


I have now requested that they send me a copy of the original contract and they have said they will do that.

I referred to the 1974 CCA when I asked them to do this, but I did not send a template letter or £1.

I have told them that I will adhere to the agreement that I signed.


If I remain in my new job I will almost certainly not be able to apply for deferment next year, but I will not pay before I have to.


Thanks for listening!!

Edited by jacobjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

The precise method is not set down in law anywhere. Its just.


From the 1998 regulations which replaced all previous ones, and replaced the agreement terms in the older type written agreements.


9. Each year the lender will tell the borrower the new deferment level for the period between 1st September and the following 31st August. The borrower can defer making repayments of the loan if—


(a)the lender has not already asked him to repay the loan in full, and


(b)he can show—


(i)that his gross income for the relevant month is not more than the deferment level, and


(ii)if the lender asks, that his gross average monthly income during the 3 months immediately following the relevant month will not or is unlikely to be more than the deferment level.


“deferment level” means 85% of the lender’s estimate of average monthly earnings of all full-time employees in Great Britain for the January when the level will apply based on figures published by the Office for National Statistics, or if that Office ceases to publish relevant figures, any other published figures;


“relevant month” means the month before the month in which the borrower asks for deferment;


So all the law says is that you have to "show" Erudio that:


a) Your income for the month before the month you apply for deferment was below the threshold




b) You income for the 3 months following that month will not or is likely not to be above the threshold.


Its (b) that causes the problems, as its subjective opinion based on evidence you supply, where the type and duration of the required evidence itself is not specified in law anywhere.


SLC for wageslips at least, routinely used the last 3 months worth in most cases.


However, they had discretion on that such as in your case where they might have cause to think that the 2 months were more representative evidence of what your income over the next 3 months might be.


Nothing is set down in law saying the HAVE to use 3 months worth.


Leaves a big hole for Erudio to exploit. Which they have done with their new forms and demands.


Only 2 ways you could force Erudio to apply fairer conditions is:


- Go to FOS and hope they agree that Erudio are being unreasonable, and then get a final adjudication that would be enforceable in court.


- Go to court off your own back and ask a judge to decide what is reasonable.


Government should have put stricter and more certain conditions in place in law before they sold the loans to protect ex students from the predatory practices of Erudio/Arrow, but they were too keen to get their pound of flesh, and probably didnt care less anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Maybe the first obvious question to ask is what evidence did you supply about your earnings, did you provide anything to show that you were not working? If not I guess I can understand why they have taken 2 months as that is all that was supplied. Were you claiming benefits? Just a thought


Just looking at what windysock wrote it would seem that you will need to start paying as the month prior to deferment you were earning above the limit and indeed the evidence suggests that over the next 3 months you will continue to earn above the limit

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live overseas and am not entitled to benefits of any kind.



I supplied payslips for the two months before deferral.

The month before that I didn't supply anything, as I didn't earn anything, so I have no proof.



I did send one page of my contract which had the start date on it and a year end summary from my job, which tallies with the payslips.

I also sent info about my previous contract that showed there was a two month gap in the middle.


I find it unbelievable that they can tell me (in writing) how they calculate deferment in one breath,

then ignore that criteria when it doesn't work for them.

By not including that third month (where I earned zero) they are pushing me over the limit.

They are picking and choosing criteria that forces me over the limit.


Also, I am a contract worker, albeit on one year contracts.

According to Erudio's document, "Getting Your Deferment Application Form Right", when I fill out my deferment application I should,

"ensure that you insert a monthly figure.

For example, if your current annual earnings before deductions (and including any bonuses and other taxable benefits) is £12,000 a year,

your gross monthly income is £1,000."

If I do this for the year before deferment, then, again I am under the threshold.

However, they are choosing to only select the two months before deferment.

The purpose of the above criteria is to smooth out the salaries or self-employed and short term contract workers,

to get an average salary, however, they are doing the reverse, by choosing the optimum months to force me over the limit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SO, I have asked for a copy of the original contract. Is it correct that they can't take any action until that arrives? Are they actually sending these out when requested? I was under the impression that in some cases they have been unable to do this. Any know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I continued to point out that I was under threshold for the year before the deferment and also under threshold, on average, for the three months before deferment. Apparently my application has now been sent to a complaints department and will be answered within eight weeks (deferment was up last September).


Still waiting for original agreements to arrive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jacob, sorry to have not answered sooner.


If you have sent a CCA then you are

disputing any contract with them until they PROPERLY respond to your CCA request. In effect you are asking them to "Prove It".


Do not take anything they say seriously, they are not a respectable institution and they have bugger all powers. They will regardless, continue demanding your money and that you do this and you must do that. They are parasities and devious liars ...... Nothing more!.


The best advice that i can give you is:


1.) Type DCA's legal powers into google and grab a good glass of wine, & read.


2.) Take Control!

You like most are falling for their scare/intimidation tactic.


2a.) Write back stating, 'I will not be responding to any of your threatening letters until, such times as you properly respond to my legal request for copies of the original signed agreements as outlined in my CCA request. You haave chosen to ignore this legal obligation and as a result, the alleged debt remains in dispute and is therefore unenforceable.'




3.) 'I have no legal obligation to complete your frankly intrusive DAF and will only complete the original deferment form as provided by the SLC. You are aware that legally, this is the only deferment form i need supply and your Eurido DAF, will be thrown in the bin where it belongs.'


4.) Fight them on every point, and if they state that something is black you argue its white.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to fight them. I have pretty much done numbers 2, 2a and 4. I'm a little concerned about it, but not scared / intimidated. I am happy to stand my ground.


I did not send them a CCA letter with a pound. I emailed them and said please advise me on where I should send the CCA and they replied they that they would send the agreements to me. No more mention of CCA or pound fee. Still awaiting delivery.

Edited by jacobjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I had another letter from Erudio saying that they are refusing deferment and this was their final decision,

although they appreciate they did a crap job, they also sent a cheque for £50 for my trouble!

They also sent some information about making a complaint to the ombudsman.



I have sent Erudio one final email letting them know that I will be taking this option up,

as not only have they not answered my questions,

they have also not sent copies of my original documents, even though they promised to do so in two emails in January

(they did not ask me to send a CCA letter or £1, they just flat out said they would send them to me, which of course, they have not).


So, really, I'm trying to drag this out.



The ombudsman says I need to email them within six months.



Should I email them now, or should I wait until the original documents turn up,

then email the complaint?

Link to post
Share on other sites

pers I'd send an official CCA request

£1 blank PO don't sign anything.



the perhaps think about involving the FOS if they supply a compliant CCA return.



but in all honesty, you'll never get the FOS to side with you on this one.



its a sold gov't debt,

you need to be aware who their governors are ...




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

What's the average amount it takes for them to supply copies of original documents? It is weeks, months or years? Do they actually have copies of all of them?



Just wondering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

theres no hard and fast answer




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...

It's now been three months since I requested my original docs.



It's all gone kinda quiet.



I'm not going to write to the Ombudsman until I get them.



I shouldn't have to make a complaint until I have been furnished with all the info I need.



Plus they can't do anything while I drag it out.



Plenty of time............................

Link to post
Share on other sites


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...

"So all the law says is that you have to "show" Erudio that:


a) Your income for the month before the month you apply for deferment was below the threshold




b) You income for the 3 months following that month will not or is likely not to be above the threshold."


See, I have a real problem with this.

A threshold is something to be met, before another reaction (denial of deferment) can happen.



Part B is actually referring to a future-projection, not a threshold.

Once I receive my original docs (if I ever do receive them), I will make a complaint to the ombudsman based on this.

Also, the SLC does not refer to the threshold in monthly terms, it refers to a yearly threshold.

It's quite easy to pick holes in their wording, as it is extremely badly written.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about the following paragraph, would a breach in obligation need to be proved in court?



A Mortgage Style Loan borrower’s liability shall be cancelled:


When the borrower dies;

If/when the borrower is not in breach of any obligation in relation to any loan and, if they were under 40 years of age when they last entered the loan agreement, when they reach the age of 50 or when the loan has been outstanding for not less than 25 years (whichever is the sooner); or If the borrower was over 40 years of age when they entered the loan agreement, when they reach the age of 60.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long did it take from the time you wrote to the ombudsman to the time of the decision?


I sent the first complaint to them late september last year and they sent me their final decision late april this year so seven months of email ping pong,



you have to tell them that email is your preferred method of communication and i'm glad i did as if this was through the post it could easily have taken twice that length of time.


I wouldn't have taken out the loan at all if it had been offered by these lowlifes,

I thought taking it from the government was a better bet,



my initial gripe with the whole system was that the government had sold off my student loan at a fraction of it's face value to these unscrupulous sharks

before I even graduated (they didn't offer it for sale to me at that low price) so I decided not to pay it or communicate with them.



North of the border the SNP promised in their manifesto back in 2007 to write off student debt in Scotland which helped get them elected for the first time, needless to say they were lying and didn't deliver on this promise.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I argued my case and demanded a final decision by the ombudsman rather than the previous person and they had upheld my complaint,



they are instructing honours student loans to write off my student loan.



My case will appear on the FOS website they say so you can read it.



I think this may be the first one of these cases to go to the ombudsman unless anyone knows of another



and this will set a precedence for others drop me a mail if you need advice arguing your case.


Great result. Well done. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi. Could someone give me the link to the CCA forms I need to get original copies of my agreements and statements from Erudio. I want to make sure I'm sending the right forms. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...