Jump to content


Erudio/drydens claimform - old slc loan - stayed now N244


Recommended Posts

its an n244 sj application hearing after the claimant left an earlier court claim stayed for  over 4.5yrs.

as for costs it will only be the original claimform sum + poss £275 N244 fee, even if you lose i cant see the judge allowing extra costs.

TBH: to leave a claim stayed for 4.5yrs hoping you'd moved is a wee bit cheeky and it might well get the judges back up if he's any good.

that's just not on. 

they wont accept any offer do NOT make one.!!

one tipi will give you is...... watchout for them trying to unsettle you before you go in, if you get approached, walk away and smile.  not engage with them.

they'll put every trick in the book to offset any annoyance by the judge to their very very late SJ attempt. probably moan you filed late or even claim as they do they dont have this or that, it wont be drydens either, it will be a locum to the court that will know nothing about your case. probably only looked at the paperwork that morning.  

dx

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

OK Thanks

It would be really useful if you could show me where it says in  CCA s87/8 that you cant be defaulted more than once in case that comes up. I just can't see it. 

I have searched extensively for other threads to plagiarise the knowledge but haven't found any. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesnt really matter in your case you wont have to go into it in depth.

the 2nd dn being voided because one was already issued  by slc in 2007 , (and they've produced a copy of it) is simply another example by you of their incompetence in the whole affair and how unfair this all is.

their claim about you owing the debt is not affected by their dn , as you deferred in 2014 and their claim was issued 2019 well within 6yrs so not statute barred.

it would only play a part if they were trying (like most others erudio claimform threads here) to claim it resets sb date when it was issued months/years after last payment or acking of a debt.

 

 

defaults ico 2011.pdf

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

17 hours ago, billywilder said:

show me where it says in  CCA s87/8 that you cant be defaulted more than once in case

It doesn't, you can be sent more than 1 default notice provided you rectified the breach within the given 14 days and then go on to default again. But if its not rectified then the agreement would be terminated. Therefore an assignee cant issue a further DN because the agreement has already been terminated.

 

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 OTHER

 

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

Great. Thanks for the info.

I have a supplementary witness statement back. very efficient she is, the litigator. Seeing as I sent it on Saturday. I'm quite impressed

She says this however

7.1 The Defendant’s claim that the Notice of Default (“NOD”) dated June 2016 is void is inaccurate. NOD’s can be issued after the Defendant has 4 months or more of arrears outstanding.

The Defendant can stop the further consequences of the NOD if they either (1) pay the arrears accrued under the NOD, or (2) enter into deferment within 28 days of the Notice of Default.

In 2007, the Defendant did one or both of these, preventing the account from terminating.

For the purpose of clarity, Defendant’s can receive repeated NOD’s over the years.


7.2 The Claimant has confirmed that the Defendant entered into Deferment on the following dates:
• 25/04/2006 - 24/04/2007
• 25/02/2008 - 24/02/2009
• 25/02/2009-24/02/2010
• 25/02/2010-24/02/2011
• 25/02/2011 -24/02/2012
• 25/02/2012-24/02/2013
• 25/02/2013-24/02/2014
• 25/02/2014-24/02/2015

Which plays into my hands I think?

I did not pay the arrears and the likelihood of me deferring within 28 days of the Notice of Default is slim as I only found out that I had the default when I applied for a mortgage and discovered that I was defaulted.

I am just about to go through my file to find my deferment letters to clarify. 

She offers no proof of the above deferments which surely casts enough question over whether we should go to trial?Supplementary Witness Statement and Supporting Documents redacted jpg merged.pdf

Supplementary Witness Statement and Supporting Documents redacted jpg merged.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, billywilder said:

NOD’s can be issued after the Defendant has 4 months or more of arrears outstanding.

that's a pretty senseless comment and most certainly is NOT written into any SLC agreements nor in sec 87 of the CCA nor the ICO PDF/. a NOD can be issued whenever the creditor is allowed to in the Act, but its NOT 4mts!. 

52 minutes ago, billywilder said:

The Defendant can stop the further consequences of the NOD if they either (1) pay the arrears accrued under the NOD, or (2) enter into deferment within 28 days of the Notice of Default.

In 2007, the Defendant did one or both of these, preventing the account from terminating.

no such rule as defer within 28 days , making up BS again..anyhow..

nope you did not 

A) pay within 14 days of the Date of the SLC DN dated 2007-09-11+14 days

B) defer within 28 days anyway. next deferment was 2008-02-25.

oh and i told ya they'd wave their arms around about your late filing...but that doesn't detract from the evidence.

though as i said earlier, the claim was issued in time and the debt was not SB'd at that time.

.............

your best bet is that the judge throws it out because they waited +4.5yrs to raise the SJ.

+ that he has compassion for the fact that during that time, (and does not fully understand that having arrears could  prevents both, as there is evidence from slc that they DID levy arrears and did not wipe them when they next let you defer on 25/02/2008)

1. your natural write-off ticked by

2. SB date ticked by.

 

think i got my brain in gear here.?

now if you should make your own SWS is another matter.

if you did i would not inc the green bit :pound:

i have no idea ... p'haps @Andyorch might comment

unless ive missed something (hopefully) 

ps we need their SWS Lon2 exhibit unless its contents are already here in previous uploads?

PLEASE remove your name on all stuff this time....😎

dx

 

 

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

Lon2 is just my Witness Statement, apology email for lateness and evidence which I've already sent to the court anyway. 

I emailed the court the evidence and it said specifically not to send a paper copy also so I didn't.

The deferring within 28 days thing from them is a red herring and I shouldn't bother pursuing it? Is it deliberate misdirection or ineptitude do you think? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its just the games they play hoping you nor the judge actually know the rules surrounding slc loans.

its gov'nd by the CCA and the CCA states no such thing as 28days and neither did slc T&C's and Erudio can't change those.

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

Right, Court went well. 

Judge was lovely, and fair in my opinion.

The judges thought process was first testing the legitimacy of removing the stay before anything else

She looked through the bundle and concluded that it was a mess.

She questioned why the stay had been implemented in the first place. No conclusion was reached about that from any party.

She then questioned the length of time taken to apply to remove the stay

The solicitors agent (sa) had no answers in his instruction.

He offered to go and ring Leigh ONeill (LO) and get some answers and return.

The judge pointed out that he had no powers to provide evidence which he conceded.

I think that if LO had been present and had not given the judge a satisfactory answer to this question ( which is likely) then she would have struck the application out.

As it was she made an order saying that Drydens have 14 days to provide a witness statement explaining why they left it so long before applying to lift the stay.

I then have 14 days to respond. And we reattend to test if the stay can be lifted.

It will be interesting to see if Drydens submit anything.

They have made so many mistakes on the witness statement I can see now. Just checking other CPR sections that they are quoting has turned up a few.

They ask for the Defence to be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4 (2) (b)

What it says is so not true as to be laughable

The solicitors agent brought up that Leigh O'Neill had quoted CPR 3.9(1).

The judge asked where and it turns out it is near the end.

The judge wryly noted under her breath that it was hidden .   

She then checked it and was incredulous that it was cited as a reason as it is to do with relief from sanctions.

She kept reading it and quoting it and questioning it and SA had no answers.

She was laughing at it all really .

The judge was following this list when looking at removing the stay

WWW.33BEDFORDROW.CO.UK

A claim will be automatically stayed under CPR r.15.11(1) where the claimant allows 6 months to pass from the end of the period for filing a defence,

From this it is possible to discern that, when applying the test of ‘appropriateness’, Chief Master Marsh considered the following as some of the important factors in the balance:

  1. Whether the claimant had an adequate explanation for the delay;
  2. Whether the claimant’s claim has (at least) a real prospects of success;
  3. The defendant’s behaviour, and including his engagement with the court process, and whether any delay was caused by the defendant’s actions; 
  4. The nature and extent of any prejudice the defendant would suffer in the event that the stay is lifted;
  5. Whether any attempts were made by the claimant, within the 6 months, to ‘revive’ the claim. 

I don't know if this exists anywhere in the legal procedures? 

The judge thought so little of their application and application for costs that she asked me what my costs were.

I didnt understand what she was getting at at the beginning and said I didnt have any,

I caught on and then piped up with missing a day of work.

She offered me half a day, asked how much it was and then said that I can apply to have that paid by Drydens.

Certainly a good conclusion 

Thank you everyone for your help. Especially dx and Andyorch. 

Will see what happens next

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, billywilder said:

The judge pointed out that he had no powers to provide evidence which he conceded.

good judge!! we've said that for a long time now. only the writer of the WS can.

well done

now you know hew easy it is to pull everything apart bit by bit as they always LIE or purposefully use things hoping the judge wont notice or knows.

dx

 

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

13 hours ago, billywilder said:

As it was she made an order saying that Drydens have 14 days to provide a witness statement explaining why they left it so long before applying to lift the stay.

 

This should prove interesting if they even bother to comply :roll:

 

Well done Billy

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 OTHER

 

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

It's good that the judge questioned their reason for waiting so long before applying to lift the stay.

It will be interesting to see what excuse they give if any.

I did a bit of digging on the old internet and the default notices you uploaded in posts #80 and #91 (both on page 4) seem to have been lazily lifted from the same template a lot of other companies have used.

Pity they don't comply with The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 Schedule 2, Sections 9 to 11 and are therefore invalid. 

The notice from Erudio is especially egregious as it only allowed 13 days from the date it was deemed to have been served (13th September) for payment to be made. It is therefore it direct violation of the CCA 1974 S.88 (2).

If Drydens had bothered to read the paperwork, they should have advised their client not to proceed with the case.

Well, that's assuming they have an ounce of integrity which is one hell of an assumption.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

did they comply?

dx

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

On 25/10/2023 at 22:25, billywilder said:

As it was she made an order saying that Drydens have 14 days to provide a witness statement explaining why they left it so long before applying to lift the stay.

Have you got this order in writing ?

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 OTHER

 

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

Why not leave it a few days before you sign and return it? They've given you 14 days...😉

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posts moved to your topic....please keep to your own topic.

  • Like 1

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 OTHER

 

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

read me!!

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

and?

 

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

  • 2 months later...

any news

dx

 

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...