Statue barred question

[currencybun]

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 February 10, 2019 by dx100uk
merge

[dx100uk]

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

[currencybun]

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 February 12, 2019 by dx100uk
spacing

[AndyOrch]

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

[dx100uk]

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.

[currencybun]

Sorry, yes loans pre-98. Thanks for the info to you & Andyorch. Will update if anything changes in case it helps or is of interest to others. Thank you again.

[UKDomains]

StepChange have already altered their advice to say it is 6 years after default notice.

 

https://www.stepchange.org/debt-info/can-i-write-off-debt/statute-barred-debt.aspx

[dx100uk]

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..

[UKDomains]

Oh no I totally agree with you. I just find this whole Doyle case so dangerous.

[dx100uk]

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.