Erudio/Shoosmiths Claimform - 1995-98 SLC Loans - ignored or returned everything since 2013

[PercyPercy]

Hello,

I'm in a spot of bother with Erudio.

Thought I was being clever/daring etc... by returning their letters over the last five years

last week received a claim form through the post, at which point I (sensibly) lost my nerve and found CAG whilst searching the internet for help.

Have followed the advice in the small claim thread, filed my AOS (today), and written CCA Request and CPR31.14 to post tomorrow.

 

Details of claim below:

 

Name of the Claimant:Erudio Student Loans Limited C/O Wilmington Trust

Date of issue: 21 NOV 2018

 

Particulars of Claim:

 

1. The claimant's claim is for monies due from the defendant under the regulated agreement(s) between the defendant and Student Loans Company Limited under master reference xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and assigned to the claimant on 22/11/2013, notice of which has been provided to the defendant.

 

2. The defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement(s) and default notice(s) have been served pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

3. The claimant claims the sum of £7116

 

4. The claimant has complied, as far as is necessary, with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?Possibly. However, any post relating to Erudio would have been returned to sender

 

What is the total value of the claim?£7626 (including court fee & costs)

 

Is the claim for - Mortgage style student loans taken out between 1995 and 1998

 

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

 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Don't think so. Experian rating was 999 as of 26/11/18

 

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 Student Loans Limited

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware loans had been sold to Erudio, and was sent a notice of assignment, but returned it.

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I don't know. (sorry)

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? I've been returning post about once a year.

 

Why did you cease payments? My income has never been over the threshold for repayment. Whilst the loans were held by SLC, I deferred every year. I took an ideological stance when the loans were sold to Erudio and decided to return letters with a RTS label. I thought it was worth a try. (What a wally!)

 

What was the date of your last payment? I last deferred 25/04/2013

 

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

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

 

 

I have written the CCA request and CPR31.14 and these will go in to the post, recorded delivery, tomorrow.

 

I have also registered with MCOL and filed AOS, ticked 'defend all' and not ticked the 'juristiction' box.

 

I'm following other threads concerning Erudio.

 

Next step? Await response and start researching legal successes for suitable defence?

 

Thank you

(feeling very grateful to have found you!)

Edited November 28, 2018 by dx100uk
format

[dx100uk]

:frusty:

 

3rd one that's ignored everything and now with a claimform.

really makes me wonder where anywhere on the net it says IGNORE them totally.

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?491501-erudio-drydens-claimform-old-SLC-1997-2000-ignored-everything-since-2013(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?491020-Erudio-drydens-Claimform-SLC-Loan-ignored-everything-inc-recent-PAP(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[PercyPercy]

[Hangs head] I was following advice from a particular group that has now since disbanded.

 

Its been an anxiety inducing few days, as this represents an extremely large sum.

From reading other posts there doesn't seem to be much to lose from defending the claim.

Worst case, I get a CCJ and would have to pay the full amount back, which would happen anyway if I were to admit the sum.

 

At least as I understand the present situation.

Edited November 29, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[dx100uk]

have you earned over the threshold in all the individual years you failed to defer?

[PercyPercy]

Never

[dx100uk]

So the only thing you didnt do is send deferment forms for a number of years

Effectively you owe nothing.

 

This is what im toying with for you 3

[PercyPercy]

That's right, I didn't send deferment forms and ignored/returned other items of post, even though I would have been eligible to do so.

 

I have the CCA request and CPR 31.14 letters on me today to post - that's the next thing to do, right?

 

And thank you for giving this matter your attention DX. I feel extremely stupid for getting myself into this situation.

Edited November 29, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[dx100uk]

yes that's next.

 

there are 100's of erudio SLC claimform threads here

 

use the search CAG box of the top red toolbar to READ THEM ALL.

 

there are 3 of you in the same boat right now - threads with ignored everything in the title

each will I suspect be a slightly differing defence … the one that's over the threshold ofcourse will be]

but the approach and progression of the claim will be the same

 

get reading

DONT miss your defence no matter what does or doesn't return/happen.

 

 

yours is due by 4pm Friday 21st dec ...33 days from the date on the claimform as advised above in that link

[PercyPercy]

Thank you.

Letters went first class recorded today.

Important dates are on the calendar.

Will follow other threads and read up.

Is there any benefit to submitting a defence earlier than the deadline (but after the CCA deadline?)

[dx100uk]

yes they might comply after you've sent it early

[PercyPercy]

Okay, thanks for the advice.

 

I received a bulk produced letter from Shoosmiths today.

 

Here's the main body of text:

 

OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID A COUNTY COURT JUDGEMENT

You will be aware we recently issued legal proceedings in this matter through the County Court Bulk Centre (CCBC). We have now retrieved notice of issue confirming Erudio Student Loans Limited will be at liberty to request Judgement against you on 10/12/2018 for the full balance and additional costs.

 

HOW THE JUDGEMENT MAY EFFECT YOU

The County Court Judgment (CCJ) will stay on the Register of Judgements, Orders and Fines for 6 years. This may affect your ability to obtain credit and other financial services. Banks and loan companies use this information to decide whether to give you credit or loans.

 

If you pay withing a month

If you pay the full amount within a month of the Judgement Order you can get the Judgement removed from the register and any Credit Reference Agency

 

If you pay after a month

If you pay the full balance after a month, you can get a record of the Judgement marked as 'satisfied' in the register. It will stay on the register (and at the Credit Reference Agencies) for 6 years but people searching the register will see that you've paid.

 

HOW TO YOU AVOID THE COUNTY COURT JUDGEMENT (CCJ) (their error)

 

To avoid a CCJ being registered against you, Erudio Student Loans Limited will require a payment in settlement of the account. Without Predudice, in some circumstances, Erudio Student Loans Limited may be willing to accept an amount less than the current balance. Should you want to discuss this option, please contact our offices on the direct line provided below.

 

There are numbers to call, ways to pay and on the reverse an 'important' message saying that if I am planning to seek advice its essential I let them know (as in the absence of your contact further action may continue)

 

Its downright misleading with reference to dates, and I'll be filing this one away whilst we get on with the job in hand.

[dx100uk]

in otherwords a begging letter

ignore

its FAR better you scan these bothsides of all such letters letters to ONE multipage PDF and READ upload so others can SEE the letter

wasting time typing out letters in pretty colours is useless

[PercyPercy]

Apologies for quality.

shoosmiths letter 30:11.pdf

[dx100uk]

thread tidy

[PercyPercy]

Hi there,

 

There have been no further letters from Erudio or Shoosmiths to date. I've been holding out to submit my defence (due 21st December) but have a couple of questions in the interim.

 

Firstly, I am correct to wait until after the CCA deadline if I am planning to file a std holding/no paperwork defence?

(Apologies that this is a repetition of post #9 - I didn't word my question very well then, and have been feeling confused about this)

 

Also, would it be expedient to send SLC an SAR?

Like others here,

I've been issued with a claim for one lump sum,

under an Erudio account number,

but originally I took out three loans with SLC;

one for each academic year between 1995 and 1998.

 

From what I've read,

it seems this is not strictly necessary now,

but might be useful further along the line...

Edited December 12, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[dx100uk]

answered in post 10 ….you wait till closer the filing date yes.

post up your defence first here mind for checking

 

sar wont hurt no but you keep that info to yourself till it might be time to fire your bullets.

[PercyPercy]

Thank you for answering DX. That's cleared things up for me.

[PercyPercy]

Hi,

 

This is my first go at my defence. Would be grateful for any pointers/advice...

 

POC:

1. The claimant's claim is for monies due from the defendant under the regulated agreement(s) between the defendant and Student Loans Company Limited under master reference xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and assigned to the claimant on 22/11/2013, notice of which has been provided to the defendant.

 

2. The defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement(s) and default notice(s) have been served pursuant to the consumer crediticon Act 1974

 

3. The claimant claims the sum of £7116

 

4. The claimant has complied, as far as is necessary, with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims

 

1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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 and accepted the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with the Student Loans Company. The Defendant does not recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or debt, and has sought verification from the Claimant who has to date has failed to comply. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly provided by the Claimant.

 

3.Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant is not aware of any alleged service of a Default Notice pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974, either by the claimant or The Student Loans Company

 

4. On receipt of the claim, a request for information pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act (section 77) addressed to the Claimant and a CPR 31.14 Request addressed to the Claimant’s solicitors were posted on 29th November 2018. To this date the Claimant and their solicitors remains in default.

 

5. It is not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

b) show how the Defendant’s alleged debt has reached the amount claimed for; and

c) show the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant proves the allegation that the money is owed.

 

7. On the alternative, as the Claimant claims to be 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.

 

8. 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

 

Many Thanks

Edited December 16, 2018 by PercyPercy

[dx100uk]

pes im wondering if we should include that, even if you did recognise the debt

your threshold has never exceeded the published limits since studying in xxx yrs.

[PercyPercy]

I was wondering about that too... Could I admit to deferring with SLC, and state that my earnings have never exceeded the threshold without acknowledging/admitting my debt with Erudio do you think?

[PercyPercy]

Something along the lines of:

 

Had the defendant been aware of the assignment/debt, it is understood the defendant would have been eligible for deferment, having never exceeded the published limits of annual income since studying in xxx yrs.

 

ps. homelife beckons - will be back to this later!

[dx100uk]

let andy have a think on this

it might not be necessary

or not something until they cough and used at the Witness statement stage,

 

def is not due till Friday so's theres all week to go yet

[PercyPercy]

Okay thanks. Will sit tight for now.

[AndyOrch]

If you have a genuine reason to defend the claim then state the reason...you can incorporate it into the holding defence...simply amend your 2/3/4 reasons as to why you deny the claim.

 

Andy

[PercyPercy]

Thanks for the advice Andy.