Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Erudio/drydens 2017 Claimform - stayed - Now N244 to Lift Stay/SJ


Lopeylou

Recommended Posts

Hello

 

Appreciate any help with this. 

 

I have previously had dealings with Dryden/Fairfax solicitors. 

Apparently Erudio bought some student loan debt of mine from the SLC.

I was unaware of this as they consistently sent all correspondence to a previous address. 

 

in June 2017 I noticed some beneficiary trace searches on my credit report against an old address. 

Worried in case it was anything serious I called at my old address to see if I had any mail there relating to it and discovered two county court claims lodged at Northampton from about 3 months earlier. 

 

I quickly submitted a defence, and I also wrote to Drydens asking for the relevant document but heard no more and was aware from court document that this meant that the proceedings had been 'stayed'.  Though in earlier 2018 I noticed that Erudio had carried out more beneficiary searches this time against the correct address.

 

Now nearly two and a half years later I received notice from my local court that the are asking for a hearing to remove the stay, strike out the defence and move to summary judgement.  Foolishly I rang the court who told me that the hearing wouldn't be listed till the new year,

 

after spending a few days away at relatives I returned home on Saturday to see that the hearing had been listed for Friday and a letter from Drydens Fairfax stating that I had to share any documents I intended to use with them at least seven days before the hearing, which at that  point was impossible. 

 

I spoke to a solicitor who stated I didn't need representation and would be able to defend myself as such. 

He also reckoned that as long as I shared the information in the best time I could the judge would allow it. 

I also contacted the court about the issue, but could only speak to a court clerk who could offer no help and told me to email describing the situation. 

I have done this but have not heard back from the court I plan to ring back this afternoon.

 

Regarding the CCJ aspect I feel I have a good argument, if I am allowed to use the docs.

 

-I have a letter from SLC pre dating the sale of the loan sent to my correct address.

-They have also had access to other SLC docs which had my correct address on.

-I have a credit report showing beneficiary trace enquiries carried out against the correct address.

 

Despite all this they continued to send all documents to the address I had only lived at briefly in 2013.

I am hoping that will put me in a good position to not receive the CCJ as I have not been given any opportunity to deal with the matter.

 

However ideally I would like to not have to accept this debt at all.

But they have also included in their pack copies of the original credit agreements which I think wipes out my initial defence of not recognising the debt.

 

Is there anything else I can do. 

Their statement notes that the last time the loans were deferred was in February 2013. 

Can I argue that the debt is statue barred and if so how do I go about this? 

 

Also if they argue that my documents cannot be used is there anything I can do about this, it seems unfair that I am penalised just because I only had short notice and was away at the time the letters were delivered.

 

Sorry for the long story but as noted any help at all at this point would be gratefully received.

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Erudio N244 re:stay lift and summary judgement

simple use our SB defence in reply to the N244

email it to both the court and drydens now.

 

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.
..
..ends..

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

Hi and Welcome to CAG

 

 

I have moved your thread to the Financial Legal Issues forum in view of the court claim.

 

Quote

Now nearly two and a half years later I received notice from my local court that the are asking for a hearing to remove the stay, strike out the defence and move to summary judgement.  Foolishly I rang the court who told me that the hearing wouldn't be listed till the new year, but after spending a few days away at relatives I returned home on Saturday to see that the hearing had been listed for Friday

 

What date is the letter from the court informing you of their application and what date was this letter advising of the hearing ?

 

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

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Erudio N244 re:Application to lift the Stay and Summary Judgement

Hello andy

 

Sorry for the slow reply. 

I thought I had responded to this yesterday. 

 

The date of the letter informing me of their application was 30th October

and the one advising me of this hearing was 12th November.

 

Does this mean that they filed the N244, and therefore I just need to place the above with the necessary information in an email?

I don't need to fill out the N244 form as well?

 

Thanks

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay... so the hearing is tomorrow ?

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've just checked my email after sending off the SB defence yesterday and after they had received the documents I wished to refer to in court.

 

They are saying that in light of this they wish to apply for a deferment of the case, and want me to sign a consent order asking for the case to be adjourned for at least 35 days.  Suggesting that during this time we work together to resolve the situation without legal recourse.

 

That sounds like a positive to me as it suggests to me that they are not confident in getting the result they want.  Personally I would rather avoid having to go to court tomorrow but then wonder if giving them more time would be a mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree to adjourn.......you shouldn't have sent the above defence in response to an application to lift a stay /summary judgment.....it requires a witness statement in response to the application which details your initial defence.

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

Well not just yet if the hearing is to be adjourned......the reason they want you to agree by consent to adjourn is because if they vacate they will lose the application/hearing fee.

 

If adjourned for say 35 days you will have time to prepare a proper response...should they actually reschedule the hearing.

 

Keep checking with your cort to see if tomorrow is adjourned...once you have agreed it with the claimant...you must attend otherwise if not told otherwise.

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 agreed to adjourn, and they sent off the document to the court and cc'd me in. 

However I rang the court to check it had all been processed okay and was told that as a fee had not been provided the consent order would not be applied and the hearing is still tomorrow! 

Not sure what to make of that.

 

As it is now going ahead can I use the statue barred defence? 

They only thing I have done for this is email the SB defence shown earlier in the thread to them and the court.

 

Also if I can use it does that rely on me continuing to deny that I am in breach of the contract. 

If they have evidence that such a contract does exist that would make it difficult  to continue denying.

 

Thanks for all your help with this.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

having just re read the thread it appears this is a stayed court claim from 2017??

 

if so , my advised sb stuff is p'haps not right as unfairly the  issuance of their court claim stopped the clock at that time.

though you could equally argue that's very unfair to use a court claim to simply stop the SB clock and comeback 3yrs later and lift a stay??

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Okay thanks for that. 

 

so I don't need to do anything else and I can make the SB defence argument in court, but it might not be accepted because of that.

 

if they do have any evidence that there is a contract and the statue barred defence isn't accepted I'll just have to accept that, and the debt?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty sure you'll find nothing will happen tomorrow.

 

not sure if you've been reading around on erudio and slc threads and you've realised the following...

 

erudio only ever raise claims as people have ignored their previous communications..

in your case you've obviously moved and failed to inform all your creditors.. one being slc latterly erudio.

hence you got the claimform.

 

they have purposefully left it almost 3yrs to see if you've made the same error again and they'd get a SJ.

 

once someone replies to them they usually go quiet and let things get stayed or whatever and not proceed

there isn't one 'win' for erudio here once they are fronted.

 

also you have never earned over the threshold so don't owe anything anyway in all intent and purpose.

 

be aware they might want a little chat if they are there tomorrow

smile and walk away..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Anything to report Lou...was it adjourned ?

 

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

Yes found out a few hours before that it was adjourned, so that has saved some stress.  Will have to wait and see what happens next.

 

Thanks for the help with this matter, made it all feel a lot more manageable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

did this go anywhere further?

 

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 2017 Claimform - stayed - Now N244 to Lift Stay/SJ
  • 1 month later...

what happened?

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...