Erudio Claimform - Old Student Loans - poss Statute Barred.

[dx100uk]

woe slow down 

BMW v Hart is concerning an HP agreement not a LOAN - ignore

 

Doyle v PRA

it is worthy to note that if the creditor took months/years from the actual last payment /use date to issue the dn then they are very open to question, as that gives them the power to control/run the statute of limitations to infinity. .....

 

and in your case the DN was issued many years afterwards 

 

you don't have to submit a defence against an N244, you need to submit a statement.

however in your case the 2 are the same.

 

 

[Nurselayer]

Thank you. Ok, so what sort of statement should I submit? If there are other similar cases on here you can direct me to then I'm happy to do the footwork myself - I'm not expecting you to do all this for me, but I shall look at other successful cases and then run it past you before I send it to the court.

IF I am successful, will I be able to make this disappear forever?

If I'm not successful then I'm properly done as the amounts they are asking for are worth more than everything I own including my organs.

 

[dx100uk]

the debt is statute barred.

so the SB 'defence' + Default notice bit wording is really all you need to use. 

 

i'm sure @andyorch will pop in

 

dx

 

[AndyOrch]

11 hours ago, Nurselayer said:

Hi all,

So, I've got a date for the court hearing. It's in April so I've got a little time to put my case together but I could really do with your expert help. 

What do I need to do?

Do I need to file a defence? 
What should I say at court? 

All your help would be hugely appreciated.

 

Please scan redact (not the dates) and upload a copy of the Notice of Hearing.

 

Andy

[Nurselayer]

I hope I've done this right. It took a while!

April Court Docs -compressed.pdf

[AndyOrch]

See point 23 of the claimant's statement.....should you wish to respond and object you must submit a suitable statement not less than 7 days pre hearing.

 

 

 

 

.

[Nurselayer]

Hearing is in April so I've got a bit of time to file my statement, but what do I put on it? 

I see they're relying on BMW and Doyle, I assume that my statement should refute their assertion that these cases relate to mine and provide evidence where this has already been proven.

Edited March 8, 2023 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[AndyOrch]

You counter the points made within their statement in support of their application and as to why the court should dismiss their application using the same format/layout as the claimant's statement.

 

There are plenty of examples here on the forum I have drafted in the past in response to a Summary Judgment applications.

 

Make a start and we can fine tune it nearer the time.

[Nurselayer]

I've had a go at putting together a defence.

 

There's lots of stuff that I don't know whether I should contest, and lots of things that I need help contesting.

 

You'll see that I've put stuff I'm most confused about in italics but it's all worth having a look at.

 

You'll also see I've paraphrased quite a bit of their points, but I hope that this is ok.

 

If needed I can always write their points out in full. 

I've added this draft as a pdf (as per the guidance) but I have it as a word doc that I can upload if needed.

All of your help on this is so hugely appreciated, so thank you in advance.

Summary Judgement defence layout.pdf

[dx100uk]

i would not be going into any of the stuff you've mentioned, bar p'haps their ref to doyle.

 

KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

the debt is statute barred.

 

in such cases it's down to the claimant to prove it NOT, NOT for YOU to PROVE it IS.

 

doyle is not relevant at all. (even though it's by ARROWS - whom are erudio in a differing trading name.

 

vis:

 

alternative whereby claimant intimates SB date=defaulted date and that has been registered months after the last payment
.
1 The Claimant's claim was issued on dd/mm/yyyy.

 

 2.The date last payment made was the dd/mm/yyyy 

 

 3.The Default Notice was issued dd/mm/yyyy and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.

 

 4.Therefore 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 true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

 

 5.The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

 

[Nurselayer]

Ok, but they are arguing that both BMW v Hart and Doyle v PRA are relevant. What case law is there to prove that neither are relevant?

I would like to counter any chance of the court finding in their favour on these cases by showing that they never sent any Notice of Assignment...or is that not worth pursuing?

 

You did ask me to answer all their arguments point by point, which I've had a go at. I did look at previous cases and did my best to put something together.

 

My original defence was this:

 

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.

Which was as per a previous thread.

As far as I can remember I never made any payment to the Student Loans Company, I have certainly never made any payment to Erudio Student Loans.

 

 

[dx100uk]

neither are directly relevant at all

you need to get reading up on each one using our enhanced google search.

lots of threads discuss both cases.

 

there is no excuse for a creditor to issue a default notice months sometimes years after the cause of action.

 

 

[Nurselayer]

So, prior to putting together my defence statement I had looked for both BMW v Hart and PRA v Doyle. First thing I found was this thread - 

Where the judge gave the summary judgement against the defendant. I've read lots of arguments saying that this judge made a mistake but I'm yet to see any case law that I can quote. I'm not being lazy, I've just not seen any successful defences where the claimant has taken it in front of a judge.

It's seeing this summary judgement be given that makes me want to have the "No notice of assignment" as a fall back position.

 

 

[dx100uk]

you must remember people suffer judge lottery and that was one of them.

and it was hot after doyle too.

so it ws in their eyes still.

 

now both have moved on amny years and mostly forgotten,

think there are a good few erudio/drydens threads here whereby their WS tried those and lost!!

the debt was sb'd

 

dx

 

[Nurselayer]

Ok, how about this as my defence statement:

Summary Judgement defence revised 1.pdf

 

"IN THE ******* county court Claim No. ***********

BETWEEN: Claimant Drydens Ltd AND Defendant ************

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF Mr **********

 

I Mr ******, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;

 

I make this Witness Statement in objection and to oppose the claimant application for Strike Out/Summary Judgment and any costs order being awarded against the defendant.

 

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 claims that there was a Transfer of Ownership letter sent by the Student Loans Company and that Erudio Student Loans sent a Notice of Assignment on 19th March 2014.

 

No Transfer of Ownership letter was ever sent by the Student Loans Company nor was any Notice of Assignment letter ever sent by Erudio Student Loans. .

 

Erudio have had a history of not administering this account properly, attached is a letter dated 1st March 2019 in which Erudio state that they have identified that I haven’t been given certain post-contractual documents.

 

I also enclose a letter dated 8th June 2021 where Erudio Student Loans where they have said

“We are enclosing statutory documentation which should have been sent to you earlier.

 

In certain circumstances (for example if we do not hold your most up to date address) you may not receive documents when intended. The statutory documentation that was enclosed with this letter was originally from January 2020.

 

I had not changed addresses between January 2020 and June 2021 and Erudio Student Loans had held my correct address during this period.

 

I also attach a letter from Drydens Limited in response to a CPR Information Request made to Drydens Ltd on 27th January 2020 in which I requested

1: The Agreement,

2: The Notice of Assignment and

3: The Default Notice.

 

As you can see, in their response they have sent me

1: The Agreement and 3: The Default Notice.

They did not send me any copy of The Notice of Assignment.

 

I believe that this is further evidence that no Notice of Assignment was ever sent by Erudio Student Loans.

 

As you will be aware ,it is a statutory obligation for a Notice of Assignment to be sent if there is a Transfer of Ownership.

 

In the case of CA Consumer Finance v Bakkhaus the Advocate General, with whom the European Court agreed said,

“The fact remains that it follows quite logically from the objective of consumer protection pursued by Directive 2008/48 that the burden of proving fulfilment of the pre-contractual obligations to provide information and to conduct checks must, in principle be borne by the professional creditor. ………..

The creditor may be required to provide the court with proof that those pre-contractual obligations have been duly fulfilled, which, as the French Government have indicated, requires the creditor to exercise a degree of diligence in the collection and retention of the evidence of its fulfilment of the obligations to provide information and explanations.”

 

I do not believe that Drydens Ltd or Erudio Student Loans are able to provide this proof.

 

4 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £XXXX or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

[dx100uk]

drydens are NOT THE CLAIMANT.

what the beep has a EU judgement court got to do with the UK?

 

KISS

 

keep it simple stupid.

 

statute barred is NOT for you to prove but the claimant job to DISPROVE

the docs you mention are IMMATERIAL. makes not odds if they have them or not to SB.

 

you need to address (as i already have ) the dN being YEARS after last payment.

 

going downhill here NS since you 1st came here.

 

 

dx

 

 

 

[Nurselayer]

I can't find any case law to disprove the relevance of BMW v Hart or PRA v Doyle. I've been looking which is why it's taken me so long to respond to my previous post. If there is any then please point me in the right direction, all I can find is where Drydens have ceased cases before they've gone to court. I can't stand up in court and say "BMW isn't relevant" unless I can show the judge case law that proves it isn't, same with PRA v Doyle. 

 I can find law to show that the burden is on them to prove that they sent the Notice of Assignment.  Whilst our courts are no longer subject to European Court rules, a judge is still going to take that into account no?

Why is having a two pronged defence detrimental?

I also don't understand what NS means?

[dx100uk]

its not for you to disprove SB status.

you are falling into their trap.

 

ns is you...

 

 

[Nurselayer]

They are attempting to disprove that SB applies by quoting BMW and PRA.

I can't just turn up in court and say,

"These don't apply" without any case law.

 

They've got case law in both BMW and PRA, and as we've seen before a judge might take that view.

 

Surely by having a secondary line of defence, even if the judge decides that BMW and PRA are reasonable basis for their claim then the absence of a Notice of Assignment would give me a reasonable fall back argument?

 

[dx100uk]

it does not matter if they have a NOA or not, that is immaterial to SB status and is solely to do with debt ownership.

 

bmw was to do with an HP an agreement , your is not Hire purchase....it's a loan by the gov't sold to a debt buyer ... arrows group..trading as erudio,.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

Programmable Search Engine

CSE.GOOGLE.COM

clickme^^

 

 

[Nurselayer]

I had read that, and I believe that PRA v Doyle doesn't hold water, BUT why should I not have a fall back position in case the judge disagrees? You agree that without an NOA then there is no obligation? Given that they have to prove that an NOA was issued then why shouldn't I have that as a secondary argument in case of "judge lottery"?

 

 

I'll have another read but I still think that I should take a "belt and braces" approach in case. What is the argument for me not to include it?

 

I really do appreciate your help on this though, as you can imagine it is a source of huge stress for me.

 

[Nurselayer]

Having read and re-read the other posts here's my revised defence.

 

I still want to put in the absence of the NOA as I do feel this is important. As evidence I propose to submit the letters where they show that they have failed in the past to send documents and their reply to the CCA request where they did not send the NOA.

 

Summary Judgement defence revised 2.docx

[dx100uk]

No noa will not win you the case..little importance on govt sold debts.

 

Dx

 

On 14/03/2023 at 00:24, dx100uk said:

i would not be going into any of the stuff you've mentioned, bar p'haps their ref to doyle.

 

KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

the debt is statute barred.

 

in such cases it's down to the claimant to prove it NOT, NOT for YOU to PROVE it IS.

 

doyle is not relevant at all. (even though it's by ARROWS - whom are erudio in a differing trading name.

 

vis:

 

alternative whereby claimant intimates SB date=defaulted date and that has been registered months after the last payment
.
1 The Claimant's claim was issued on dd/mm/yyyy.

 

 2.The date last payment made was the dd/mm/yyyy 

 

 3.The Default Notice was issued dd/mm/yyyy and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.

 

 4.Therefore 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 true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

 

 5.The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

 

 

 

id use the default notice sb one above.

 

 

[Nurselayer]

Looking at this thread it seems that they won exactly because there was no Notice of Assignment

- or am I misreading? 

Whether or not the govt sold debts, this was a debt sold between two limited companies SLC Ltd and Erudio Ltd, I believe issuing a NOA to the debtor is a statutory obligation is it not? Without a NoA there is no contract/agreement between myself and Erudio.  

Having seen other cases lost on SB and with the absence of case law to back that argument up, I am just not going to rely solely on that defence, although it is my initial standpoint.

 

Do I need to put a Statement of Truth below that defence? Or any other information, such as my address? Do I need to sign and date it? Does it need to be witnessed/sworn?

Do I send that and all the supporting evidence to the court, Erudio and Drydens?