Drydens/Erudio claimform - old slc loan

[billywilder]

Is it likely that there is a valid defence as I'd rather not just drag out the inevitable if not. 

[dx100uk]

its not inevitable

 

I don't think we've seen a 'win' on that issue for them yet. 

[billywilder]

OK, let me know how you think I should proceed once you know. Thanks for all your help, it is much appreciated.

[billywilder]

Anything that I should be doing in the interim?

[dx100uk]

been reading up on like threads ....

like post 8 here?

 

[billywilder]

They appear to have tightened their act up. I have checked the claim form and they state the two individual account numbers from SLC and then group the totals together for the claim form. Anything else I can do?

[dx100uk]

doing fine

look at other erudio claimform threads

find the holding/no paperwork defence ready for friday

read that thread ive linked to above

some good points to understand there upon how these claim rollout eventually

[billywilder]

Reading through other similar defences it appears that the holding defence relies on having applied for paperwork and not having received it.

 

I sent my CPR 31.14 yesterday and haven't sent a CCA request as I already sent one a few years ago to Erudio.

 

Is it worth sending another CCA request now to make this defence more congruent or just leave it relient on the CPR 31.14 request?

[Andyorch]

No need as long as you retained proof of the original request and any response.

 

Andy

[billywilder]

1.The Claimant claims 4540 for monies due from the defendant

 

2. This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and The Student Loans Company.

Each agreement had an individual account number as follows

 

3. The defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s) being terminated.

Notice of such is served by a Default or Termination Notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s).

 

4.The debt was assigned to the Claimant on 22/11/2013 with a notice provided to the Defendant.

A new master reference number gfjsdhgskjdfhskjdfhskj was also applied upon assignment.

 

The Claimant has complied 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 & 2 are noted the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with the original creditor - The Student Loans Company. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or debt nor do I recognise the agreement numbers the claimant refers to .The Defendant has sought verification from the Claimant by way of a section 77 request which as to this date has failed to comply and remains in default.

 

2. Paragraph 3 & 4 are denied. I am not aware of any service of a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the consumer credit Act 1974 by the claimant nor the original creditor, nor of any legal assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 section 136 (1).

 

3. On receipt of the claim, requests for information pursuant to CPR 31.14 were posted to the Claimant’s address on 3rd July 2019. To date the claimant is in default of my Section 78 request and their solicitors have yet to reply to my CPR request.

 

4. 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.

 

 

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

 

 

6. 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.

 

 

7. 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]

they are all part of the arrows group [erudio too]

 

 

[billywilder]

Old ones that I found going through the paperwork. 

[dx100uk]

keep them to yourself them.

leave the defence as is .

 

but you need to address your no.2 as that doesn't refer to the correct NOA para from their poc

[Andyorch]

Defence checked and edited in post #60

[dx100uk]

Thanks andy

 

DX

[dx100uk]

file post 60 on mcol website

[billywilder]

Just sent, Thanks for your help

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened.

 

HB

[billywilder]

Hello again. I just received this and need to know if I need to respond. It implies that they are looking to lift the stay if they can. Possibly because I last deferred in 2016 and so the debt will become statute barred this year potentially? Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. 

 

Because I messed up and logged into the mcol claim with the wrong account before my previous defence. I need to do more research to follow it up and check on its status. 

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

The letter from Drydens

20220307_091141.pdf

[dx100uk]

Cant be sb'd

claimform stopped the clock.

 

safe to wait just trying to intimidate and harass you

 

Dx

[billywilder]

Have I returned back to the deferment process if i am not able to get the debt sb and so should be filling the forms etc? I was mostly trying to ignore them.

[dx100uk]

eh?

cant be SB'd a claim has been raised that stopped the clock upon issuance and has not be struck out nor discontinued.

 

get reading up on SLC claimform threads.

 

nothing you can do, let it run

see if they follow through their 'threat'

many times they do NOT.

and they have no DN's either.

 

dx