Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Erudio Claimform - Old Student Loans - poss Statute Barred.


Recommended Posts

Yes, this is a continuation of the April hearing where their application was not dismissed but instead the judge ruled that it be adjourned so that they could allot a longer court time, and so that the Claimant could submit their skeleton argument in writing.

Given that they asked the court at the April hearing to disregard my witness statement as it wasn't served in time, I shall be doing the same and emphasising that they are supposed to be a professional firm of lawyers who have had since April to file and serve.  It won't be the main point of my defence though.

Nurselayer v Natwest - Settled in Full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

And did the court disregard your statement ? if not are you still relying on it ?

Skeleton Argument for an application to lift the stay SJ/SO......? mind boggles , surely their statement that supported their application should be suffice ?  And gave them an extra 6 months to fine tune it :confused:

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have since submitted an amended defence which has been accepted by the claimant. I shall also be sending a witness statement and supporting documents to the court and the claimant 7 days (or earlier) before the hearing date.

Nurselayer v Natwest - Settled in Full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

In theXXXX County Court


Claim No. XXXX

BETWEEN: Claimant Erudio Student Loans Ltd AND Defendant XXXXX


WITNESS STATEMENT OFXXXXX

 I, Mr XXXX, 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 9th January 2020

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 £XXXX or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.
 

4. The defendant contends that there is not and never has been any contract or agreement between the claimant and the defendant.

5. The defendant contends that no Notice of Assignment was ever sent to the defendant. Pursuant to Section 136 of Law of Property 1925, a Notice of Assignment must be made in writing and signed under hand by the assignor, AND Notice of Assignment must be received by the other party or parties for the assignment to take effect.  As such, if any assignment was made between The Student Loans Company Limited and Erudio Student Loans Limited then any such assignment would be an equitable assignment, not a legal assignment. As such Erudio Student Loans Limited cannot bring an action against the defendant in its own name.

6. The defendant contends that had there been any contract between the Claimant and Defendant, which is denied, that the numerous breaches of any such contract would render any debt arising from such a contract as being unenforceable and/or irrecoverable.

7. The defendant contends that had there been any contract between the Claimant and Defendant, which is denied, that the numerous breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by the claimant would have invalidated any alleged contract and/or made any resultant debt irrecoverable.

8. I should like the court to look at the formal request made by myself to Erudio Student Loans Limited under Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 dated 27th January 2020.  (B1). You will see that I request a true copy of the credit agreements relating to this case, and any other documentation that the act requires them to provide, within the statutory time limit.  Having received a letter dated 6th January 2020 from Erudio Student Loans Limited advising me that my account was now being managed by Dryden’s Fairfax Solicitors (B2)  I was unsure of whom this Section 77 CCA1974 Request should be made to I also sent a similar request to Drydens. (B3).

Erudio Student Loans Limited sent me a response on 18th February 2020. (B4) along with true copies of the 1st page of the 4 agreements (B5, B6, B7 and B8.)  Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 77 it states that “The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a)the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor;

(b)the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due; and

(c)the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due.”

 

 As we can see from (B4) the claimant has NOT provided me with a) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor. Nor have they provided me with the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due. Furthermore, if we look at each of the 1st pages of the agreements that were sent (B5, B6, B7, B8) we can clearly see that under the address box they all state “on the terms and conditions of this Agreement as set out on this page and overleaf.”  As the response did not include any 2nd page to any of these agreements, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 then they have also failed to comply with the act.  The sanction under the act for non-compliance is that the debt is unenforceable until the creditor complies. Where such a failure exists the courts have no discretion to allow enforcement. 

9. I should like to refer the court to  the guidance of the Office of Fair Trading,  in their document OFT1272 “Guidance on sections 77,78 and 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974”, and in particular Part 2, “The Duty to Give The Debtor or Hirer A Copy of The Agreement and Other Documents”.  It states in Part 2.5 “In any event, the OFT considers that it is an unfair business practice to seek to take advantage of any confusion, ignorance or difficulty on the part of the debtor as to whom he or she should send an information request where there has been a sale of the debt. The debtor has asked for information and if the recipient considers that another person is the creditor or owner, the recipient should either inform the debtor or hirer of who it considers is the correct recipient or pass the request on to that person for it to be dealt with by them. In that way the consumer can be assured that any request will be made or will have been made to someone who is prepared to accept responsibility for responding to it.” 

On 10th March 2021 Drydens Fairfax Solicitors wrote to me (B9), in this letter you can see that they say, “The last payment made towards the account was on 7th February 2020.” If we look at the Account Summary that they sent with this letter, (B10, B11) we can see that on 7th February 2020 they attributed the amounts of £0.30, £0.24, £0.20 and £0.26 to the account.  These amounts add up exactly to £1, the only possible explanation for this is that they have taken the £1 fee provided to them for the Section 77 request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and attributed it to the account.  You will see in the letter that they say “…invite you to now settle this matter without the need for further legal action.”  I should now ask you to 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.

I believe that given that my request for information under Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act was not complied with, that the claimant has made such a serious breach of the law and all guidance surrounding it that their claim should be denied and costs should be awarded against them.

10. The claimant has never sent any letters of deferment to me. Under the terms of the agreement with the Student Loans Company Ltd, there was, I believe, an obligation for them to send correspondence inviting me to defer my loans if I was eligible. The claimant has neither claimed, nor provided evidence of them inviting me to defer my loans.

11. The claimant has not detailed how or when any periods of deferment were in place during the period of the agreement.  Nor have they provided a full breakdown of how the amounts that they are claiming have been calculated.

 

12. My last agreement for a student loan has been outstanding for more than 25 years and as such under the terms agreed with The Student Loans Company Limited this would cancel any liability for the defendant to repay any such loan.


13. The Claimant has not complied with the order made by Deputy District Judge XXXX on XXXX 2023.

I should like to draw the attention of the court to the order made by Deputy Judge XXXX at the previous hearing on XXXX 2023 and in particular point 2 where it is stated, “The Claimant/Applicant is to file and serve a skeleton argument NO LATER than 14 days before the hearing.  Please see sheet (A1) where the details of the order are admitted by the claimant’s representatives.  I did not receive the skeleton argument by a proscribed method until 17th October 2023, and I provide a photograph of the bundle received where it can clearly be seen that the postage date on the letter is 16th October 2023. (See A2). Given that the claimant and their representatives have had from 14th April 2023 until 16th October 2023 to file and serve this skeleton argument I ask the court to take this non-compliance seriously and to make a decision on whether or not the claim should be struck out simply on this basis. I would ask that, at the very least, the court place no reliance on the information supplied nor the arguments put forward by the claimant in the skeleton argument and accompanying documents.


14. The Claimant has made untrue statements in their Skeleton argument and therefore their Statement of Truth is thus also inaccurate.

I regard a statement of truth as made in any documents submitted to a court to be of the highest importance, a point that is reinforced by the sanctions that can be applied if someone makes, or causes to make, a false statement as to the truth of the information submitted. We can see that such a Statement of Truth has been made by Leigh O’Neill in this document. (A3) If we look at Point 2 of the claimant’s skeleton argument you will see that is says “…the Originating Creditor issued the Defendant with a Default Notice on 24th May 2015. “ This raises a couple of points, as I understand it an Originating Creditor is the organisation with whom a contract is signed by the Creditor.  As we can see from (A4), the Notice of Default has been sent by Erudio Student Loans Limited, not from Student Loans Company Limited with whom I signed the loan agreements, thus they are not the Originating Creditor. Furthermore, the Notice of Default is dated 24th May 2016 and as such could not possibly have been issued a year earlier.

If we look further into the Skeleton Defence and still relating to the Statement of Truth, under point 6 it states, “On 22nd October 2022, the claimant wrote to the Defendant to advise that the Agreements were terminated…A copy of the termination notice letter is exhibited.”   If we look at the Termination Letter, (A5) we can clearly see this is dated 22nd June 2016.  I would suggest that this, once again, shows that the details within the Skeleton argument are therefore untrue and as such the Statement of Truth is inaccurate.  On this basis alone I believe the claimant’s claim for the stay to be lifted, for the Defence to be struck out, for summary judgement and for any costs order to be made against the defendant be denied.  Furthermore, I should request that the court makes a cost order against the Claimant in regard of my own expenses as detailed in my witness statement dated 19th October 2023.

15) In response to my assertion that this claim is Statute Barred the claimant is attempting to rely on BMW Financial Services v Hart

BMW Financial Services v Hart was a case that centred on a Hire Purchase Agreement between the two parties. A hire purchase agreement is a completely different type of contract to that which I entered into with the Student Loans Company Ltd and as such has no relevance to this case. In the Doyle v PRA Group case PRA had attempted to rely on the ruling given in BMW Financial Services v Hart. In point 29 of the judgement in Doyle v PRA Group, the presiding judge, Sir Thomas Etherton said about the attempt to rely on BMW Financial Services v Hart, “the facts, and in particular the terms of the contract, in that case were materially different from those in the present case. It is not necessary to place any reliance on it.”  Whilst I contend that the case in front of the court is fundamentally different from Doyle v PRA Group, it is clear that BMW Financial Services v Hart is even further divorced from this case, and so the court similarly should place no reliance on the ruling the case between BMW Financial Services v Hart.

16) In response to my assertion that this claim is Statute Barred the claimant is attempting to rely on Doyle v PRA Group.

This is absolutely not true. Doyle v PRA Group centred on a credit card agreement. A credit card agreement has a running date of settlement with no obligation to offer any deferment of payments. The contract that I entered into with the Student Loans Company Limited was completely different to this, there was no continuous line of credit offered and they came with a fixed term, a settlement date, the opportunity to defer payments defined by statutory instruments, namely The Education (Student Loans) Regulations for each of the appropriate years, and write off terms as defined in the aforesaid.  If we look again at the judgement made by Sir Thomas Etherton in the Doyle v PRA Group case as referenced by the claimant in point 29 he goes on to say, “…each case turns on it’s particular facts, and in particular the wording and proper interpretation of the agreement in question and any applicable statutory provisions.” I believe that credit card agreements are subject to the rules of The Consumer Credit (Running Account Credit Information) Regulations 1983 whereas, the agreement that I entered into with the Student Loans Company Ltd were subject to the rules of The Education (Student Loans) Regulations for each of the appropriate years, and which have very different rules. Can any reasonable person really equate a student loan as being the same as a credit card agreement? It is my belief that when Sir Thomas Etherton made his statement about “each case turning on it’s particular facts” that he was clearly making the point that his decision regarding Doyle v PRA Group should not be applied laissez-faire to other cases where the agreements were different to those in the Doyle v PRA Group case.  I believe that the agreement that I had with the Student Loans Company Limited in regard to these loans is substantially different to the agreement made between Doyle and the PRA Group and as such this court can place no reliance on the judgement given in that case. As such this court should refuse the claimant’s application for summary judgement.

17) I further put it to the court that it is not fair for a claimant to issue a default notice months or even years after the true cause of action thus choosing to rewrite the definition of statute barring under the statute of limitations act and potentially allowing them to run this date to infinity. I believe that the Limitations Act 1980 was made law in order to ensure that any individual would be protected from claims being issued long after any claim should have been made, if the claimant’s claim was to be allowed then any individual would have almost no protection from claims being issued at any point, a position that is clearly the opposite of the intention of the Limitation Act 1980.
 

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

19. I ask the court to make an order awarding costs against the claimant as described in the attached.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.


Signed……………………..XXXXX


Date………………………..

 

 

 

Nurselayer v Natwest - Settled in Full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better, now you are covering all bases and raising points which ideally cant be decided at a SJ hearing.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very annoyingly I have spotted two inconsistencies in my witness statement. Neither should prove fatal as I don't think that they are untrue, but I will re-submit by email tomorrow to both the court and the claimant.

 

Nurselayer v Natwest - Settled in Full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

posts moved

thank you

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feeling absolutely devastated.  Just had an email from the court saying that they've not got any judges to hear the case on Monday and so it's being adjourned.

I feel absolutely crushed by this. It's not fair of the court to mess with my mental health like this.  What can I do?

 

Nurselayer v Natwest - Settled in Full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing .......they can do this at anytime of their own volition but if you tried to change the date of the hearing...read here:-

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/454816-adidasdwf-claimform-supposed-non-return-of-refunded-items/page/3/#comment-5232664

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Sorry to barge in. I know it's a pain in the neck but it's just one of those things.

You seem to have prepared for this so well, and I'm sure you have done everything you can.

Try not to think about the whole ordeal too much. Just remember it's a student loan debt from decades ago. You're not up for murder or anything.

I found my day in court relatively stress-free and I found it all quite interesting.

Try not to get worked up about it and file it away until the date itself.

Treat it as an inconvenience. If it doesn't go your way, your life isn't going to change.

Good Luck

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the claimant submit further evidence etc between now and the new hearing?

Or must everything stay as if the hearing was held on the original date?

I'm so upset about this, it seems so unfair and prejudicial against me.

 

 

Nurselayer v Natwest - Settled in Full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

readme!!

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I go to court for the hearing tomorrow.

I'm pretty sure I've got a pretty compelling case.

My only question is

there is a case where the judge ruled that because a lender had not complied with a Section 77 Request under the CCA 1974, it was too late for them to comply with it after the hearing. 

Anyone got any idea which case/judge/date this was?

I will be posting up all my defence/witness statements etc after the case is concluded.

Nurselayer v Natwest - Settled in Full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't matter if they do.

can't have 3 bites at the same cherry, no matter why the claim was dismissed.

dx

 

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will probably be my last post before the hearing. Whatever the outcome I'd like to say a massive, massive thank you to all those who have helped me with this issue, all those who've posted advice, all those who've helped me with the wording of things, all those who've shown an interest.

In particular I'd like to thank Andyorch, Dx100uk who have been incredibly patient and supportive all the way through this process. An honourable mention for Bertman too, who directed me to what could be an invaluable tract in the Doyle v PRA Group case.

So, wish me luck, I am aiming to absolutely eviscerate them tomorrow, to win costs against them and to ensure that they can NEVER resurrect this claim again.

As I said, once the case is over I shall post all my witness statements and arguments so that I hope that others may be able to use them to defend any future claims that Erudio/Drydens make.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Nurselayer v Natwest - Settled in Full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best of luck 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

remember. no little chats i will bet 100% its not drydens but a locum who'll will have been told to pull all the usual tricks like didnt get this or that from you in time or it is not signed ...looking for anything to distract from the real issues they can counter. hopefully the judge will be wise to these tricks.

 

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, turns out they can!

I asked the judge if I could speak first as I said that I had serious concerns that they were going to present evidence that could prejudice the case against me and he refused this and said I'd have time to present my side of the case after the claimant had put theirs.

He asked the claimant's representative to put their case and then asked him various questions about different elements of it, notably the Notice of Assignment, the absence of a proper court bundle and then Erudio's response to my CCA s.77 request.  

The judge asked for proof that they had responded in full to my S.77 request and when they couldn't provide evidence that they had, he ruled that the case be stayed until such point as they fully comply with the S.77 request.

I did ask him to kick the case out due to the length of time that they've had to respond the s.77 request but 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. He refused to hear any more details of the arguments around limitation. I asked him to put a date where they had to comply with CCA74 by and he also refused to do this.

I asked for him to award costs in my favour, and he did so.  They now have to pay me £160 by 19th December.

I cannot believe this is still going to be hanging over me, so not a loss but also not a win.  It does feel like a loss as I truly believed this was going to be over one way or the other today.

So, looks like you don't get rid of me that easily!

 

Nurselayer v Natwest - Settled in Full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nurselayer said:

The judge asked for proof that they had responded in full to my S.77 request and when they couldn't provide evidence that they had, he ruled that the case be stayed until such point as they fully comply with the S.77 request.

Well that will be the crux of the claim until they can or prove they have, its going nowhere...well done on sticking it to them NS.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

why not can't hurt you.

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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...