Erudio claimform - old SLC Loans

[lwoodbine]

Name of the Claimant ? Erudio

 

Date of issue – 03.06.19

 

Particulars of Claim

 

What is the claim for – 

 

1.The claimant claims £5,677.64 for monies due from the defendant.

 

2.The debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement between the defendant and the Student Loans Company Ltd.

Each agreement had an individual account number as follows…

 

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

Notice of such is served by a default or termination notice subject to the terms of the agreement.

 

4.The debt was assigned to the claimant on 22.11.2013 with a notice provided to the defendant.

A new master reference number xxx was also applied on assignment.

 

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

 

What is the total value of the claim? £5,677.64

 

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?no

 

Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a

 

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 ? In 1999 and 2000

 

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

 

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?No

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year?yes

 

Why did you cease payments?submitted deferral

 

What was the date of your last payment?2017

 

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 but sent them information last year, no response. Also made them aware there was a direct debit on the account.

 

………………..

 

Hello folks,

 

Unfortunately I was away when I received the letter of claim for this county court action and so was quite surprised to see the county court claim.

 

I submitted a deferral to Erudio more than a year ago and didn't hear anything so assumed the account had been deferred.

I've realised that I also submitted a direct debit agreement with a previous deferral (which was accepted), which Erudio have never used!

I would think this gives me a pretty strong defence.

 

I've submitted the acknowledgement of service but the time to submit the defence is running out.

Going to talk to Erudio tomorrow to remind them there is a direct debit agreement.

I presume I should submit my defence and say this?

 

I've filled in the form. Any advice welcome. Thanks

[dx100uk]

woa..slow down.

 

no do not talk to the claimant or their dogs.

 

when you got the claimform

did you send off a CCA request and a CPR 31:14?

if not follow my next post and send them off TOMORROW..

 

you say last payment was 2017...I take it you mean deferment? 

you've never missed deferment until 2018?

are you earning above the threshold now then?

 

defence is due Friday by 4pm

NO you DO NOT file the defence items you are thinking.

 

dx

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

get a CCA Request running to the claimant
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/
 leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed
.
 get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/
.
type your name ONLY

no need to sign anything
.
you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.
you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]
 

[lwoodbine]

Hello, thanks for the quick response. No, I'm still currently below the threshold. I'll get the forms off tomorrow.

 

I have deferred the loan before with Erudio but it's in arrears as sometimes I have submitted the deferment late.

 

I have evidence of a deferment I submitted in 2015 with a direct debit agreement attached.

 

I assumed this meant they could take money if no deferment was submitted? 

[dx100uk]

no it doesnt

the fact you are in 'arrears' is just them being...

it matters not.

you've deferred..end of.

 

forget the DD thing, it doesn't give them perm to raid your account and they know it

they have to be informed by HMRC  that you are earning over the threshold anyway 

and the fos has already told them their request for DD details they cant use.

 

you need to get upto speed

use the custom google search box  down on the left after hitting our top boxes logo.

 

erudio claimform.

 

also go read as many threads in the slc forum.

 

dx

 

 

[lwoodbine]

Thanks again. I might be being a little slow here, and have read through several of the other threads so maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly is my defence in this case? Just to emphasise the account was out of deferment status (the last deferral was submitted over a year ago) and I had assumed if no deferment was in place they would automatically take money from the account.
 

 

and one final question - should I file an SAR to the SLC as well?

 

 

[dx100uk]

no need for an sar.

your defence will prob be a holding/ no paperwork one.

 

 

can I just check the wording of the poc is exactly as on the claimform please?

 

as for them 'just taking the money', because you were in their eyes in arrears.

the fos got involved in all that and something along the lines of they were not allowed to ask for a dd mandate and that was removed from the pack they use I believe.

longtime ago 

[lwoodbine]

Yup, I typed it out exactly as it is on the claim form. About to send the forms off. Unfortunately I found an unopened default notice from Erudio last year that I must have overlooked. Starting to think i may be better off arranging a payment plan with them, though I know I need to enter a defence anyway. 

[dx100uk]

post your proposed defence here 1st.

 

and no you don't offer repayment..let things run the course of the claim all the way thru to disclosure stage.

want to see what their angle is here.

 

you need to be understanding why you've got this claim

have you realised yet by reading the other threads and my comments there?

 

 

[lwoodbine]

As I understand it, it's because they were expecting to obtain a CCJ by default, assuming I'd changed address and hadn't notified them.

[dx100uk]

10/10

because you ignored the PAP letter.

 

that's the only reason this speculative claim has been issued.

whatever you respond with

I can see this one like all the others they will let get stayed

as you've now responded.

time will tell.

 

now the poc

are there one or two slc agreement numbers listed?

 

 

[lwoodbine]

There are two slc agreement numbers - 99 and 00, to which erudio says it has assigned a single master reference number. 

[dx100uk]

ok fine that's the last q for now.

they sometimes slip up and only put one of multiple agreements and claim the whole sum is that one, when it was not.

 

so holding/ no paperwork defence

have a look around

pop yours up here before Friday to check it.

 

 

[lwoodbine]

OK, here's the defence.

 

1.The claimant claims £5,677.64 for monies due from the defendant.

 

2.The debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement between the defendant and the Student Loans Company Ltd.

Each agreement had an individual account number as follows…

 

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

Notice of such is served by a default or termination notice subject to the terms of the agreement.

 

4.The debt was assigned to the claimant on 22.11.2013 with a notice provided to the defendant. 

A new master reference number xxx was also applied on assignment.

 

5.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. Accordingly, the Defendant sets out his case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1.Paragraphs 1 and 2 are noted and accepted the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with the Student Loans Company. The Defendant has no recollection of the precise details of the alleged agreement and has sought verification from the Claimant who has to date failed to supply any relevant paperwork.

 

2. Paragraph 3 and 4 are noted.The Defendant is aware of the service of a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the  Consumer Credit Act 1974 however the breach alleged is not a valid reason for issue given the agreements were deferred previously.Furthermore should that default notice be judged to be valid the original creditor nor its assignee failed to serve Notice of Sums in Arrears pursuant to section 86b  (2b) of the CCA1974 and is therefore prohibited to  enforce any agreements.

 

3. On receipt of this claim, requests for information pursuant to the  Consumer Credit Act 1974 (section 77) and CPR 33.14 were posted to the Claimant and the Claimant’s legal representative on 2 July 2019. To date, the Claimant remains in default.

 

4. It is not accepted that the Defendant owes any monies to the Claimant, who is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement/s;

b) show how the alleged debt has been calculated;

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;

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity, to issue a claim.

 

5. As per CPR 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 the 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 1925.

 

7. By reason of the facts and matter set out above, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed in the  Particulars of Claim or to any relief.

 

from reading other threads, I'm wondering if it's worth sending two individual CCA requests to Erudio, rather than one for their 'master reference number'? Could get them off tomorrow in that case, then file the defence. 

[dx100uk]

no harm in sending a CCA request to the claimant for each SLC agreement they quote.

 

your 2. needs correct ref to their NOA para 4

[lwoodbine]

thanks. Revised version below. If it looks good to you I'll get it sent over tonight.

 

1.The claimant claims £5,677.64 for monies due from the defendant.

 

2.The debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement between the defendant and the Student Loans Company Ltd.

Each agreement had an individual account number as follows…

 

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

Notice of such is served by a default or termination notice subject to the terms of the agreement.

 

4.The debt was assigned to the claimant on 22.11.2013 with a notice provided to the defendant. 

A new master reference number xxx was also applied on assignment.

 

5.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. Accordingly, the Defendant sets out his case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1.Paragraphs 1 and 2 are noted and accepted the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with the Student Loans Company. The Defendant has no recollection of the precise details of the alleged agreement and has sought verification from the Claimant who has to date failed to supply any relevant paperwork.

 

2. Paragraph 3 is denied as the Defendant is not aware of the service of any Default or Termination Notice pursuant to section 87 of the  Consumer Credit Act 1974 by either the Claimant or the original creditor.

 

3. On receipt of this claim, requests for information pursuant to the  Consumer Credit Act 1974 (section 77) and CPR 33.14 were posted to the Claimant and the Claimant’s legal representative on 2 July 2019. To date, the Claimant remains in default.

 

4. It is not accepted that the Defendant owes any monies to the Claimant, who is put to strict proof to:

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement;

b) show how the alleged debt has been calculated;

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;

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity, to issue a claim.

 

5. As per CPR 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 the 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 1925.

 

7. By reason of the facts and matter set out above, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed in the  Particulars of Claim or to any relief.

[dx100uk]

missed out reply to NOA now

 

dx

 

[AndyOrch]

I have already checked and edited the defence in post# 15.

[lwoodbine]

Just to make sure, Andyorch are you saying the defence in post 15 is OK?

Presumably as I have deferred to erudio it should be the defendant acknowledges the notice of agreement - so para 3 should be denied while 4 is accepted?

 

And one final question - in my cpr letter I requested

 

1.the agreement, 

2. The Default Notice, 

3. The Termination Notice, 

4.Statement of Account. 

 

Should I also have specifically requested the PAP letter?

Can get a letter off to Dryden's tomorrow when I send the two cca requests with the originals slc account numbers in that case. 

 

would my para 2 be better as 

 

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).

 

thanks

[AndyOrch]

No its correct as is......always the section number first before the act.......in post#15

 

2. Paragraph 3 and 4 are denied as the Defendant is not aware of the service of any Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the  Consumer Credit Act 1974 nor any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to section 136 (1) of the Law and Property Act 1925 by either the Claimant or the original creditor.

 

Did you not receive the PAP ?

 

Why should 4 be accepted ....did you receive a Notice of Assignment ?

 

[lwoodbine]

I received the PAP, unfortunately I'm not at home at the moment so can't check but I'm sure I was sent a notice from Erudio when they bought the loan. I assumed that was the notice of assignment. I can upload it when I get home.

[AndyOrch]

So why would you want to request a further copy ?

 

If you have the Notice of Assignment and its all correct and valid...then remove that from the defence....same with the Default Notice.

You do know how to check if both are legally valid and what prescribed terms are required to make said notices valid ?

 

[lwoodbine]

Thanks Andy, good point with the PAP letter.

 

I don't know how to check if both are legally valid and what prescribed terms are required to make said notices valid, I'm guessing there is information here though.

 

As I'm not a solicitor so somewhat lacking in legal knowledge, I'm going to submit the defence you suggested.

[dx100uk]

how long ago did you receive them.

if it was several years, then no harm in putting lowells to strict proof they have them and can produce them. 

[lwoodbine]

Thanks, that was my thinking too.

I believe I received them in 2013 so let's see what they can produce.