Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes of course. That's why it says cc:: BIg Motoring World at the bottom. Don't imagine that this solves the issue. It doesn't. He not have to force the finance company and big motoring world to accept the rejection to give your money back. I suggest that you get the letter off tomorrow. And let us know what you hear but on Friday you should then send a threat to the finance company.   Have a look what I have said here about your options and read the whole thread as well.  
    • Been perusing the actual figures on the polls above wondering where the '16% claimed for deform comes from? I understand that there are 'weighted' end results based on secret calculations ...   Probably going to repeat this later, but remember that the ukip/brexit/reform/deform party has ALWAYS had poll speculation FAR better than their actual  performance at elections - by large margins. SO: The labor and Tory votes come largely from simply the people who say they will vote for them - sorted Lab 43% Tory 20%, with maybe another small 1-2% coming from the weightings of the 'not sures' Greens largely get what is declared from 'other' , although with another declared green bit from the 'pressed' question   So as the share of the voting displayed in 'other' granted to reform/deform is around 11%, where does the '16% too often being reported come from? Seems that reform has been granted as beneficiary of effectively ALL the don't knows and wont says, who when pressed didn't actually declare for someone else ... effectively adding 40%+ to their reported polling % - rather strange given their consistent under-performance compared to polling - or perhaps that is the cause of the higher rating eh?   Now I admit the possibility (probability?) of wingers being ashamed of declaring their support for the yuckey lemon end of the spectrum ... but surely  that should affect the 'Torys as well? Maybe the statisticians have simply weighted in that deform wingers are simply more likely to lie?   But - without 'weightings' and assumptions that faragits will get everything that isnt declared as a definite and unequivocal 'not that Piers Morgan' - reform is on around 11% it seems.   Add to that the and the history of polling a lot less than the hype - and the simple fact that faragit wingers seem to be spread across the country (presumably skulking in their moms spare room despite being 45+) and greens and lib dems seem to be community minded - I think two seats will be an epic result for farage. Hardly the opposition - far more raving wingnut party.   and importantly - Has farage got a home in clacton yet?
    • "as I have no tools available to merge documents, unless you can suggest any free ones that will perform offline merges without watermarking" (which you don't) ... but ok please upload the documents and we'll go from there
    • Please go back and read my message posted at 10:27 this morning @jk2054. I didn't say that I wasn't going to provide documents, only that I will upload them to an online repo that I am in control of, and that I would share links to these. You shall still be able to read and download them no different from if they were hosted here. And, the issue I have is not so much with hosting, but using an online pdf editor to create a multi-page pdf, again I have discussed this that same message.
    • Thanks ,DX, I'd forgpotton about that letter and can't remember sending a SB letter. I must have left it and they did not chase. Unclebulgia. Yes several periods of no contact. Think its time for the SB letter . 
  • 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

SLC/Erudio 1993 loan - now Dryden PAP letter


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2027 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 just discovered this site and forums, and fear I have made a terrible hash of dealing with Erudio with regard to my own and my husband's old Student loans

 

(My own: 1 from 1990 (unsigned by SLC) for £420 but due to 9.8% interest (!!!!) now over £800 and really should have been written off had Erudio not been involved; and my husband's: 4 from 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 respectively and over £5,000).

 

We had been happily deferring re-payment of these loans over the years until Erudio took over.

The first inkling that we had that they had been sold to a bunch of debt collectors were involved were the classic "you are in arrears letters".

 

At this point in our lives we were both suffering from health conditions (I had had a nervous breakdown and have since been diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder and my husband has since been diagnosed with IBD) - whether this had an impact on our judgement I don't know.

 

We did initially ignore these, and people were saying definitely not to fill in their deferment forms, so we didn't do that either.

We have historically been a fairly low income household, and I have never made any re-payments on my loan , whilst my husband briefly made a couple of repayments.(I cannot remember in what year.)

We were harassed on a daily basis by telephone calls- often several times a day.

 

My husband's account was then transferred over to Capquest, which did freak us out a little, I have to admit, never having dealt with debt collectors before.

The same situation occurred with the letters and phone calls with Capquest.

They seemed to be not taking any action on my account.

 

We sent CCA requests in June 2015, to Erudio and received the copies at the end of July 2015.

I complained to Erudio in writing about their tactics, their harassment, and asked them to remove the arrears from the account and to consider back dating deferment . I even took this to the FOS - no joy.

 

I complained to SLC and said my loan had been miss- sold - I think I also took this to FOS - also no joy - I was told that I would have been able to access commercial lending operators!!

 

We wrote to the director of Erudio explaining our situation and please could we just defer!!

I believe the response was : Capquest are dealing with your account now - talk to them...

 

At this point I became tired and gave up

- they just wanted all the money and there seemed no scope for returning to the good old days of deferment.

And it seems our accounts would never be written off now as we had broken the terms and conditions

- welcome to harassment for the rest of our lives!!

 

Last year Capquest were still harassing my husband

- his mental health has been badly affected by his physical health

- and he did not work for several months

- he works for himself but did not have the money in his businesses to pay himself whilst he was unwell.

I wrote to them and told them to back off in no uncertain terms.

 

Neither of us claim disability benefits, we claim tax credits, which has kept us afloat.

 

It had all gone fairly quiet on the Erudio front until a few weeks ago when a "remedy of account" package arrived with statements dating back to 2015, for my husband's loans.

Closely followed by default letters for each loan (1993, 4, 5 & 6).

 

And then last week a letter from Drydensfairfax solicitors which appears to be a letter before action.

What is interesting is this :

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Full details of the debt are set out below:

. The amount owed is £5341.45 and no charges/interest are being added at this stage.

. A statement of account is attached.

. The agreement this debt relates to was entered into between you and SLC on 9th Dec 1993 and assigned to Erudio on 22 Nov 2013. A copy of the agreement can be requested using the reply form.

---------------------------------------------------------------

They have stated that the whole amount relates to the 1993 agreement - in which only £800 was borrowed.

The reply form also includes boxes where you can dispute the debt.

 

With regards to my account, I have received the same "remedy of account" statements that my husband has, and, yesterday the same default letter. I believe it to be going down the same route.

We do not have the money to pay these loans and are still under the re-payment threshold.

 

I do not know what move to make next

- as I understand that now they will never be written off, and I don't know what strategy to employ to deal with this new development.

Any advice would be hugely appreciated.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Read other threads. Your situation is the same as theirs. Very easily sorted. Just take a whole to read other threads first.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

although its disjointed

read this thread CAREFULLY...

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?447223-Erudio-and-final-FOS-decision

 

same situation

 

when did you get the PAP letter of claim?

have you replied since then to drydens.

 

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 very much for your response-and your directions on where to find what I need.

I can't tell you how much it is appreciated.

 

We haven't responded to drydens- the letter came on Fri (28th sept and is dated 26th Sept) and says we have 30 days to reply.

 

I have read through the thread - I think I have worked out what I need to do:

CCA request

PAP reply form (CAG version)

And wait...

 

Thank-you for your response.

I am indeed working my way through the posts!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No point in cca

1 already done

2 the fact the loans exist is not in question

 

Your dispute reason.....

P'haps.. erudio have Purposefully produced spurious arrears to keep alive loans that should now be age/time expired??

If i read your post correctly??

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 dx,

I believe that my loan should now be age/time expired as it was taken out in 1990, my husband's however are 93,94,95 and 96, so not quite yet for him.

 

I am worried that if we do not respond that the next communication will be a court claim, and I have no idea how to defend it

- perhaps we have no defence , in which case do we try to settle??

 

We have not, as the person in the other thread did, filled out either slc or erudio deferment forms on a regular basis after they ignored the letters and forms we sent in 2015, in which we gave them income details that would qualify for deferment for 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16.

 

Do we just need to provide them with income details for 2016/17, 2017/18 on an old slc deferment form to Erudio?

I just don't know any more.

 

The drydens PAP letter of claim relates to my husband's account and actually I don't know what the dispute is - apart from there were no problems till it was Erudio…

 

So downhearted ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

forget your stuff its confusing matters

this is solely for a dec 1993 loan

its age barred in December

 

I would suspect [as you are the 2nd this week] that arrows have simply sent out a whole tribe of these letters whereb theres been no favourable activity for them in several years.

 

if you go read that other thread it has my musings on drydens and why those letterheads are used.

 

with regard to THIS LOAN only.

you have written to arrows in one form or another from your present address regarding THIS LOAN.

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 under one number!! of the 1993 loan?

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 number they have used is the reference number that Erudio have been using

- Erudio sent four separate letters when they the remedy of account letters and four separate letters about the arrears for each of the loans

- but they use the same reference number at the top of each letter for all the loans.

 

This is the reference number that drydens are using - but the wording is as follows:

The amount owed is £5341.45...

A statement of account is attached.

The agreement this debt relates to was entered into between you and student loans company on 9 December 1993...

 

It doesn't refer to the other years, and the statement of account just has the same ref no and just says

Start balance £5020.93

Total interest £320.52

Current Balance £5341.45

 

Statement date 17/09/2018.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well they cant lump them all together as they are sep agreements for each year.

 

its just another pointer to it being an automated rubbish letter, trying to elicit a response.

the issue here is its a PAP letter as far as I can make out, with the usual attached response form

which if we go by typical threads here NOT SLC related, should be replied too.

 

The easiest way to deal with this is ignore, but i'm swayed to use this to his advantage

but that ofcourse continues what I must say has obviously been a long period of pointless letter tennis on you behalf on both your situations.

 

What ideally should have been done was to continue each year sending referral forms but I gather these have not been done.

 

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

With hindsight, yes I can see that ideally we should have done that

- we supplied them with 3 years

- taking us up until 2016,

when we put in our complaint , which, as you rightly point put out was a series of pointless letter tennis.

 

The last two years were so difficult with my husband's health I just couldn't deal with them anymore and stopped.

 

I'm just wondering whether to send the last two years' deferment forms off to Erudio and reply to drydens

- but not sure how to

- there is no box in the PAP reply form to state that the debt is technically owed but doesn't fulfill the criteria that allows it to be enforced.

 

Do I just dispute the debt ?

If I ignore it, do I run the risk of court proceedings

And would they see that through?

 

I wonder how that would play out

- could you argue that as they had changed the terms and conditions they couldn't then penalise you for not complying with their (new) terms and conditions

And that it was miss sold in the first place ?

Hard to know.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

save me looking back as im on a small screen all day

but you DID receive that reply form attached in post 4 of that PAP thread I pointed too earlier?

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.

 

I think you've got a good case to get these written off.

there is a section on the reply for regarding disputes

simply refer them to your letters already sent and the CEO etc

and the loan is in serious dispute and you deny any arrears.

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 gather that previous comms would curtail you from now saying we did send deferment forms if you now claim you did and inc 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

I was thinking the same thing myself...

Erudio denied receiving letters that we sent to them before and when we complained to the ombudsman they said we didn't send them.

From other posts on the forum it seems that they don't always include your letters/communications when you do an SAR too.

Perhaps we should all play by their rules...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that gives you an opening them to say you did send them?

though ofcourse, you would already have mentioned this in a letter/complaint if you did..

..or might you have not specifically stated nor mentioned then before?

check you letters p'haps?

 

I see an opening here yes..but just also bear in mind, the person that opens your drydens PAP response form wont have a clue nor know or probably not have access to anything before and will just fwd it to erudio anyway.

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

Just drydens

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

na let them request them.

 

on the referment forms front

 

print blanks out [use the slc one from this forum]

 

fill them in [written]

scan them

print out the scan..here is the copies of the two forms a sent xx dates

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

thread titled updated

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...