Erudio Claimform - Old Student Loans - poss Statute Barred.

[Nurselayer]

Hi folks, 

Today I received to NOSIA letters regarding my accounts, they also came with FCA information leaflets.

Now, if we look at the guidance given by The Financial Conduct Authority in its Consumer Credit Source Book, in particular at Chapter 13, “Guidance on the duty to give information under sections 77,78 and 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974”, in particular I should like to look at   Part 13.1.6 “Failure to Comply” which states:

(1) Failure to comply with the provisions means that the agreement becomes unenforceable while the failure to comply persists, and the courts have no discretion to allow enforcement.

(2) In such cases, a firm should in no way, either by act or omission, mislead a customer as to the enforceability of the agreement.

(3) In particular, a firm should not in such cases either threaten court action or other enforcement of the debt or imply that the debt is enforceable when it is not.

(4) The firm should, in any request for payment or communication relating to a payment (other than a statement issued in accordance with the CCA or regulations made under it which does not constitute or contain a request for payment) in such cases, make clear to the customer that although the debt remains outstanding it is unenforceable.


Given that the judge ruled that this was stayed until Erudio fulfill their obligations under S.77 of the CCA and Erudio have not sent me anything other than these two NOSIA letters, can (and should) I put in a complaint to the FCA about them breaching the above guidance?

Also, at the bottom of these letters, it states that "Your account is administered by Arrow Global Ltd...Arrow Global Group is authorised and regulated...by the Financial Services register under registration number 718954.  - Except, if you look up that number on the Financial Services register Arrow Global are no longer authorised by the FCA.  

The question is, could I (and should I) put in a complaint to the FCA and will it effectively make any alleged debt completely unenforceable in perpetuity? Isn't it illegal to attempt for companies to attempt to enforce debts if they aren't registered by the FCA?
 

[dx100uk]

simple ans is no.

even if an agreement is poss not enforceable, the 'creditor' should they wish to charge arrears fees and interest must abide by the FCA regulations and send a NOSIA.

ignore it , it means nothing.

dx

[Nurselayer]

But surely by sending these they are breaking the FCA guidelines, as I quoted? 

Also, what about the point that I've made about non-registered firms trying to enforce debts? I thought that was illegal?

I'd contend that simply by sending the NOSIA they are breaching FCA rules, and certainly by purporting to be registered when they aren't they MUST be breaking these guidelines.  Surely there must be some penalty or sanction for this?

[dx100uk]

they are registered under the parent company 

they purchased the debt and everything that goes with it under a deed of assignment with the Original Creditor and sent a notice of assignment. that makes them the  owner ...the Creditor.

just because an agreement might not be enforceable, or has or has not be proved by your court case to be so, it doesn't absolve them from it's terms and conditions.

Information sheets: consumer credit

WWW.FCA.ORG.UK

---

Use these information sheets to let consumers know their rights and responsibilities when you send arrears and default notices.

a NOSIA is a nothing letter.. 

not sure why you are getting upset about it.

dx

 

[Nurselayer]

It's not that I'm getting upset about it, I'm just wondering if I can use it against Erudio/Arrow Global so as to make any alleged debts completely unenforceable forever. 

At the moment the case is just stayed, if Erudio did miraculously find the stuff to conform with my S.77 request then I'll have to go to court all over again, and I'm not sure that I can face that - it's been a really big strain on me for the last 3 years.  If I can find some magic bullet that will blow this away completely then that would be perfect.

Quote

Also, "they are registered under the parent company 

they purchased the debt and everything that goes with it under a deed of assignment with the Original Creditor and sent a notice of assignment. that makes them the  owner ...the Creditor"

Who are you talking about here? Arrow or Erudio?

 

[dx100uk]

arrows erudio drydens capquest are all part of the arrows group and are registered like

Arrow Global Massey Limited (fca.org.uk)

as for the NOSIA it is not enforcement of a debt. its simply a notice a creditor must send under fca rules.

 

[Nurselayer]

Ok, let's look at it another way.  What have I got to lose by making a complaint to the FCA about this?

 

[dx100uk]

you've nothing to complain about.

eurodeo have actually complying to an FCA guideline by sending out the NOSIA as they are a creditor.

dx

 

[Nurselayer]

I disagree. I think that they are misleading me in by not stating that the agreement is currently unenforceable.  I'm going to make the complaint. I don't see it can damage my position.

 

[dx100uk]

there doesnt need to be an enforceable agreement.

one existed, its was assigned.

it's not been deemed unenforceable by the judge, whom is the only one that can now decide its unen

until then its still enforceble... 

 

[Nurselayer]

Ok, the judge ruled that they HAD NOT COMPLIED with my S.77 request and as such stayed the claim as until they comply with my S.77 request the agreement is unenforceable.

The FCA say:
Guidance on the duty to give information under sections 77,78 and 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974”, in particular I should like to look at   Part 13.1.6 “Failure to Comply” which states:

(1) Failure to comply with the provisions means that the agreement becomes unenforceable while the failure to comply persists, and the courts have no discretion to allow enforcement.

(2) In such cases, a firm should in no way, either by act or omission, mislead a customer as to the enforceability of the agreement.


Therefore, as per the above, the agreement is unenforceable.  

[dx100uk]

a NOSIA is not misleading you and it is not enforcement.

the cleaver word here is 'becomes,' that does not mean it is irrevocably unenforceable. the judge has not ruled.