Erudio/Drydens Claimform - old SLC Loans - stayed - now N244 for SJ

[USB53]

Name of the Claimant ? Erudio Student Loans

 

Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to.27.02.20 

(Have applied for 14 days to submit defence, so deadline 31.03.20)

 

Particulars of Claim

 

What is the claim for – 

 

1. The Claimant claims £2,500. for monies due from the Defendant.

2. This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and The Student Loans Company Limited. Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: xxxx xxxx xxxx 

3. The Defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s)being terminated. Notice of such is served by a Default or Termination Notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s).

4. The debt was assigned to the Claimant on 22/11/2013, with a notice provided to the Defendant. A new master reference number xxxxx was also applied upon assignment.

5. The Claimant has complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

 

 

 

What is the total value of the claim? £2,500

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes

 

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Yes

 

Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? Yes

 

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Student Loan

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? Before, 1996

 

Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? No

 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? No

 

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Debt purchaser

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Yes

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? No

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes, I believe so

 

Why did you cease payments? In deferment/earning below deferment threshold

 

What was the date of your last payment? Pre 2013

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan?  No

 

Hello

 

I am looking for some advice regarding mortgage style student loans from the SLC. 

 

It was in deferment until Erudio took over the accounts in Sept 2014. I have never earned above the repayment threshold.

 

Since then, I ignored their deferment forms, subsequently had lots of backdated ‘Remedy of Account’ notices, letter saying account had ‘matured’, then transfer of account to Capquest (with discount offer), and now Drydens, with a subsequent County Court Claim form. 

 

I have only just found this site. The deadline to submit a defence is 31.03.20.

 

I am rapidly reading the advice and similar posts on this site in order to hopefully submit a defence, but is it now too late to bother sending the CCA to Erudio and CPR 31:14 to the solicitors? 

 

Thank you in advance for any help offered. 

 

[dx100uk]

if you have never deferred to Erudio then the debt, as with most of these erudio/Dryden claims is statute barred.

don't bother with CCA/CPR

simple file our SB defence on MCOL now

 

The following defence is all you need if it is SB

 

 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.
..
..ends..

[USB53]

Thank you for your help dx.

 

I've just unearthed an email asking for a deferment form (that was never returned to them) a few months inside the 6 years. Would this amount to written acknowledgement of the debt? Is this still SB?

[dx100uk]

nope, the date of your last deferment letter direct to slc is when the clock starts

 

 

[USB53]

OK thanks again, much appreciated.

[USB53]

Hello again, 

 

I filed the SB defence on MCOL within the time limit (back in March).

 

I've had the following letter through from Drydens. I presume ignore?

 

Many thanks

DRYDENS_FAIRFAX_170820.pdf

[dx100uk]

yes they are ofcourse talking total.........

 

termination, maturity, etc etc have no bearing upon SB date.

 

 

[AndyOrch]

Topic open

[USB53]

Thank you. 

I have received a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings and an N244 application for summary judgment, so I am wondering what I have to do next?

Again, any help you're able to provide is most appreciated.

[dx100uk]

scan it all up to one mass PDF please.

[USB53]

Here you go.

 

N244_20062023.pdf

[dx100uk]

usual WS from them claiming SB runs from the END of last successful deferment when it does NOT. it runs from your last written acknowledgement of the debt - the date of your deferment form on 15/08/13, which +6yrs is 15/08/19, claim was raised 27/02/2020.

hoping the judge cant count.

there are plenty of like defendant WS's about this and erudio here about this for you to copy.

basics is you stick to your defence, the debt was already statute barred at time of claimform

dx

 

[AndyOrch]

Just bear in mind a witness statement in response to an application for Summary judgment is different to a normal witness statement in response to allocation. Your statement must be filed not less than 7 days pre hearing date.

[USB53]

Hello, 

Further to this, I've received a statement of costs, uploaded below. 

An online hearing is scheduled for 21st August, so by my reckoning I need to have filed the witness statement by 11th August(?).

My witness statement so far is below. It's the same as I filed on MCOL. I've had a read around, but not sure what else to put (if anything?) as I'm sticking to the SB defence and was trying to keep it simple. I've added line 4 about their costs (or is that already covered in line 3 anyway?) Please let me know if I need to add anything else or change this.

Thanks again in advance for all your help, it's very much appreciated.

 

1. The Claimant's claim was issued on 27 Feb 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 £2,378.64 or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

‘4. The Claimant’s claim to be entitled to further payment of £1,720.00 for costs is also denied.’

 

 

Statement_of_costs_07082023.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Example statement in response to an application for Summary Judgment.

 

"IN THE ******* County Court 
Claim No. ***********

BETWEEN:
Claimant
***********

AND
Defendant
************

_________________________ ________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF **********
_________________________ ________



I ******, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application for Strike Out/Summary Judgment in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated XXXXXXXXX pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a&b.

1. The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding that they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.

2.It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed ...10p to 15p in the £1 and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. Then issues claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit.

3. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.

4. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that a contractual relationship did once exist between myself and HBOS.On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity by way of a section 78 request.

At the time of submitting my defence the claimant was in default of this request and unable to comply with this request and was therefore unable to proceed and enforce the claim or request any relief.

The claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit at paragraph 2 marked LW01 are the true terms and conditions as issued at the time of inception and execution of the agreement.

5. Paragraph 3. Contained within the claimants particulars and witness statement the claimant pleads that the defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the agreement and that a default notice has been served upon the defendant pursuant to S.87(1) CCA. It evidences this fact by way of a screen shot which is not proof nor valid pursuant to section 87(1) of the CCA1974.It is therefore contended that the original creditor failed to serve a valid Default Notice pursuant to section 87(1). Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement.

The claimant is put to strict proof to further evidence and verify the service of the above.

6. Paragraph 4 is noted and partially addressed at my point 2.Reffering to its business as charged off debts may be one description . The claimants states the debt was assigned to its claimant on or around the 8^th Oct 2010 and confirms that a Notice of Assignment was sent 1^st March 2011 some six months later.

It confirms that a reconstituted version is relied upon at exhibit LW03.Pursuent to the Law of Property Act 1925 there is no reference to reconstituted versions of Notice of Assignments but what equates to a valid Notice with its prescribed terms and inclusions for the assignment to be valid. A reconstituted version is not proof that it was ever served or the assignment was valid.

The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence further the Notice of Assignment is a true copy or possibly disclose the Deed of Assignment as to verify its authenticity.

7. Paragraphs 5/6/7 are noted token payments were made under duress but are not an acceptance of any liability of the debt or assignment.

8. Paragraph 8 is accepted in that a claim was issued 6 years after assignment to which a defence was submitted along with requests for documents vis a CPR 31.14 and section 78 of the CCA1974.

 

Stay of Proceedings

9. Paragraphs 9/10/11 is noted but unfounded and misleading to the court. The claimant misleads the court in its reasons. The reasons for the stay are explained above and has to why. They were not in a position to proceed because they could not disclose any agreement or further documents. Therfore the request to lift the stay should be denied as the above is not a true or accurate reason or occurrence of events.

 

Application to strike out/Summary Judgment

10. Paragraph 12 should be denied. I believe I have every opportunity in defending this claim successfully and it should be allowed to proceed to trial. The claimant is put to strict proof to respond as to why it presumes my defence has no reasonable grounds for defending given that all its exhibits are questionable or invalid with the current legislation.

Paragraphs 14/15 the claimant refers to exhibit LW01 which they refer to as a true copy of the executed agreement. It is averred that the disclosure purport’s to no more than an application form a pre executed application form which is deficient of the prescribed terms.

This renders the exhibit as unenforceable pursuant to section 127 (1) & (2) of the CCA1974 as the alleged date of the agreement is dated 4^th May 2004 and the amendments of the CCA2006 are not retrospective to agreements entered into pre April 2007.

11. Paragraph 16 is irrelevant and already denied at my point 5.

12. Paragraphs 17/18 are noted and a response already made above to which is denied.

13. Having regard to the above it is respectfully requested that the claimant’s application is denied and the application for strike out/summary judgment is dismissed. In the circumstances the court is invited to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to suppose that I will be able to successfully defend the Claimant’s claim at trial.



Statement of Truth

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.

 

Dated this XXth day of XXXXXX. 

 

Signed.............

 

Name ...............

[dx100uk]

On 03/07/2023 at 23:05, dx100uk said:

usual WS from them claiming SB runs from the END of last successful deferment when it does NOT. it runs from your last written acknowledgement of the debt - the date of your deferment form on 15/08/13, which +6yrs is 15/08/19, claim was raised 27/02/2020.

i would add something to like above.

My last written Acknowledgement of these Loans was a deferment form sent directly to SLC on 15/08/1913 before any assignment to the claimant. The Claimant raised their Court Claim 27/02/2020.

[USB53]

Thanks again both.

Here's another go. Please see my questions in bold. Again I've tried to keep it simple, but should I be addressing more of the points in the claim? (But then I'm worried about going off-piste and complicating it all!)

 

IN THE XXX Court at XXXX
Claim No. XXXX

BETWEEN:

Claimant
ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LIMITED

AND

Defendant
XXXXXX
____________________________________________________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXX
____________________________________________________________________________


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

I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application for Strike Out/Summary Judgment in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated 23/05/2023 (Should this be the date of this claim, or the when they issued their first claim on 27/02/2020?) pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a&b.

1. My last written Acknowledgement of these Loans was a deferment form sent directly to the Student Loans Company (‘SLC’) on 15 August 2013 before any assignment to the claimant. The Claimant raised their Court Claim on 27 February 2020.

2. I maintain 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 £2,378.64 or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

4. The Claimant’s claim to be entitled to further payment of £1,720.00 for costs is also denied.

 

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

5. Paragraph 24. (Would it be wise to acknowledge the MCOL decision, and state that the decision should be upheld?)

 

APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT/SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6. Paragraphs 25, 28, 33, 38 should be denied. I believe I have every opportunity in defending this claim successfully and it should be allowed to proceed to trial. 

7. Having regard to the above it is respectfully requested that the claimant’s application is denied and the application for strike out/summary judgement is dismissed. In the circumstances the court is invited to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to suppose that I will be able to successfully defend the Claimant’s claim at trial.


Statement of Truth

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.

 

Dated this XXXXXth day of August 2023. 

 

Signed.............

 

Name ...............

 

 

[AndyOrch]

 (Should this be the date of this claim, or the when they issued their first claim on 27/02/2020?)  Date of the initial claim this isnt a separate claim there is only one claim.

(Would it be wise to acknowledge the MCOL decision, and state that the decision should be upheld?) 

The claimant is entitled to make an application to lift the stay in any claim your objection would be to why it was stayed so long and why it shouldn't proceed to allocation.

 

Andy

[USB53]

Ok so statement as above but amended with the following, with a question in bold.

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

5. A Stay was placed on proceedings after my Defence, as above, was accepted via the MCOL process. Given the amount of time, over three years, as acknowledged by Paragraph 23 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, that has passed since the Claim was issued I object to the Stay being lifted.

6. The Claimant makes no further representation to challenge the debt being Statute Barred and therefore this should not proceed to allocation. (Does this now contradict Para 7? If so, which should be removed?)

 

APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT/SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7. Paragraphs 25, 28, 33, 34 should be denied. I believe I have every opportunity in defending this claim successfully and it should be allowed to proceed to trial. 

8. Having regard to the above it is respectfully requested that the claimant’s application is denied and the application for strike out/summary judgement is dismissed. In the circumstances the court is invited to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to suppose that I will be able to successfully defend the Claimant’s claim at trial.

[AndyOrch]

If you insert the following amendment before the sentence at 7 it makes it correct and covers all eventualities and allows point 7 to flow.

7. Notwithstanding the above the claimants statement paragraphs 25, 28, 33, 34 should be denied. I believe I have every opportunity in defending this claim successfully and it should be allowed to proceed to trial. 

 

[USB53]

Thanks again Andyorch.

I have added the above amendment to my statement, which I shall send tomorrow.

As my defence is SB, I presume adding anything else (eg, not earning above the threshold, the loans being wiped after 25 years etc, etc) is now irrelevant?

I also enjoyed Para 2 from the example WS you posted above, but presume that would be an unnecessary addition!

Here goes...

[AndyOrch]

22 minutes ago, USB53 said:

As my defence is SB, I presume adding anything else (eg, not earning above the threshold, the loans being wiped after 25 years etc, etc) is now irrelevant? Well yes.

I also enjoyed Para 2 from the example WS you posted above, but presume that would be an unnecessary addition!

No as your defence is based on the claim being statute barred why not use it but change the word contract to agreement.

[USB53]

So, as follows?

2. I maintain that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim re credit agreement 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 agreement, 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.

 

 

[AndyOrch]

Slight tweak 

[USB53]

So, the hearing is later today.

Any last minute tips on what to expect, what to do/what not to do?