Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • oh don't you just love fleecers out to make a buck out of people they think are just mugs..
    • Useful link, BN.   The article mentions that the National Audit Office said that the DWP isn't learning anything from its mistakes.   HB
    • 1.     The Claimant claims £9,240.52 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.  Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: 01xxxxxxxx, 00xxxxxxx, 97xxxxxxx, 96xxxxxxx.   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 xxxxxxxxxxxxx was also applied upon assignment.   5.     The Claimant has complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims   DEFENCE ……………...   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 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.     Paragraph 1 2 is noted and denied accepted . I have had financial dealings with The Student Loans company in the past.  I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my requests for further information.   2.     Paragraph 2 is noted and accepted.  I did take out 4 student loans with the Student Loans Company.   2.     Paragraph 3 is noted and denied.  The Defendant never agreed to make payments to the Claimant, terms of the original Student Loans Agreement have been adhered to and thus repayments of loans are not due.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that an agreement(s) to make payments was made and a breach of agreement(s) occurred.   Paragraph 3 is denied as The Defendant maintains that a default notices were never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof that default notices were issued to, and received by the Defendant    3. Paragraphs1 & 4 are denied.The annual income of the Defendant has never exceeded the published limits for deferral since graduating in XXXX. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly provided by the Claimant pursuant to the LoP Act 1925.   4.      On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant, to which both have failed to respond to,  It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant;  the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement/assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 CCA Request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a)   Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement(s) (b)  Show how the Defendant is in breach of agreement(s) (c)   Show why the Claimant has terminated agreement(s) show the nature of breach and service of Default Notices and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer  Credit Act (d)  Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and (e)   Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.     5. On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant,  for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply to my section 77 requests and their solicitors, Drydens Limited, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.    6.     The Defendant has supplied the Claimant with a deferment letter and evidence every year that their income is below the threshold for repayments, by way of Royal Mail signed for and proof of postage has been kept. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.      7.     The Defendant has done everything required of them to qualify for deferment as per the original agreement(s) with The Student Loans company.  The Claimant has only once acknowledged a deferment letter on 16 September 2014 whereupon they granted their request to defer repayments for that year. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an 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 and Section 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974.    8.The Defendant therefore fails to see how they are in breach of any agreement(s) and deny the Claimant's claim of £9,240.52 or any other sum, or relief of any kind. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief        ……………………………...   delete the red add the blue.    
    • Is this better?   In the Bristol Civic Justice Centre   Claimant name and address xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx   Defendants name and address Nissan Motor (GB) Limited, The Rivers Office Park, Denham Way, Maple Cross, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9YS.   Brief details of claim Damages   Value £225   Particulars of claim 1. The Defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018 and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject.     2. This claim is in relation to three breaches of the Data Protection Act (2018) by the Defendant. (a) Failure to comply with the statutory time limit. (b) The Defendants data disclosure was incomplete. (c) The Defendant sent the data to an address which was not the address of the      Claimant data Subject.    3. The Defendant has failed to comply with the statutory time limit and is therefore in breach of the Data Protection Act (2018). (a) On 09 January 2020, the Claimant made a request for to the Defendant for a statutory data disclosure.  The statutory timeframe for compliance was 10 February 2020.    4. The Defendants data disclosure is incomplete.  (a) The Defendant has provided data disclosure on 25 February 2020.  However, the data disclosure that has been provided by the Defendant is incomplete.    5. The Defendant sent the disclosure to an address that was not the Claimant’s. (a) The Claimant provided the Defendant with the correct address to send the Subject Access Request to on 10 January 2020 and again on 19 February 2020.      6. The Claimant has made a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) asking for a statutory assessment to be carried out.  The ICO has offered a preliminary view that the Defendant has breached their statutory duty in failing to comply with the statutory time limit.    7. By virtue of the Defendant’s failure to comply with the Subject Access Request the Claimant has suffered distress.
    • They must have had something to hide as they have been pulled up on these deaths before.   This seems a typical case   https://welfareweekly.com/family-of-jodey-whiting-seek-fresh-inquest-into-her-death-to-examine-role-played-by-dwp/
  • Our picks

MBee

24 YR Student Loan - ResolveCall Chase visit

Recommended Posts

Hi there 

My apologies if this is repetitive  but I hope you can help as I am besides myself with worry. 

 

Like many others on this forum, I too am being chased for a student loan taken out approximately in 1994 or 1995. 

I became mentally ill whereby I was hospitalised so did not complete my 2 yr study.   

 

Approximately last couple of years,  2 or 3  'nice' letters from CQ began to arrive offering me a reduced settlement rate, 

I followed advice  received from CB and ignored them as the debt was not on my Credit Report.

 

I received a letter on 16/12  stating that CQ will be referring my details to ResolveCall  for them to visit my property. 

Today, ResolveCall have written to me to confirm their intentions to attend my home within 7 days. 

- This has left me in a panic mode as I currently have a complex MH issue as well as a severe disability.

I am still  my MH medication and housebound.

 

Since 1995 I have moved twice . 

 I was again hospitalised in 1997 and unfortunately left me with a life long  physical disability. 

  I have been at my present property for over 20 years.

I have always been registered on the electoral register.

 

I don't remember ever making a payment or directly contacting the SLC or  being notified of any proceedings from SLC regarding the loan 

-   my carer back then was handling my financial  details so would assume they would have been contacted and notified them of my illness as I also had other debts (even with CQ) that were successfully managed and paid off. 

 

I am not sure what to do now as although your site has a wealth of information,

I cannot find anything that relates to my situation

 

. I am confused as to whether the loan is SB considering that it is almost over 25 years old. 

 

Many thanks in advance for all you help

MB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

resolve call are not bailiffs

simply ignore them.

 

when was the last time you deferred your loan?

more than 6yrs ago?

 

dx

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response. 

 

It's been over 20 - ish years since I had any contact with the SLC  informing them of my illness and never with Erudio/Capquest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your loan was sold by the gov't to erudio in 2013

just send our sb letter to erudio

Its in the debt collection section of our library

 

Dx

  • Thanks 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DX  and thanks for the link. 

 

1 last question before sending it though.  If the SLC have a gone ahead and obtained a 'backdoor CCJ'  before it was sold in 2013, would my loan still be SB?

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but they haven't..

these fleecer most certainly would not be simply willy waving with powerless doorsteppers if there was a judgement against you.

 

sadly as has gone on since the 1970's people think DCA's have some kind of magical powers...

  • Thanks 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Thanks!!

Will keep you updated for your speedy help!

 

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All 

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Just a quick update, as advised I sent the SB letter to CQ by recorded delivery last week.  I also requested that their agents do not attend my property without an appointment which I was not going to make...  Today (06/01)  had a ResolveCall agent at my door (glad I have a CCTV intercom) so ignored him.  I guess he will attempt again pretty soon.

 

Stress levels are rising but hopefully this will be over soon.

Many thanks for your help again!

 

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did we say do that with the letter?

and waste money on recorded delivery ?

 

your SB letter should have simply gone to erudio by 1st class with free proof of posting from any po counter, though in this case its not needed as no legal protocols are in operation.

 

as for the silly stay away stuff, better to keep to CAG rather than stupid freeman of the land twaddle, as that shows you don't have a scoobies what you are actually talking about.


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DX 

Thank you for your response  -  I  sent it as advised.  My carer posted it on my behalf as I am housebound and I wasn't aware of the free proof of posting.  The letter was addressed to Capquest and not Erudio.

 I can't remember ever receiving  anything from Erudio and assumed they were the same company as it has only been Capquest requesting money.  Was that also another error?  If so should I send the letter to Eurdio too?

 

Thanks M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

erudio are arrows DCA are capquest, all the same lot.

 

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All 

 

I received this letter today  (attached) 

 

They say that the SLC was granted a judgement in 2002 - approximately 7 years after taking out the loan.  They say that the account will be on hold until 9/2/2020 what does that mean? Will this now appear on my credit file?

 

Thanks M

capquest 2_redacted.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh a n old CCJ

well yes they are quite correct a debt cannot be SB'd if it has a CCJ...

 

however, as no-one let alone the claimant of the original CCJ has actually done anything with the judgement in over 6yrs

they would have to return to court to enforce it.

 

and

 

as they were not the original claimant.

the judge allowing enforcement by a debt buyer is unheard of after 18yrs.

 

ignore them.

 

dx

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you DX 

 

Share this post


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...