Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Still waiting for these diagrams. We've been dealing with this story for nearly 48 hours now and we are only starting to understand exactly what happened and we still haven't got information that we've asked for.  
    • Dx100uk well not really, considering he pulled out on me from the side of the road. He should have gave way. Why do you think he has told a different story to his insurance ?   Because he knows if he has said he pulled out on me he would be held liable.   He pulled away from my left hand side then braked- leaving his van in an angled position, it literally happened within the space of a split second  
    • Update: the lawyer friend sent a very good legal letter last week  The third letter will be sent over the next few days - here is the proposed text - your comments welcome as ever: Dear Will & John Letter Reference:xxxx I write with reference to your recent letter in relation to PCN numberxxxxx You threaten Court proceeding on behalf of your client yet your client’s rationale for charging me has no legal substance. An alleged parking offence as a breach of an alleged contract.  I have no contract or terms and conditions with your client.   Furthermore, the sum you are requesting is fictitious. I have no intention of paying any monies to your client. You had no legitimate reason to access my personal details so are already in breach of GDPR by texting me several times on my personal number which I have not given permission for you to use.  Coupled with the several letters you have sent your persistence amounts to nothing short of harassment. Should this continue I will have no hesitation in contacting the ICO to report the breach. The letters I have received will be useful as tinder for the open fire in my living room now the weather has turned cold again. Should you wish to take me to court, I will be seeking full costs through a recovery order under CPR 27:14 which will come in handy now I find myself in the unenviable position of redundancy as a result of Covid. Yours Sincerely   Copied to PCM UK "you don't want to be Gladstoned"   Thanks AJJM
    • Letter received from Cabot - "Unfortunately  do not have relevant information on file" Requesting from original lender. Will write within 12 days with an update. Requesting I get in contact to make a plan. Suspect they will get a CCA from Lloyds so ned to think of how to proceed if they do supply one.  Lloyds did cancel the credit card and accepted £5 per month and no interest. Do not want to pat the DCA.
    • £18 billion on PPE instead of £3-4B max £22 billion on trace a test instead of about £2-3 at most as in other countries for doing better £500 million on eat out to spread the virus instead of 150M to feed kids and support local businesses   Thats £35+ billion in taxpayer money wasted    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

Loans Split with Thesis/Erudio. Defaulted Loan & Refusing Deferement

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 862 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts



I'm so glad to have found this forum.

I hold 5 student loans from years 1996 - 2000.


The 1996 & 1997 loans are with Thesis

The 1998, 1999 and 2000 loan are with Erudio


I have never received a DAF from Erudio or signed any document with them. My loans have always been deferred thorugh the Student Loans Company, who now seem to have rebranded as SLC.


Historially I've occasionally been late submitting deferment but it's never been an issue.


I did not receive a DAF from anyone in 2017.


Erudio have sent me a default notice letter saying I had to pay my arrears of £1254 to "remedy the breach of Agreement" by 21st Oct.


For personal reasons I didn't open this letter until after that date. I rang them (sorry! - I won't make that mistake again, it was before I found this forum) to see what could be done. I've been told that I'm no longer eligible for deferment. I was explicitly told that the agreement has been cancelled and that I'm no longer entitleld to have the loan written off in 2025 and that I need to enter into a repayment plan.


When I started receiving letters I spoke with SLC (last month) and they have sent me a replacement DAF, however it only lists the 2 Thesis loan account numbers, not the 3 Erudio ones.


I'd greatly appreciate advice on where I stand legally and what my next step should be.


Thesis are also now calling, emailing and texting but I haven't yet responded to them.



Many thanks



Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop baying to their tune.

Look at the stickies of this forum find the blank slc form


send deferment forms for each of the loans and the years missed to whomever you need too.


Ignore and bounce and block all text email phone comms

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 for the swift reply.


I have 3 queries:


1. I've just downloaded the standard DAF. Are you suggesting I send copies to all 3 companies? Historically I've only ever sent DAF's to the SLC, never to Thesis or Erudio.


2. When you say send it for the years missed (2017), shall I just send 2 copies, one dated Nov 2017 and one dated Oct 2018?


3. Are Erudio legally able to 'cancel' my loan agreement and prevent the balance dropping off in 2025?


I really appreciate the help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see you've done abit of reading around.

I will assume you have a basic knowledge of...the owners of your loans are Debt Collectors hiding behind new names.



Link Financial - Thesis

Arrow global - Erudio


the bottom line is they don't care about anything..all they want is to mug people for money.


they don't care what stunts they pull to extract that money..they will pull them...or try to....


Centrally, the deferment of all the loans..no matter who has them now.. is still gov't by SLC. no name change at all


now if sending said forms, for any years you might have omitted to, is the key here and do so..to SLC

they'll either buff you off ...saying send them here ..or they'll fwd them on..or do nothing..


the fact one might be late is essentially immaterial, its sent, the info is in the system..tough on whomever things and acts otherwise.


theres no remit for the forms to be sent out, and quite often 'debtors' have moved atleast once since taking out loans.


this is why its ESSENTIAL to ensure atleast SLC are ALWAYS aware of your present address.

if latterly it becomes apparent arrows/link dont know as well then they need to know.


what often happens if forms are sent to old addresses , that's how they get around the issue and like you they suddenly start sending threats etc.


that above info essentially negates anything erudio are trying on you now.


in these instances backdoor CCJ WILL be sought as an easy option of forcing payment..that seems to be the remit currently happening.


last point...don't believe ANYTHING you are told by text/email/phone.


only writing.

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

Game on, thank you.




I've printed standard SLC DAF's x2 today. Filled in info, dated one I missed for last year (Nov 2017) and the second one Oct 2018.


Both will be sent via Special Delivery to SLC tomorrow.


Out of interest, I recall the SLC telling me a few years ago that if there were arrears on the account (from previous late deferments) then the loans would no longer be eligible to drop off. Is that also a nonsense?


I'll keep this thread updated with the outcome.

Edited by DamienJames
Link to post
Share on other sites

we have certainly seen info from the fleecers that they then can claim all sorts of wonderful things about loans not deferred etc etc

but in all truth they've never pushed these anywhere near a court to 'enforce' what they are claiming has happened so you now must cough up.


to date I've not seen ONE court case involving them and an SLC loan that wasn't simply them going for a backdoor CCJ at an old address.

[rather than an actual dispute over say deferment etc not happening, it been defaulted, you cant stop that now off to court game]


it appears , though again I will say there are other forums with differing 'stories' [and I often don't feel the stories runs right either to be truthful here] whereby people have been taken to court etc , but I've a feeling these might well either be total idiots - no polite way of expressing that any other way sadly - that didn't have a clue what they were doing, or certainly in one case, it was put up job by one of the fleecers… that someone did lose.


if you are/were not earning enough, even if the forms are 'late' or...well I sent one here is a copy..:wink: that it progressed anywhere.

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...