Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I did call student loans and they don't have any record of anything and no details were coming up with the old Student Loans reference number. They were the ones who told me that the loan would have been taken over by Erudia and asked me to call them instead.
    • yes when you get your N180 from the court. on the sols copy omit phone/sig/email.
    • you dont need a copy of the letter. just proof. it might pay you to sar SLC as if they had your correct address on record before loan sales to erudio , that will add another very strong string to your bow toward setting aside this backdoor CCJ and the arrows you'll fire at Arrows (Erudio are arrows DCA in sheeps clothing)   you also might like many others find that you still have access to the online SLC portal. that could be useful with info. like deferral dates etc and address and what they knew and when.   at present you are in the info gathering stage, the more of that you can get the better.
    • IMHO i would never have a DD setup for any consumer credit debt. they are not a priority, like mortgage/rent/CTAX/Gas/Electric.   this gives you a bit more work to do, but it ensures there is always money for the priority things that can threaten the roof over your head or it's the necessary home utils needed with one.   it's also worthy to note that somethings that are unconscious priorities (though NOT!) like mobiles/phone/digital tv and broadband etc DD's often contribute to the real priorities not being paid. careful management of those needs to be exercised, like moving their payment dates to after the priorities are deal with in your calendar, or vice versa move the priorities to before those come out.   it is stunningly amazing how many families fall into priority bill debts by blindly pay these 'mentally essential luxury gadget' bills and are in total ignorance of the effect they have upon their available funds as 'they can't live without them'.
  • Our picks

    • 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
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Statue barred question


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 710 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

Could someone let me know exactly when a statute barred timer starts with student loan defer?

Is 6yrs started when the defer finished or when it was asked for?

 

Also I've noticed when searching for answers a recent "Doyle v PRA Group ruling" in Jan19 for statute barred debt.

Does that affect old student loans?

 

Anyone knowledgeable on this?

Can't find a clear answer elsewhere atm :(

 

For my situation statute bared would be latter part of this year unless that new ruling has any effect.

 

In the meantime drydens have sent some requesated documents following a pap (even though the ones sent have their own issues imo).

 

But my next responses if required,will at least depend on greater knowledge of the s/b situation

 

.Thanks to anyone with any real info in this area.

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

many threads already here on these Dryden PAP letters

don't pay too much attention to drydens

 

its just a mass money grabbing exercise to see who responds

those that don't, because for one reason or another , like have moved and never updated SLC with their correct address

find themselves with backdoor CCJ's.

 

you indicate you replied to the PAP letter?

How please

post up your reply form with what you put...[read upload..one multipage PDF only please]

hope you used our one and not their from the pack as I've seen they have loaded questions in them.

 

for your initial question.. SB runs from your last deferment return, not its end date.

also if you've not earned over the threshold since then, I wouldn't panic about owing anything anyway

 

 

as for the doyle debacle, when we see people losing due to it, then we might worry.

I believe there has already been atleast one win since doyle , so...

its looking a bit like bmw/hart ….that didn't really actually change anything either

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 answers dx100uk.

 

About the PAP, yes I responded to it from info I read here (thanks!).

Disputed the debt and asked them for all associated docs, interest charges etc. as recommended in a post here somewhere.

 

Documents were sent to me from Dryden in last 10ish days, which included request for payment by a date this month "if the above [sent documents] clarifies matters" :)

The sent 'original' agreements are not fully legible (poor microfiche?).

And they now conveniently include sigs signed on behalf of SLC,

which were *not* on identical poor copies sent by erudeo a few years back after a CCA request!

 

yes I would have been able to defer each year since the buyout.

The first year I didn't after being told by phone that the old form was unacceptable

- and I had no intention of signing theirs.

 

I chose to dispute the debt (and not respond to them at all plus only in writing until the PAP) for 4ish years since.

when you mention "if you've not earned over the threshold since then, I wouldn't panic about owing anything anyway"

- is back dated deferment because of their wrong doings something I should pursue now?

Or wait until push comes to shove?

 

Thanks again for your help

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are ‘old-style’ and ‘new-style’ student loans. Old-style student loans are for students who started their university course before September 1998. New-style student loans apply to students starting their course from September 1998 onwards.

 

The Limitation Act says that the limitation period for student loans is six years.

 

Old-style student loans usually became due for repayment in the April following the conclusion of your course, and any limitation period could not begin until after you missed a payment on your loan. However, if you asked for your loan to be deferred within the six year limitation period, this would have restarted the limitation period.

 

For new-style student loans, the cause of action is likely to be when your earnings reach the set level at which deductions from your wages can begin. Because the Student Loan Company can take money directly from your wages, it might be more difficult to use the Limitation Act.

 

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/time-limits-for-recovering-debts/statute-barred-debt.aspx

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

so which style is are your ones

I will suspect old style as the gov't hasn't sold on new style ones much yet and certainly not to erudio.

 

there are clear cases here and on the FOS website whereby people would not use that new erudio deferment form because it was too intrusive.

latterly the FOS agree that it was and ruled erudio must remove certain bits.

 

there have been numerous cases whereby backdated SLC deferment forms have been sent, and erudio for want of another word...go away.

 

as long as they have your correct address [which they do as you returned the PAP letter]

id let this run.

 

 

I will suggest the next comms you'll get if this goes as most do, is they'll write and now tell you your loans have 'matured' and are full due .

whatever that really means is another matter that I don't really think erudio know.

but its simply another way to try and spoof some mugs into start paying.

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

but not if the creditor takes months or even years to register the default

or never does and sells it on to a debt buyer..so the debt never becomes barred..do me a favour..

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

pers I think stepchange have jumped the gun without reading things very carefully regarding doyle.

 

it will be interesting to see what national debtline comment about if at all and most certainly the govan law centre though ofcourse I believe this only effects E&W not Scotland AFAIK so they might not bother either.

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...