Erudio and Capquest relating back to student loans

[fathered75]

I've had two letters in the last week from both Erudio and Capquest relating back to student loans I took out in '95 and '97.

 

 

I think I deferred the loans initially back in the late '90s, early 2000s, as I couldn't afford to pay them back due to the wage (or lack of) at the time.

 

 

I may have even got CCJs back then relating to one or both of the loans, I can't really remember.

 

 

about 5/6 years ago, I got letters off the SLC chasing me again

- I was aware of the Statute Barred default and not having to pay them back,

I wrote to the SLC and explained the situation.

As I'd heard nothing back since, I thought that was the end of it.

 

 

Got the letters in the last week from Erudio and Capquest

so called them yesterday and went through the whole process again of what I'd done previously and brought up the Statute Barred angle again.

 

 

Left it with them so will that be the end of it?

[maroondevo52]

Hello and Welcome fathered75,

 

I have started a new thread for you.

 

Regards,

 

Scott.

[dx100uk]

please never ring a fleecing DCA or their co-horts

 

 

erudio and capquest are the same lot - arrows DCA.

 

 

the govt sold off old mortgage style SLC loans to them some years previous.

 

 

I take it your credit file is clean?

and shows all you old addresses?

 

 

are rodeo or crapest making ref to the debts having a CCJ

and [i hope] you've not told them so?]

 

 

dx

[fathered75]

No, credit file is pretty poor to be honest pal.

 

I've moved about a lot but always had all my correspondence relating to loans/credit cards over the years sent to the address where I lived back then (family address) -

it was just easier than updating every couple of years (and I didn't trust the females/places where I was living) to get any correspondence sent to those respective addresses.

 

Capquest have not made any reference to the CCJs (if there were indeed any),

nor have I mentioned them as I'm not sure they even exist.

 

Its just the fact that they've sent these letters and been in touch again after my sending of the letters to the SLC back in 2010 with regard to these Student Loans and the Statute Barred Act,

I thought that was the end of it back then.

 

What I did say on the phone to Capquest is that I'm aware of the Statute Barred Act and that they should stop hassling me for this money.

[dx100uk]

ok all good then.

 

 

i'd p'haps sit on your hands then?

see what they do.

 

 

dx

[fathered75]

Cheers.

[fathered75]

please never ring a fleecing DCA or their co-horts

 

erudio and capquest are the same lot - arrows DCA.

 

the govt sold off old mortgage style SLC loans to them some years previous.

 

I take it your credit file is clean?

and shows all you old addresses?

 

are rodeo or crapest making ref to the debts having a CCJ

and [i hope] you've not told them so?]

 

dx

 

Capquest rang back this morning making a specific reference to a CCJ issued on one of the Student Loans in 2005.

I explained to them that I'd received no correspondence relating to a CCJ back then.

 

 

I then proceeded to explain again that the SLC had not made me aware of any outstanding CCJ relating to the loan when I wrote a Statute Barred letter regarding the 2 loans in 2010.

 

 

He made me aware that the CCJ will/may have been removed from my credit file as it was issued 11 years ago but as the CCJ had been issued Capquest could still chase me for the outstanding balance.

 

 

I again referred back to the fact that these loans pre-date 1998 and under the Statute Barred Act and the fact that no effort on my part has been made to repay the various collection agencies that have held the debt since, then they couldn't do this.

 

 

Any idea where I legally stand?

[dx100uk]

what part of stop talking on the phone do you not understand?

 

arrows/crapest were not the claimant on the CCJ

so unless they've had themselves substituted as the claimant [very rare]

and have been back to court [even more rare]

and the judge has given permission to enforce [never happens]

they are talking bowlarks.

 

stay off that PHONE!!

 

everything in writing only

put the phone down.

[fathered75]

Cheers dx, my fault for trying to argue the point. They're ringing back next Wednesday so will ask for anything in the future to be in writing only.

[dx100uk]

that's the way

let them squirm..

[fathered75]

I've received a letter from Capquest informing me that they had previously written to me on 25/08 stating that they would be managing the student loan account now as opposed to Erudio Student Loans.

 

 

A lot of spiel on them about setting up a payment plan blah, blah, blah of which I have no intention of setting up.

 

 

I'm going to reply in writing but just need a bit of guidance legally.

I've checked on my credit file and the CCJ relating to the account is definitely not there and been removed and neither is the initial loan which was defaulted on (both longer than 6 years).

 

 

I'd imagine they will write to me again trying to pressure me saying payments need to be made on the initial CCJ (2005) and that the outstanding balance still stands (they said that in the conversation last week).

 

 

For clarity, do I just throw up the complete statute barred legal argument as it's not their original loan and they have not been registered as the claimant on the CCJ?

[dx100uk]

you ignore them and let them willy wave

do not respond.

 

 

then a post 8

[fathered75]

you ignore them and let them willy wave

do not respond.

 

 

then a post 8

 

then a post 8?

[dx100uk]

as

[WarrenBuffet]

Fathered75 you are getting the best advice available from dx. I would just want to make you aware that the statute barred rule doesn't apply to a ccj. I would just do as dx advises or say in a final letter that you will not be responding in the future and all correspondence from them will be placed in the bin. The only way you are prepared to respond again will be in court. Then invite them to take you to court.

[WarrenBuffet]

PS: I laughed out loud at Crapest, dx.

[fathered75]

Fathered75 you are getting the best advice available from dx. I would just want to make you aware that the statute barred rule doesn't apply to a ccj. I would just do as dx advises or say in a final letter that you will not be responding in the future and all correspondence from them will be placed in the bin. The only way you are prepared to respond again will be in court. Then invite them to take you to court.

 

That was the info I needed for clarity. I've had a look on my credit file and the CCJ is 100% not there (11 years ago) but when their rep rang the other week he said the amount of £1,600 relating to that CCJ was still owed to them (passed over from Erudio) despite the CCJ no longer being there. I'd have thought they could be willing to go after the debt through the courts seeing as it was for a substantial amount. I've no problem righting the letter but just concerned that all this will blow up again when I've finally got back on a relatively stable financial footing.

[WarrenBuffet]

My CCJ never showed on mine either. The reason I understand is because it is a Government CCJ and apparently these do not show. Someone hopefully will explain better.

 

With me they lost the judgement papers and after loads of letter tennis I invited them to take me to court as I knew the debt was unenforceable.

[fathered75]

My CCJ never showed on mine either. The reason I understand is because it is a Government CCJ and apparently these do not show. Someone hopefully will explain better.

 

With me they lost the judgement papers and after loads of letter tennis I invited them to take me to court as I knew the debt was unenforceable.

 

Cheers, I'll put something in writing in the next few days inviting them down that route if they wish to proceed any further. I don't want to appear as though I'm being rude or taking the p*** in the letter, just do something short, concise and to the point and then that being an end to the matter.

[dx100uk]

pers I wouldn't write anything.

that's why they send letters

to gain a reaction..

 

you've already shot yourself in the foot bytalking on the phone to them..

 

as for the CCJ's

yes ofcourse they show

but not after 6yrs anywhere.

 

it will vanish on its 6th birthday.

 

as for whoever is chasing.

they were not the claimant

and

as its over 6yrs old

they'll have a mighty hard time in

 

1, changing the claimants name

which they must do before they can enforce a CCJ

and

2. convincing a judge that having already had 6yrs for it to be enforced

that it should now be.

 

1 & 2 are extremely rare things to happen.

 

as for that document that has resurfaced today on the old Ariel consortium

the statement regarding loans with CCJ's cannot being statute barred is bunkum!

[fathered75]

I'll leave it be completely then - just want to know the right course of action.

 

The conversation with them a few weeks back went as far as these student loans are almost 20 years old and under debt guidelines are statute barred so you (Capquest) can whistle chasing the money now.

 

I hadn't spoken to anyone on here prior to that point, that's why I did to get a better legal understanding.

[WarrenBuffet]

Crikey! that was me dx, that was what I undestood a few years ago. I take it has changed again or was the info duff all along?

[dx100uk]

If you were to strip away everything

...yes a debt with a CCJ never becomes statute barred

But if they (the named claimant on the CCJ)

Has 6yrs to enforce it

 

If they don't then as above

 

In all effect the CCJ is dead.

 

A claimant can't use an old CCJ to hold the SB clock forever!!

[WarrenBuffet]

Thanks for explaining dx.

[fathered75]

After nothing since last October, first a letter and now a phone call from Allied International Credit (AIC). They told me the debt had been passed to them from Erudio/Capquest - I've just told them to do one and send any future correspondence in writing. Right course of action?