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

[AndyOrch]

Post a copy here for checking first

[PercyPercy]

Will do. I'm not going to have much chance to work on it before tomorrow however.

 

Also today received back the £1 postal order I sent to Erudio with my CCA request. Comp slip enclosed from Arrow Global (not Erudio, though I know they are one and the same). Handwritten note reads:

 

Please note Arrow no longer require £1 fees for requests under the Consumer Credit Act. Please find your Postal Order enclosed and returned to you. Many Thanks.

 

It's not signed. I wondered if this is somehow 'complying' with the request (albeit not in the way I requested!), seeing as tomorrow would be the CCA deadline?

[AndyOrch]

Arrow always return the fee......I assume they think its makes your request void and removes their legal liability

[PercyPercy]

Good evening,

 

Here's my second draft:

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

 

 

 

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.

 

1. 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.

 

2. 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

 

3. The annual income of the Defendant has never exceeded the published limits for deferral since graduating in 1998.

 

4. On receipt of the claim, a request for information pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act (section 77) was sent to the Claimant on the 29th November 2018. The statutory fee of £1 has since been returned as unnecessary to the request and the Claimant has failed to comply with the request. To this date the Claimant remains in default.

 

5. On receipt of the claim a CPR 31.14 request was sent to the Claimant’s solicitors were posted 29th November 2018. The Claimants solicitors have failed to comply with the request. To this date the Claimants solicitors remain in default.

 

6. 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.

 

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

 

8. 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.

 

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

Edited December 19, 2018 by PercyPercy

[PercyPercy]

What do you think? I want to mention deferment, but don't want to get snarled up referring to T&C's I've never seen - that feels like admitting liability... or at least makes it seem less likely I would be 'unaware' of the assignment.

[AndyOrch]

Change your 1 to the following.

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied.The annual income of the Defendant has never exceeded the published limits for deferral since graduating in 1998.

The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly provided by the Claimant pursuant to the LoP Act 1925.

 

And remove your 3 and renumber...rest is fine.

[PercyPercy]

Thank you Andy.

 

Here, for the sake of thoroughness, is the final draft then:

 

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.

 

Paragraph 1 is denied.It is accepted the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with the StudentLoans Company my annual income has never exceeded the published limits by SLC for payment since graduating in 1998. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly provided by the Claimant pursuant to the LoP Act 1925.

 

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

 

On receipt of the claim, a request for information pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act (section 77) was sent to the Claimant on the 29th November 2018. The statutory fee of £1 has since been returned as unnecessary to the request and the Claimant has failed to comply with the request. To this date the Claimant remains in default.

 

On receipt of the claim a CPR 31.14 request was sent to the Claimant’s solicitors were posted 29th November 2018. The Claimants solicitors have failed to comply with the request. To this date the Claimants solicitors remain 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

[dx100uk]

is the bit about deferral correct?

I thought you had to defer regardless , that's how they know your income is not above the required level to require repayment at the % rate you signed up to?

 

might be a play on words, but I would hate to see Erudio exploit this in court?

[AndyOrch]

You have been deferring regularly ?

[dx100uk]

post 6/7 andy = no ignored and returned everything re: post 1

[AndyOrch]

Better hold that defence then...requires further tweaks.

[dx100uk]

plausible deniability...???

 

the defendant is unaware of any notice of assignment sent by the Original creditor - the student loans company [sLC] assigning all rights to the claimant under the Law of Property's Act [ref etc].

 

The annual income of the Defendant has never exceeded the published limits by SLC for payment since graduating in 1998.

[AndyOrch]

Defence tweaked in post # 32....given there is no reference to deferral in the claimants particulars then nor should there be in the defence...just that the limits have never been exceeded.

[dx100uk]

think you've copied the wrong bit in andy…??

it mentions deferral?

[AndyOrch]

Done

[PercyPercy]

Hi Andy and DX, thanks so much for giving this your attention. Going to file this defence (#32) shortly

[PercyPercy]

MCOL website playing up. Telephoned MCOL helpline and they recommended filing by email. Worth a call if anyone else having trouble. Will double check tomorrow to make sure everything filed.

 

Thank you very much for all your help. Will let you know outcomes. Off to enjoy Christmas now, have a great one!

 

Donation forthcoming xx (next on to do list!)

[AndyOrch]

[PercyPercy]

Hello again,

 

Happy New Year and Happy Birthday!

 

Wanted to give a quick update.

 

There have been no significant developments with my claim since filing my defence, however I have received a couple of letters from Shoosmith.

 

The first arrived on the 21st December (deadline for defence), which offers an extension for filing my defence and states CPR 31.14 doesn't apply to small claims (but they'll comply anyway...)

 

The second acknowledges receipt of my defence (feel free to delete if you don't think these are relevant/of much interest to others!)

 

Best,

Percy

SM201218.pdf

SM020119.pdf

[dx100uk]

its not been allocated to track yet so CPR DOES apply!!

 

they have 28 days to do 'something'

else it gets autostayed

costing them more to lift the stay

[PercyPercy]

Thanks DX, I thought that might be the case, so reassuring to see you post as much.

[PercyPercy]

Hi again,

 

A letter arrived from Shoosmiths over the weekend, suggesting settlement. (Copy attached). Is it safe/best to ignore?

I haven't received anything recently from the court. SLC have complied with my SAR. I've heard nothing with regard to my CPR or CCA requests (beyond my last post)

 

Many Thanks

Percy

SM070219redacted.pdf

[dx100uk]

begging letter safe to ignore

 

urm.. this is going way to smoothly .what I thought would happen. but really didn't think it would to date be so predictable

[PercyPercy]

That's a good thing, yes? The way I've just read it I'm not so sure! :|

 

Ps. Thanks again for getting back to me. You are making all the difference with this, and I'm extremely grateful for all your help.

[dx100uk]

here is a search of me on cag responding to recent threads.

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=slc+erudio+dx100uk+2019&sa=Search+CAG

 

my thoughts are that its another exercise is getting guaranteed [or what they think are] as no-one responded to the pap letter.

you like 3 here got the pap but ignored= they go for a CCJ thinking it will pass thru without question nor a human seeing it or checking it.

 

as far as i'm aware nowhere is there a case of erudio wining a CCJ whereby its defended.