Erudio Claimform - Old Student Loans - poss Statute Barred.

[Bertman]

Apologies for inserting myself into the discussion this late in the proceedings. I stumbled across this post whilst searching for something else and it immediately caught my eye as Erudio started legal proceedings against me for a Student Loan. The case never went to court as they decided not to proceed after I filed my defence.

From reading through the thread, a couple of issues stand out:

In post #99 on page 4 you state Erudio used your statutory fee of £1 for your CCA request to credit your account. They tried this we me as well - no doubt in an attempt to extend the limitation period.

If they failed to correct this error, their accounting is wrong. If their accounting is wrong, the amount being claimed is wrong. You can't pay what you don't owe. You should be using this error in your defence to counter point 1) (the amount) in the particulars of claim. (post #62 p.3)

Sure, they can claim it is trivial but they will have to explain to the court what led to the error in the first place and why it wasn't rectified.

In point 3) of the particulars of claim they make reference to a default notice which they no doubt will rely on in court. You posted a copy of this in post #101.

Unfortunately for them, the default notice doesn't contain the statements in the form prescribed by the The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983. Specifically, sections 9 to 11 of schedule 2.

CCA 1974 s.88 (1) clearly states "The default notice must be in the prescribed form..."

If they are going to use Doyle vs PRA group to nullify your claim of Statute Barred, then use it against them. The ruling upheld the CCA 1974  in that a valid default notice is an absolute requirement for there to be a cause of action. Specifically:

S.21 "The effect of the introductory wording of clause 8f of the Agreement ("Subject to us sending you any notice required or taking any steps required by law") and, more particularly, CCA s.87(1) is that, absent service and expiry of a default notice compliant with CCA ss.87 and 88, there would have been both a complete defence to a claim for all outstanding sums under the Agreement and an unanswerable right to strike out the claim."

These people are lazy. If they can't take the time to ensure their default notices contain the statements prescribed by law, that's their fault. If they don't have a cause of action, they don't have a case.

I wish you luck.
 

[Bertman]

On 05/12/2023 at 12:49, Nurselayer said:

he said that he felt that from the evidence that he'd read he thought that my defence on limitation was destined to fail and as such he would be depriving them of justice if he kicked it out.

This is where case law has left us - people being dragging into court over loans made over 25 years ago with a company who sold it to someone else for 13p on the pound. The judge can only rule according to the law. Whether it's "fair" or not is another matter.

If they do provide copies of the original agreement, make sure it is a real copy, not a reporoduction and they are signed on behalf of the Student Loans Company. Under section 2, the agreement is not considered to be binding unless they have signed it.