Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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 
        • 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

Student Loan Statute barred


okokok
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2283 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

I have two statute barred student loans from 97 and 98.

 

I am finishing my degree and was told by student loans company that I have no outstanding debt and that I could proceed with the finance application.

 

I have now been told that:

 

"We have had confirmation that the balance is statue barred, however, this does not wipe off the debt from your account.

As you are in breach of the original loan agreement, you will remain ineligible until such a time as the arrears have been cleared in full from your account".

 

I will be derolled if I can't get the loan to pay for the tuition.

 

Is this correct information I have been given?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to the appropriate forum...please continue to post here to your thread.

 

Regards

 

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

It's correct that statute barred doesn't extinguish the debt, only that the debt cannot be enforced.

 

SLC aren't attempting to enforce the original debt,

just saying that because the original loan has not been repaid they will not give you another loan?

 

I'd have thought they are entitled to say that,

but I don't know precisely what rules they work under in these circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree they probably can refuse the loan, on the basis that past experience is that commitments entered into have not been kept to.

 

If there reason to complain and ask for student loan legislation and government policy on, then a complaint should be made in writing to SLC.

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

Really it is a technicality.

The old style loans were meant to be paid once reaching a specific income.

I have never reached that level of income due to ill health.

 

These new type of loans are automatic.

The payments come out automatically once earnings are above £21,000

- so it is a completely different format.

 

I wonder if I have been rejected because of my age or disability?

 

Does anyone think it a good idea to offer to pay back the old loans under the new type of loan scheme

ie. automatically after earning £21,000

if they give me the finance for the tuitions fees to allow me to complete my degree?

Link to post
Share on other sites

as with any creditor

they can and will refuse further credit because as ES pointed too...

there is no such thing as a statute barred debt in E/W when it remains with the original creditor

 

this is why certain SLC debts of this era wre not bought by erudio [arrows]

they knew they could never enforce them.

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

Really it is a technicality.

The old style loans were meant to be paid once reaching a specific income.

I have never reached that level of income due to ill health.

 

If that's the case you need to challenge SLC's statement that you are "in breach of the original loan agreement". If the original loan agreement didn't require repayment until you reached a certain income and you haven't reached that income then surely you aren't in breach of the loan agreement? Ask them which bit of the loan agreement you have breached.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ethel. It was being seriously ill and the SLC not sending out the deferment papers combined that meant the loan went to repayment status - even though I was on nil income.

Does the Government have any legislation for positive discrimination towards disabled people studying at University to return to work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the debts have been sold to those two fleecers then what are SLC going on about!!

No debt exists on their books now. They sold them!!

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

Think you should write back to whoever has written to you asking for legislation supporting their refusal to offer new student finance. Because it is government led student financing, there should be legislation that supports this loan refusal.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

I am still awaiting to hear back from Stage 1 Appeal process.

 

It is still within the 15 working day target they aim to respond by.

 

It is really affecting my ability to study,

worrying that I may now be in serious debt.

 

I am wondering if I should get in touch with an M.P over this issue and if there is any right way to do this.

 

I am going to be derolled shortly if I can't get this fixed.

 

Also would it be a conservative M.P I would raise this issue with or a labour/other?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what pm?

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...

Polite request - please no more trolling or nasty, unproductive comments. I am having a difficult time with this. Thanks.

 

Ok Further update here.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ (They sent me this link upon further request of where the following legislation comes from - but I can't yet find it)

 

"Eligible part-time students

137.

(3) A person ("A") is not an eligible part time student if

 

(b) A is in breach of any obligation to repay any loan".

 

This is the legislation quoted to me to reject my application for tuition.

 

I confirmed yet again with the SLC advisors that no debt exists with them and the balance is zero

- which suggests to me that the "obligation" to the SLC is non-existent.

 

However the appeals letter outcome states that "your debt to the Student Loans Company does indeed still exist... you will remain ineligible until such a time that the outstanding balance is paid in full" -

 

I spoke to Link and Erudio advisors where the loans were sold on to and both initially confirmed that their screen was stating that the accounts had been closed and very specifically that the debt had been "written off".

 

The SLC then told me that apparently Erudio is the problematic one and so I re-rang to get a letter in writing to state that the debt had been written off.

 

 

A different advisor then said something different (this is after I had put my written Appeal stage 2 in to the SLC) and that the balance was outstanding but was statute barred and they would not pursue it.

 

I then asked if they would accept a token amount £100 as a full and final offer in preference to never getting anything and this was rejected stating they would need the balance in full.

 

 

I also asked them how much they paid for the loan and they said I would have to ask the Student Loans company.

I was told that the SLC policy is to never offer further finance to anyone who has a statute barred loan.

(I did however receive a small grant in 2009 from them).

The SLC insist they are acting under the government strict policies.

 

If anyone has any legal expertise or insight to offer here, I would be very grateful.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you RINGING THESE FLEECERS.

 

writing only

 

if they are statute barred ignore everyone offer nothing.........

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

Because I am about to be de-rolled from university.

 

The issue is the SLC seem to be blocking me from receiving tuition fees due to the statute barred debt with Erudio.

 

Therefore I hoped that by taking out a £100 loan,

they may accept a full and final settlement in order to get the status to "written off" which apparently then allows the SLC to grant me funding.

 

I am trying to move forward with my life and there are just endless roadblocks.

 

This afternoon an Erudio advisor swore blind the status was "written off" and then when I rung again to ask for that in writing another said it was statute barred.

 

All have confirmed they will not be pursuing.

 

The SLC company can not tell me how much they sold the debt to Erudio for as it was covered in 2008 Sale of Student Loans.

 

My question is it seems the "obligation" was settled then to the SLC, and transferred to Erudio.

 

I need help with the legislation they produced as it doesn't seem to apply and also if there are any exceptions etc that can be made.

 

Also, SLC acknowledged no connection with Erudio and that they are a private company

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anyone trolling you here okokok, but anyway hopefully you don't think this is a nasty unproductive comment.

 

As I understand your posts your problem isn't that some DCA, or anyone else, has been trying to recover the loan.

Your problem is that you need a new student loan from SLC or you will be removed from your course

but SLC are refusing saying they will not provide a new loan while you still owe money on the old loan, even though it is statute barred.

 

SLC have quoted legislation that says you are not eligible for a new loan if you are "in breach of any obligation to repay any loan".

The legislation they quoted is The Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 section 137 (3) (b)

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1986/regulation/137/made

 

This isn't what you want to hear but in my opinion you do still have an "obligation to repay" your original student loan even though it is statute barred.

 

There's a difference between the loan still being due and the SLC being able to enforce recovery.

They can't enforce recovery but the loan still exists.

 

I don't know if any court has ever ruled on this and a judge might not agree with me,

but that's my opinion,

I think SLC are justified by The Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 in refusing you another loan.

 

Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Ethel, no you have never trolled :-) the troll posts have longed since been deleted, I was simply putting in a polite request for no more as I almost didn't come back for the support I need.

 

My main purpose is to understand, so thank you for your input. The link is great.

I think you have the gyst of the scenario.

 

However technically, in this instance, SLC have been paid and the debt with them was settled by Erudio.

 

Erudio are a private company with no connections to SLC.

 

I don't see any difference with say if my friend had paid the SLC loan amount off.

 

As far as the SLC are concerned, as their records show, there is no debt - therefore no obligation - to pay to them.

 

The Appeals letter states that my debt to the SLC still exists. I ring the SLC and they say it doesn't!

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry i'd quite forgotten your unique situation....

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

Another way to view this, which is perhaps what you are getting at Ethel, is the loan ("loan" means a loan made under any provision of the student loans legislation) is an entity in and of itself and it doesn't matter who owns it - the obligation is to repay it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry i'd quite forgotten your unique situation....

 

That's ok :-) There isn't much about this anywhere. I just can't accept that under the circumstances, this is applying the spirit of the thing correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However technically, in this instance, SLC have been paid and the debt with them was settled by Erudio.

 

Erudio are a private company with no connections to SLC.

 

I don't see any difference with say if my friend had paid the SLC loan amount off.

 

As far as the SLC are concerned, as their records show, there is no debt - therefore no obligation - to pay to them.

 

OK. Let us know how you get on.

 

Bear in mind that even if SLC accept that selling the loan to Erudio is equivalent to paying off the loan Erudio won't have paid anything like 100% of the original loan amount.

 

So if Erudio paid SLC say 20% of the original loan (just guessing, I've no idea!) SLC would say that 80% of the loan was still outstanding and due from you.

 

And I doubt removing the loan from their financial statements means that the loan is therefore no longer owed to them.

 

That's just my gut feel though, I couldn't point you to any court decisions or legal rules relevant to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...