Erudio Claimform - Old Student Loans - poss Statute Barred.

[dx100uk]

the claim is stayed

the debt is and remains statute barred.

 

dx

[Nurselayer]

For completeness, I have received another couple of NOSIA letters. I shall continue to ignore them.  Still nothing from the courts, I know it is statute barred but the case is still appearing on the moneyclaim website.

[dx100uk]

as it will do - stayed is not a status - it's just an automictic thing that happens and was advised of such in the letter from the court acking your defence filing.

[Nurselayer]

will that just sit there forever, waiting for the claimant to apply to lift the stay? 

Is there some point at which I can apply to have all the debt officially wiped?

 

From memory I thought it was 30 years from the date of the final agreement but I'm happy to be corrected.

[dx100uk]

eh?

 

the debt was already statute barred before they issued the claim

it's already dead and did not exist anyway.

 

the fact they issued a speculative claim, as they do when someone ignores everything, was hoping for a default judgement

 

the MCOL entry is not hurting you

 

i suggest you re read your thread from post 1.

 

 

 

 

[Nurselayer]

That's great, thanks.  I understand that it's statute barred and that they can't pursue it, but I wondered if it ever gets officially cancelled so they stop sending me letters etc. And whilst I guess you are right that MCOL entry isn't doing me any harm, it still feels that the threat of them restarting the proceedings is always hanging over me.

 

[dx100uk]

there are no proceedings hanging over you.

should they now wish to do anything they will have to pay a fee of £255 and use an N244 requesting to lift the stay.

 

sadly i will guess? this situation is somewhat of your own doing as you moved without informing the SLC of your new address and they sold it on with that existing address to Eruido, they subsequently issued everything up until the claimform (whereby they used the correct address?) to there.

 

had you received the Pre Action Protocol Letter of claim, you would have informed them of the SB status by sending our SB letter in reply and that would have killed it dead under Conc Rules.

 

As it stands, you could still send it as the debt was already SB'd upon on claim issuance so the usual 'a claimform stops the SB clock' does not apply.

 

if you read the SB you'll see they must abide by Conc rules and cease and desist.

 

 

[Will Goodfellow]

On 02/10/2020 at 17:29, Nurselayer said:

From memory I thought it was 30 years from the date of the final agreement but I'm happy to be corrected.

 

As you didn't defer and fell behind with payments, your liability cannot now be wiped off.

 

"Under certain circumstances your liability to repay your loan may be cancelled. For example, your loan may be cancelled if:

• you were under the age of 40 when your last agreement for a student loan was made and you reach the age of 50;
• you were aged 40 when your last agreement for a student loan was made and you reach the age of 60;
• or your last agreement for a student loan has been outstanding for 25 years.

 

If you are permanently unfit for work and can provide evidence that you receive a disability­ related benefit, your liability to repay your loan may also be cancelled.

 

 - Your liability to repay your loan cannot be cancelled if you are behind on any repayments on your student loan."

 

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/PDFs/42 EW Fixed-term student loans.pdf

Edited October 4, 2020 by Will Goodfellow

[dx100uk]

 

utter rubbish

 

the debt was statute barred even before the issuance of any claim.

[Will Goodfellow]

It's not utter rubbish at all, whether or not the debt's statute barred is a separate issue.

[dx100uk]

it is utter rubbish and totally irrelevant to this thread -  this debt was statute barred even before the issuance of the court claim.

 

as for NDL to state that people should now after a period of 6yrs contact one of the relevant 3 fleecers and try and defer or even worse give them free money, when the debt is now SB'd through non deferment since their sale by the Gov't is 2013, is typical crass advice and systemic of the debt help industry.

 

don't you for one minute find it rather suspect that Arrows since the Gov't sale in 2013 sat on these loans, failed to follow the pre action protocol, then through various solicitors to hide the level of these speculative claims, issued a total of (censored as not in public domain) claimforms deliberately to old addresses, then rather miraculously find the correct address to inform their victims.......

[Will Goodfellow]

Perhaps you should read post #85 if you think it's irrelevant information.  NDL doesn't suggest paying the debt if it is statute barred, that advice relates to avoiding a money claim, which has already been made in this case.

 

You're assuming the debt is statute barred, you don't know that for certain as you don't know the date of the last deferment. That's crass advice.

[dx100uk]

the debts were sold to erudio in 2013

the op has never contacted them........

[Will Goodfellow]

On 22/01/2020 at 22:35, Nurselayer said:

Why did you cease payments? I always returned Deferrment notices to The Student Loans Company as I never earned enough to have to start repaying these loans. I still haven't. But the SLC stopped sending deferment notices to me, and in fact stopped sending anything to me. I don't know when the last time I had any communication from them.

On 23/01/2020 at 00:16, dx100uk said:

yours appears to be statute barred as you've never heard of erudio so would not have deferred since your last direct deferment to SLC in 2013 .

 

 

It was your assumption that the debt is statute barred as you jumped to the conclusion that no deferment form had been returned since the debt was assigned to Erudio. Nurselayer has no idea when the last deferment form was sent and may have inadvertently returned a deferment form from Erudio without realising it wasn't the SLC. It's very unclear what date the last deferment form was sent. You assumed it was 2013 which would have deferred to 2014 so statute barring from 2014 if that was the case. Claim issued Jan 2020 so within limitation if so.

 

It seems likely that the debt is statute barred but you cannot state that with 100% certainty based on such vague information.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Will Goodfellow

[Nurselayer]

I have definitely never sent a deferment form to Erudio, as until this happened, I'd never heard of Erudio. 

 

And thanks for the information, it was the 25 years thing that I was thinking of, I hadn't realised you couldn't do that if you were behind in either payments or deferments.
 

[Will Goodfellow]

Did you send a deferment form to SLC in 2013?

[Nurselayer]

I'm 99.9% sure that didn't.  I hadn't heard from SLC since about 2009 iirc.

[Will Goodfellow]

You'll need to find out to know if the debt is definitely statute barred. It would make sense if you deferred in 2013 as to why Erudio issued a claim as the statute barred date was approaching.

 

dx100uk thinks it's stayed but you don't know that for certain, there have been a lot of delays in the courts. You could call NCCBC to verify that.

[Nurselayer]

Well, they've ignored my CCA request and my CPR request apart from to send the original agreements (bear in mind I asked for copies of all documentation), I'll wait and see if they are going to take me to court. If so, I'd imagine they'd have to send all evidence, including any deferrment letters that I've sent in the past.

I'd believe that Erudio issued a claim as they thought that some people would pay up without fighting, and others wouldn't submit and defence and so they'd get an automatic judgement.  If even 1 person in 10 pays up, then it would be well worth their while financially in doing that. That's why it'd make sense for them to issue the proceedings whether or not the debt is SB'd.

 

[dx100uk]

3 hours ago, Will Goodfellow said:

You assumed it was 2013 which would have deferred to 2014 so statute barring from 2014 if that was the case. Claim issued Jan 2020 so within limitation if so.

 

no that is not correct , its's from the date of the deferment letter (the cause of action) not from when deferment ends.

 

................

 

you don't need to contact anyone

simply look online at mcol - the last entry being the status of 'defence filed' and the subsequent letter from the court acking that filing tells you they had 28 days = autostay.

 

as for any speculation of deferment to erudio in 2013 anyway...

the erudio forms of that time were a totally new deferment form dreampt up by Arrows without consultation with the SLC nor the relevant authorities..

 

The 2013 Erudio form demanded details and the changed the T&C's

Erudio were not entitled to these extra details, nor were they entitled to change the T&C's.

The forms were ruled as void

even if people has used and return them

They did not count as a deferment.

 

i believe we currently sit at around 15-20 people here that are in the same boat, having filed the SB defence, no cases have progressed.

 

Elsewhere...i am told three cases where people had filed an SB defence were heard jointly just before covid struck this year, whereby drydens tried to argue that the ruling in the appeal court concerning PRA vs xxxx and default notice=SB date applied to SLC loans.

it was thrown out as only the original creditor could have ever issued a DN, not Erudio, SLC didn't issue DN's on the debts SB status prevailed. drydens lost.

 

 

[Will Goodfellow]

On 05/10/2020 at 22:00, dx100uk said:

 

no that is not correct , its's from the date of the deferment letter (the cause of action) not from when deferment ends.

 

How can the cause of action arise from the date when the deferment form was submitted when it legally defers the loan for a year? There is no cause of action until the deferment period expires.

[dx100uk]

open

dx

[Nurselayer]

Hi folks,

Sorry to resurrect this thread but I've just received a letter from Drydens.

It says (although I'm paraphrasing)  "Having now had the opportunity of discussing th defence with our client we have obtained the following documentation addressing the issues you raise in your defence. 1) Notice of Default 2) Account Summary.  The relevant limitation period in respectd of this debt is 6 years. The last payment made towards the account was on 7th February 2020, therefore the limitation defence you filed is without merit.

Now, looking at the amounts that they have applied to each of my accounts on 7th February they are: £0.30, £0.24, £0.20 and £0.26.  Which total £1.00.  I sent Erudio a postal order for £1 on 27th January 2020 in regard to my CCA request.  I included the following in my letter to them, "I enclose a postal order in the sum of £1.00, which is the statutory fee. Note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose."

The default notice that they've sent me is from Erudio, not SLC company and dates from 2016.  I'll post the full correspondence in a second.

What happens now?  They can't really use the CCA payment to wriggle out of the statute bar can they?

[dx100uk]

would be rather embarrassing and costly for them if they do that and take this to court...bring on drydens, my costs await paying.

the judge would eat them for breakfast because regardless to you stating the £1 payment is for the CCA fee, it's written in the consumer credit act why it's required and it can't be used for any debt payment purpose.

 

dx

[Nurselayer]

Here's the letter they sent (hopefully for the first time, I'll have uploaded it in the correct format!).  Also, it should be noted that I asked them for documentation of assignment of the debt and they've never provided that either.

 

What happens next?

Will they lift the stay and continue the claim do you think? 

 

If they do try and continue the claim, I assume that the court will notify me?

 

They say that they'll ask for a summary judgement but surely I would have a chance to make a defence?

 

 Should I write to them and tell them that no payment has been made on my account? Or should I just wait and see what happens?

 

As always, huge thanks and appreciation for all help.

Drydens letter March 2021 Anon-converted.pdf