Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, you should have applied for an immediate strike out as soon as the deadline expired. Without the agreement, they are stuffed Forget Barclaycard, Asset link is now the creditor, and it is down to them to provide the agreement.  That needs to go into the witness statement. They have not provided the agreement contrary to directions of the court and request the court strike out the claim as to the original court directions.
    • I did not receive a notice via post but in my claim status it shows my claim was transferred to a court I requested in my DQ, as it is closer to me.    Defense I filed:  1.       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. 2.       The defendant paid the lead tenant a fixed sum monthly bill without fail for the extent of the rental period of the accommodation their contract was associated with who was responsible to make payments to the claimant, ending in June 2023. 3.       After moving out, a month later, the claimant wrote to state that an outstanding sum existed. Further stating, as one of the 10 tenants at the time, I now owed them the full sum instead of my 1/10 proportion of said debt, as 10 students were at the dwelling. They also intimated that they were legally allowed to charge me the full sum if the other renters were not to pay their share under some equal and joint severity rule. 4.       Despite sending numerous requests prior to the court claim being raised for copies of said bills for said utilities covered by the agreement, the claimant failed to send any clear bills. This included a CPR 31.14 on xx/xx/xxxx sent via post. 5.       The defendants stress that they acted in good faith to settle the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the confirmation received from the claimant.  Any subsequent demands for additional payments are unwarranted and contradict the claimant's previous acknowledgment of settlement. 6.       Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: - a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) 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 prove the allegation                  that the money is owed. 8.It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
    • Paint is a free programme on any Windows PC. But don't worry, the choice here is not either perfection or nothing. As you say, use your scanner, save the file ... and then use the "choose files" option when you post to CAG to add the file. We can do all the redacting and converting to the correct file type at this end.  The important thing is just to get the info to us. Why not do an experiment this afternoon and see if the above works?  
    • I see they're trying to round up asylum seekers and lock them up for about three months so they can be put on planes to Rwanda. I'm a bit surprised that this is legal.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Erudio/Drydens PAPLOC Now Claimform - slc loans 95 / 96


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 122 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have received notification from Erudio of their account transfer to a new agency, namely their solicitor Drydens Fairfax (dated 19/SEP/2018).

Following this I waited to hear from Drydens and nothing came.

They have now sent a duplicate of their notification with all the same account details (this one dated 31/MAY/2019).

 

This was time it was subsequently followed by a letter from Drydens Fairfax Solicitors (dated 03/JUN/2019), they suggest this is a "Letter of Claim" claiming an Outstanding amount of nearly £4k. They include what appears to be an unbranded statement of account for 17/SEP/2018 which lists 4 credits to the account which they describe as interest, yet in the headers it shows Total Credits (~£300) and Total Interest as (~£200).

 

I completed deferments from loan inception in 1995 until the loan was sold from SLC to Erudio. I didn't complete the new deferment forms as they conferred extra rights.

 

I had sent deferment for 2013 - 2014 to SLC and I was adviced after this that my file and all correspondence including the deferment would have been sent following this deferment to Erudio. Thus I didn't complete the deferment that Erudio sent.

 

I am unsure if I completed 2014 - 2015 before the transfer and this would appear significant in terms of Statute Barring.

I had made a complaint against SLC however I believe this was after the file had been transferred and thus I don't believe Erudio have this.

 

Looking  back through my records Erudio sent a default notice on the 2/FEB/2016.

I have never sent anything to Erudio. SLC did not have my bank details and I'd made voluntary payments back in 2009 but nothing since.

 

Looking at the historic repayment thresholds I have always been under the income limits.

 

I don't know if it's relevant but following Erudio's takeover I received nothing but the original notification of take over and a deferment form.

As I explained above I had just deferred with SLC and thus this was ignored.

 

I received a Remedy of Account notice indicating that they are required to send notices to their customers to inform them of the status of their account.

They list the take over date as 01/MAR/2014 and suggest that they hadn't sent the statutory notices that they were supposed to and they had now been enclosed with the letter.

 

They suggest they haven't charged interest whilst the CCA communications have been outstanding on the account and that interest will continue with effect of 01/DEC/2015. The letter also suggests an arrears amount of ~£1500.

 

Interestingly the Drydens letter states that they took over the account in NOV/2013 and that my loan relates to `1996.

 

How should I proceed which templates do I send and to whom?

I haven't replied to their Letter of Claim or completed the enclosed form.

I assume doing so is ill advised.

 

They suggest I have 30 days to respond to the letter (03/JUN/2019).

I have been hesitant to put exact figures in case they haunt the forums which given everything I've heard wouldn't surprise me.

 

P.S. Thank you for being here and for doing the sterling work that you do!

You are very very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

get your finger out.

you must reply to the letter of claim

as stated in every PAP letter thread here regarding drydens/erudio and old SLC stuff.

 

go ring slc and ask the date of your last deferment.

 

if they refuse, quote them the two acts

prevention of fraud

and 

data protection act.

that they MUST hold data for 6yrs under both

and if they wont give the data you will be immediately phoning the ICO and raising a serious complaint against them.

now if they don't hold the data, as its over 6yrs old

i'd say its safe to say the debt is statute barred

reply to drydens PAP as per the other threads here

send our SB letter

DO NOT USE THEIR REPLY PACK.

 

use our in our PAP thread.

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

Thanks for your prompt reply DX100UK.

 

I have a complaint letter received following a phone call with SLC it is dated after all documents were sent to Erudio.

It states that my last deferment was accepted on the 08/JUL/2013 and was due to expire on 01/APR/2014.

 

Deferment documents had already been sent before the transfer and I was concerned that I had completed these and sent them to SLC. I was worried that although received by SLC and not accepted by them that that deferment had been forwarded to Erudio.

 

I rang SLC as you suggested.

They were helpful and confirmed that the last deferment accepted was 2013 - 2014 and that they never received and thus didn't forward the 2014 - 2015 deferment to Erudio.

 

So if they are to be believed and I didn't do something stupid and forward the SLC form to Erudio directly then the last official contact is 08/JUL/2013 thus it will become statue barred on 08/JUL/2019?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no the debt is SB'd , just because SLC took a few month to actually register your last deferral is not your problem.

 

 

 

 

use our reply pack in either post at the end here

 

 

 

 

 

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...

Thank you DX100UK.

 

I sent the forum's reply pack and a formal request for a copy of the signed credit agreement and enclosed the postal order on the 27/JUN/2019. I sent the formal request direct to Erudio and a copy of the formal request to Drydens along with the reply pack. In it I stated that the debt was statue barred.

 

I received no reply as yet.

 

However on the 09/JUL/2019 I received another letter of claim which appears to be an exact copy of the initial one (which again states I have 30 days to respond). How should I deal with this in your opinion?

 

Do I reply again as before including a second postal order or ignore it or something else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

just send them our SB letter in the debt collection section of our library

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Erudio/Drydens letter of claim - slc loans 95 / 96
  • 1 year later...

open

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I need further help please.

Following on from my previous descriptions above, the following has occurred:

 

17 Dec 2019 Letter received from Drydens Fairfax along with copy of credit agreement, statements of account, notice of default etc.

 

The letter also stated "Please note that we are still awaiting further documentation in relation to this account therefore the account will remain on hold and we will contact you as soon as a response is received from our client." (No other information has followed to date, nor an acknowledgement that the account was said to be on hold.)

The letter stated an apology for the delay in providing the information.

 

Is this significant if they did not return this information within the statutory time limit after my request nearly 6 months before?

 

To note: in the statements of account, it shows payments made to Student Loans Company up until 21st February 2014.

My own records show payments up until 16th August 2011, however I do not seem to have the records for 2013-14 payments.

 

I know my last contact with Student Loans Company was in 2013 to defer the loan until April 2014.

I have never contacted Erudio and admitted the debt, nor made any payments direct to them.

 

Jan 2020 Statute barred letter sent.

This was not sent recorded delivery and I have never had any acknowledgement of its receipt which makes me worry it was not received.

 

15 Oct 2020 Letter from Drydens Fairfax stating that they were recommencing action following suspension during period of lockdown. I did not send a response to this letter (which I realise now was probably an error).

 

11 Dec 2020 Letter from Drydens Fairfax stating that a County Court Claim has been issued.

 

14 Dec 2020 County Court Claim Form issued.

It states the debt was assigned to the Claimant (Erudio) on 22/11/2013, however as far as I was aware, the transfer of debt between Student Loans Company and Erudio took place on 1/3/2014. Not sure if this is significant?

 

I have sent an acknowledgement of service form to the County Court requesting an extension to 28 days. This was sent signed for and was received within the 14 days required.

 

I assume I now need to send a defence to the court and would appreciate advice on what it should contain.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Erudio/Drydens PAPLOC Now Claimform - slc loans 95 / 96

the debt is statute barred 

simply go file this using MCOL:

 

 1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).

 2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980. 
.
If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.
.
 3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £[insert figure from their POC]  or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.
..

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

 

Please  complete the above in view of the court claim...copy and paste the Q,s and your responses back here for further advice.

 

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 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

Cant really advise until you complete the link I provided...then we have all the information on the court claim in one post.

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

Name of the Claimant ? Erudio Student Loans Limited

 

Date of issue –. 14 Dec 2020

 

Date to acknowledge) = 2/1/21

Date to submit defence = 15/1/21 

 

Particulars of Claim

 

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 

 

1 The Claimant claims £4000 for monies due from the Defendant

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

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 00000000 was also applied upon assignment

5 The Claimant has complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims

 

What is the total value of the claim? £4000
 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes
 

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Yes
 

Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? No, but they do have current address

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Student Loan
 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? Before
 

Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? By post
 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? No

 

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Debt purchaser
 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Yes
 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not from student loans company, but from Erudio
 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No, not from Erudio
 

Why did you cease payments? Not recognising the sale of the student loan to Erudio, as Erudio tried to assign themselves additional rights unlawfully
 

What was the date of your last payment? I made voluntary manual payments. There was not a direct debit set up. My records from Student Loans Company show last payment as August 2011. Erudio records show February 2014. Unsure if this discrepancy is significant.
 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No
 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No
 

What you need to do now.

 

Answer the questions above

 

If you have not already done so – send a CCA request to the claimant for a copy of your agreement (If Applicable)  ALREADY SENT AND INFO RECEIVED

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems clear to me, regardless to what they are stating regarding payment dates and default/assignment.

the Gov't sold these debts in 2013, not sure where you are getting the assignment date of 2014 from, as their POC states 11/2013.

though both of these are immaterial ..... the debt is statute barred.

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...

As advised, I filed on MCOL that the debt is statute barred.

I have had an acknowledgement from the court and now further correspondence from drydens fairfax stating:

The Notice of Default was sent to you on xx September 2017 and our client has 6 years from this date (the last action accrued) to recover the outstanding balance. The limitation defence which you have filed is therefore, without merit.

They go on to request I settle the matter without need for further legal action and request payment by the end of the month (or a repayment arrangement).

They say in the event of not hearing back from me they will apply to the court to lift the stay on the proceedings, noting that it is likely that any such application will include an 'Application for Summary Judgment, given the evidence which has now been provided to you in support of our client's claim'.

They go on to say this is likely to mean further costs will be incurred. (They include a statement of account showing payments upto February 2014 and a Notice of Default, dated 2017).

Please advise what my next steps should be.

Many thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

read it properly, doesn't say will anywhere.

i don't think we've ever see any of these threats go anywhere.

 

 

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 years later...

Thanks. Update: Court action now being taken.

Notice of Hearing of application for the stay to be lifted, defence to be struck out and/or summary judgement on whole claim, pursuant to CPR3.4 (2) (a) and CPR24.2 (a) (i) and (b) and cost order against me. 

Their case is based on their assertion the last cause of action was their default notice Sept 2017 and court action (with issue of County Court Claim) commenced December 2020 therefore they say not statute barred. My argument was that last cause of action was my last deferral with SLC in 2013 and therefore statute barred.

Payments were continued on account with SLC until March 2014, but these were made by my mother, from her bank account, of her own volition, so not payments from me direct. Even taking these into account it was still 6 years between dates.

I have also found in my records that Erudio actually sent an earlier default notice in Feb 2016. Doesn't help my case for it being statute barred, but does perhaps show Erudio in a negative light in terms of poor administration.

I am putting together a witness statement to share documents with the court and claimant by Monday. 

Not much time, so any advice and help greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we need ALL the N244 inc ALL exhibits and a better copy of the hearing notification.

please do NOT munge times/dates figures etc leave EVERYTHING else 

you only need to remove your name/address details, the claim number and any account/ref numbers they use.

there are now over 25 erudio N244 threads here to read. most inc the one 2 days ago are wins for us.

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 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

  • 3 weeks later...

well?

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...