Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Anyway, I've asked my Booking.com flat-rent-out-bloke what needs to be done on the Booking.com portal to cancel a reservation. I got a late message "I'll let you know tomorrow".
    • I see that at the start of your thread you said they hadn't sent a Letter of Claim.  And in fact in all the uploaded material there is no LoC.  This is great news.  Even were you to lose - you won't - the judge would chop off a chunk of the money for their non-respect of PAPLOC. However, I'm a bit confused as you've named the file name as a SAR.  Are you sure about this?  Did you send any other letters apart from the one dx advised which was a CPR request (not a SAR) to DCBL (not Group Nexus).  I'm not being pernickety, this will be important for your Witness Statement further down the line.
    • I didn’t say it wouldn’t. That is not the issue here. To continue driving after the licence has expired (under s88), the driver must have submitted a “qualifying application”.  An application disclosing a relevant medical condition (of which sleep apnoea is one) is not a “qualifying application”, This means the driver cannot take advantage of s88 and must wait for the DVLA to make its decision before resuming driving.   The driver’s belief is irrelevant. The fact that a licence was eventually granted may mitigate the offence, but does it does not provide a defence.   But this driver didn’t meet the conditions. I explained why in my earlier post. He only meets the conditions if his application does not declare a relevant medical condition. His did.   As I explained, after his birthday he did not hold a licence that could be revoked.   In my view it doesn’t matter what it says. The offence is committed because his application declared a medical condition. Meanwhile his licence expired and s88 is not available to him. The GP letter would form part of the material the DVLA would use to complete their investigations. But until those enquiries are completed he could not drive.   The offence does not carry points or a disqualification (because a licence could have been held by your father). It only carries a fine and the guideline is half a week’s net income. If he pleads guilty that fine will be reduced by a third. He will also pay a surcharge of 40% of that fine. But the big difference is prosecution costs: a guilty plea will see costs of about £90 ordered whilst being convicted following a trial will see costs in the region of £600.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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

Backdoor CCJ Erudio/Drydens - old SLC Loans - successful set a side- *** Claim Struck Out failing to comply with court directions*** Now New Claim 2023***2nd Claim Discontinued***


iabb
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 383 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

Hi guys.

 

Starting to think about my defence well

in advance

 

wasn’t quick enough in court to raise this issue, indeed this is very much a 5am thought. 

 

So the court accepted procedural error under 13.2 (rather than exercising discretion under 13.3) as the claimant had reasonable cause to believe that after 5 years of unanswered correspondence that i was no longer resident and it should have made additional checks   

 

Does it therefore follow that the court will have to accept accept that the termination notice served by erudio in 2019 will also have been deffective and that they have also not complied with the pre action protocol appropriately as the letter before action will also be improperly served and as such they have no legal redress? 

 

If the above doesn’t automatically stand, Their argument against statute barring yesterday was that the cause of action (I.e termination notice issued in 2019 as the loan had matured)  was within 6 years and therefore not statute barred. My argument will of course be that the debt was barred before service of any termination anyway, but if the court was minded to accept that they restarted the clock, would they have to prove that the notice of termination had been properly served? 

 

Lastly for now, I cannot find very much info on matured loans and course of action at maturity that gives rise to valid civil action.  They have only served a termination notice , no default notice. Is this correct? They said as the account had matured they don’t need one, but everything that I can find seems to relate to mortgages and includes a default process? 

 

Sorry its a long one, but thanks in advance 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Urgent Erudio/Drysden successful set a side now defence

Issuance of a Default Notice starts the process...not a Termination Notice

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

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

I suppose so...but where it was sent to is irrelevant really with regards to a defence....different for reasons to set a side.Now you have to dig deeper and prove why they are not allowed to enforce the agreement and due process has not been followed.

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

Thanks Andy. I don’t suppose it would hurt to try and make it as a point, but then if court doesn’t agree move on to the enforcibillity issues?

 

ill come back when I’ve crafted an out line defence and have a good read through the links above. Your a star! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

just be mindful that this 'matured' thing is a load of ole … no such thing.

 

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 guys, so I’ve had my bank statements back, and it looks like the last dd to student loans company was 10th September 2013-arrrghhh! 

 

So if they produce a statement of account, it’s likely that this will show, and the amount won’t be statute barred, I took 3 loans over 3 years, so I’m not sure how payments would be allocated or whether the payments were allocated pro data across all 3, although erudio only have 2? Anyway, will wait for statement of account and look at that when it arrives to see whether I have any hope under statute barring. 

 

If that hat is a no go I will then need to argue on the basis of process. 

 

Court already accepted paperwork hadn’t been received and the only notice they issued was a maturity notice in jan 19, then a termination notice in Feb 19. The termination notice does not give a date to remedy the breach-would it help if I posted it? 

 

Credit agreement contains all prescribed terms so is valid, so my defence is likely to be solely based around the process and termination. 

 

If im honest im

struggling with interpreting the wording of section 98, or finding anything on maturity defaults that doesn’t relate to mortgages or default processes 

 

can anyone help? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say again

the maturing label is nothing to do with any legal act

its simply a term dreamed up by erudio

means nothing

 

slc payments always had a ref no.

that equates to your account with slc

go ring slc tell them a white lie..

 

you made a payment xxx date

can they check if it got through please as your bank statement is unclear if it was ever credited to them.

 

then ask what 'debt' it came off as you had 3??

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

no such thing as a termination notice either that relies on some 'matured' loan notion.

 

 

 

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 successful set a side- now defence

well where is this rubbish about the loan maturing in the slc agreement/ T&C's??

I cant find it so any termination notice is thus bogus.

 

they have 6 weeks to produce their paperwork.

 

I think SB could be a runner here.

 

did you ring slc quoting post 6

if you did make those payments the MUST still hold your data.[within 6yrs]

 

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

Fixed term loans do have a maturity point unlike  running credit, when it reaches the end of the set payments period IE  3 years = 36/5 years = 60/7 years  = 84  payments.

 

But fixed terms loans are also subject to sections 87/88 of the CCA 1974 IE Default Notice and should you default within the given number of payments the loan is then subject to a default and possible termination...so in effect it never reached its set fixed plan or maturity date.....because the default notice would have halted the set term.

 

In the interim the creditor would or should serve a Notice of Sums in Arrears in the event that a default notice was not issued ...then a default notice which can also act as a termination notice ...and then a termination notice if not already terminated by the default notice. 

 

So to say that a loan had passed its maturity date....with no default during the fixed term ..there would be no requirement for a termination notice as the last payment would complete the full term and end the agreement.

 

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

I’ll post up the notices later so you can see. In work at moment.

 

So far they have failed to produce a default notice  or notices of sums in arrears, only this maturity notice and a termination notice neither of which give any opportunity to remedy a breach or any timescales for doing so 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

have they not already gone past the deadline ?

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

No deadline is today,

they were given 6 weeks to produce everything including a full statement of account from inception to now.

I then have 2 weeks to amend and serve my defence.

 

Today is their deadline,

if they are true to form I’m expecting something to land today,

but if it doesn’t can I make an application to have this struck out? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

go ring SLC today.

 

under the 

prevention of Fraud act

and

the data protection act

 

slc MUST hold your data for 6yrs.

 

you demand them to either:

 

confirm your last payment date

or

confirm they do not hold your data because the debt is over 6yrs old.

 

if they refuse..

then ask to speak to a supervisor 

tell them immediately you have finished this call you will ringing the ICO and be opening a serious complain against them and be seeking financial compensation.

 

do not take no for an answer.

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

Sorry DX I’m confused, I’ve already done that, they told me months ago they had no data on their systems in relation to their account.

 

the court ordered erudio to produce and they had till today to produce-my question is, if they don’t, is there some kind of application I can make to get their claim dismissed? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

the answer of no data is not good enough and not correct

that's a fob off

I believe they said it was locked and they couldn't access it..that is not correct

its either of the 2 answers ive outlined.

 

we've had this with SLC before numerous times.

threaten the ICO with them.

 

if they cant access the info then that must be confirmed its because it over 6yrs old and thus the debt is statute barred..

 

as for the court ...

give it till Monday and ring the court and tell them the claimant has failed the judges directions.

they should then probably strike it out for you.

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

Refer back to the order what if anything does it state if either party fail to comply with the order...sanctions ?

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...