Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 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

Dry dens claim form student loan after no response cca


Moomoomag
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1960 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

Hi

I received a claim form from Drydens limited on 2/11

this relates to a 1996 student debt.

 

I had been deferring the debt as I have a disabled child and never had income at the repayment threshold.

 

The problem started in 2012 when Erudio changed the terms and conditions

- I blanked out the new terms and returned the deferment saying I still met conditions under original t&c.

 

They refused to accept this and have been after payment since. Various debt collection agencies have been used.

 

 

last year it was Capquest who threatened legal action.

I sent them letter 1 of the three letter process in June 2017.

They responded to my request for the original contract that they had requested it from the student loans company.

 

Sept 2017 they informed me they were still waiting for a response from student loans.

No more contact from Capquest, then

 

Erudio student loans send a pack of 'missed' statutory notices.

Still no original contract.

 

Now the claim form for £7777.05 arrived 2/11 from Drydens on behalf of Erudio

 

please advise as I have no money to pay this and I believe they acted unlawfully by not accepting my deferral in the first place.

 

should I dispute the claim as they failed to provide the original contract and send this back to the court?

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ya

Welcome aboard

 

Please complete this:

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419198-You-have-received-a-Claim-What-you-need-to-do-**UPDATED-2018**

 

Ive moved you to the financial legal forum

Here you'll see several like rodeo/dry claimform threads

 

You are in a very strong position here

Esp as they refused the form and have since been carpeted by the authorities for doing so

 

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

I need to reply to this soon as the service date was 2/11

Please help. Should I just send the defence form back saying they didn't provide the original contract? Or do I mention the refusal to accept the deferment with the blacked out new t&c

 

Sorry but I'm getting very worried about what to do

Link to post
Share on other sites

complete the link in post 2 please

then we'll tell you.

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

Name of the Claimant ? ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LTD

 

Date of issue – 02 Nov 2018

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claim is for the sum of £7800 in respect of monies owing by the defendant on a credit agreement held by the defendant with student loans company under account no @@@@@@ upon which the defendant failed to make payments

 

2. A default notice was served upon the defendant and has not been complied with.

 

3. The balance owed was assigned from student loans company to the claimant and the defendant has been notified of the assignment by letter. Contact drydensfairfax solicitors on....

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Not that I'm aware

 

What is the total value of the claim?£7777.05

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Student loan 1996

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ?1996

 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ?No experian says credit score 999 out of 999

 

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Erudio

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was told student loans were sold to Erudio

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? No

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No - they backdated them after I sent first of 3 letter process to Capquest

Why did you cease payments?I'd not been making payments but deferring as wasn't earning because I have a disabled child. They refused my deferment form when I blacked out the new t&cs

What was the date of your last payment?Last accepted deferment was 2013 I think

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No only with Erudio

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management No

Link to post
Share on other sites

you think 2013...if it was 2012 that would be better as the debt would be statute barred.

can you not ring SLC tomorrow and ask

 

for the meantime follow below:

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CCA Request running to the claimant

leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

.

type your name ONLY

 

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

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

and one final note

 

don't ever use freeman of the land twaddle stuff

I gather you have sent one of those letters already?

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

Is the 3 letter thing freeman stuff? I read about it somewhere and sent the first letter

 

When I file a defence do I just say about the refusal to accept my deferment form after I blocked out the change to t&c?

Link to post
Share on other sites

not yet for a while

day 33.

 

now go ring SLC and ask last deferment date please

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 have a letter from Erudio from 2015 outlining the complaint- that I blacked out parts of the new deferment form. The last deferment was 2014 - this I also blacked out but it was accepted and is noted in the letter. So 2014 is the last deferment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok action post 7 for now

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

Sorry to be dim but is it section 77 fixed loans for a student loan on the cca request?

Also if Erudio bought the loans from student loans then they are not the original creditor so I need to include the paragraph underneath? (Just want to check I'm doing it right).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read all th e posts in the cca request thread

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...