Jump to content


SLC/Erudio/Drydens backdoor CCJ's - 1 i already paid, 2nd at set aside.


 Share

Recommended Posts

CLAIMANT

ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LIMITED – AND –
DEFENDANT
xxxx

WITNESS STATEMENT OF xxxx

 

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

 

1. My student mortgage style loans were taken out in 1996 and 2000. I had deferred payment on time annually up to and including December 2012. 


(I also have an income contingent Type 1 student loan taken out in 1999 and an income contingent Type 2 student loan in 2014. These are deducted directly from my pay).

 

2. Each time I moved house I updated my new address via the Student Loans Company online portal.


 

3. I did not receive any correspondence from the Student Loans Company after about my deferment of my mortgage style loans. Student Loans Company had my contact details and my mobile number has never changed so there was no reason for them not to contact me.

 

4. The first I heard of Erudio was when Drydens Fairfax sent me a letter on the 28/10/2020 demanding payment for my 2000 mortgage style student loan.

 

5. After calling the Student Loans Company I discovered that my loans had been sold to Erudio on the 25/11/2013.

 

6. I called Northampton County Court Business and discovered that a judgment had been made against me on the 08/07/2019.

 

7. I discovered that the loan was statute barred and contested it with Drydens Fairfax, they insisted it was not, after several more conversations and the implied threat of bailiffs which caused me many sleepless night, I gave in to their demands.

 

8. I borrowed £2220 from my employer and paid Drydens Fairfax

on the 20/11/2020.

 

 

9. My partner and I bought our first home and moved in on the 01/04/2021

 

10. On the 09/12/2021 I received another letter from Drydens Fairfax demanding payment again.

 

11. After investigation I discovered a judgment had been made against me on the 11/09/2019.

 

12. Obviously I was very distressed by the situation. After much gathering of information I discovered that the debt was in fact statute barred so I applied for the judgment to be set aside. I had no reason to ‘run away’ from the debt as I have never earned enough for repayment to be due.

SUMMARY

 

13. My last written and signed acknowledgement of the debt was by way of a deferment form sent on 30/12/2012 directly to Student Loans Company Ltd. This was acknowledged by way of written correspondence from the Student Loans Company.

 

14. The Claimant's claim was issued on 16/08/2019, some 6 years, 7 months,17 days from the last written acknowledgment of the debt on 30/12/2012 by myself, the defendant.

 

15. The default notice was issued on 26/04/2017 and served 4 years, 3 months and 27 days after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by 4 years 3 months and 27 days and the Limitations period prolonged to 10 years, 11 months, 16 days. This, 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.

 

16. I the defendant, contend 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. 



17. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £2489.03 or

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


 

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.

Signed: xxxx Dated: 17/05/2022

Link to post
Share on other sites

load of ole twaddle

 

take to point i raised earlier and your statement on your N244 and pull each point of their WS apart as i have done.

 

do not repeat your defence as you have about

 

pointout why drydens are WRONG on each of their points.

 

bottom line is the debt was SB at claimform issuance. and that DN statement.

 

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 that was a waste of 3 hours!

 

Ok, will do.

 

Is there anything worth salvaging from the above?

 

 

 

Does this make more sense?:

 

CLAIMANT

ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LIMITED – AND –
DEFENDANT
xxxx

WITNESS STATEMENT OF xxxx

 

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

 

1. The Witness – xxxx states in point 3 that:

“It is noted that the Defendant does not dispute entering into a credit agreement with the Claimant.”

This in not true. At no time did I enter into an agreement with Erudio.

 

2. The default notice mentioned in point 6 was issued on 26/04/2017 and served 4 years, 3 months and 27 days after the last written acknowledgment of the debt on 30/12/2012 by myself. Thus, the cause of action delayed by 4 years 3 months and 27 days and the Limitations period prolonged to 10 years, 11 months, 16 days. This, 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.

 

3. In point 5 Andrew Moorhouse states I was issued with A Notice of Assignment on 22/11/2013.

In point 6 he states that a Default Notice was sent to me on 04/03/2014.

04/03/2014.

In point 7 he states I was sent a Termination Notice on 26/04/2017.

In point 8 the legal proceedings and transference to Drydens solicitors took place without my knowledge.

I received none of these notices or assignment. It has now come to light that they were all sent to an address I had not resided at since 2001.

The Student Loan Company was aware of my current address at the time that the alleged documents were sent.

I have always kept the Student Loan Company informed of my current address.

 

4. In point 18 the Claimant claims the Termination Notice issued on the 26/04/2017 was the cause of action, this is patently untrue - the termination notice does not determine the Statute of Limitations date.

Pursuing a debt after a 6 years is clear breach of OFT guidelines and CPUT.

 

5. I the defendant, contend 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. 


 

6. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £2489.03 or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied. 


 

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.

Signed: xxxx Dated: 17/05/2022

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have never entered nor admitted to entering into an agreement with the CLAIMANT. ...change your line.

 

add in at the right point your already have

re their 21/22/23...

the claimant contends its unfair to allow a set aside after an 18mts following a default judgement, yet failed to issue a default notice and to adhere to the rules of the consumer credit act 1974 section 87/88.

 

the defendants costs in dealing with the claimants default judgement and their set aside application to be paid by the claimant within 28 days.

a sep costs sheet is attached.

 


 

 

 

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

Posted (edited)

Ok! I think it's about there, I've added those final points.

Thanks again for looking this over!

 

Px

CLAIMANT

ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LIMITED – AND –
DEFENDANT
XXXX

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXX


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

 

1. The Witness – xxxx states in point 3 that:

 

“It is noted that the Defendant does not dispute entering into a credit agreement with the Claimant.”

 

This in not true. I have never entered nor admitted to entering into an agreement with the claimant.

 

2. The default notice mentioned in point 6 was issued on 26/04/2017 and served 4 years, 3 months and 27 days after the last written acknowledgment of the debt on 30/12/2012 by myself. Thus, the cause of action delayed by 4 years 3 months and 27 days and the Limitations period prolonged to 10 years, 11 months, 16 days. This, 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.

 

3. In point 5 xxxx states I was issued with A Notice of Assignment on 22/11/2013.

In point 6 he states that a Default Notice was sent to me on 04/03/2014.

In point 7 he states I was sent a Termination Notice on 26/04/2017.

In point 8 the legal proceedings and transference to Drydens solicitors took place without my knowledge.

 

I received none of these notices or assignment. It has now come to light that they were all sent to an address I had not resided at since 2001.

The Student Loan Company was aware of my current address at the time that the alleged documents were sent.

 

I have always kept the Student Loan Company informed of my current address.

 

4. In point 18 the Claimant claims the Termination Notice issued on the 26/04/2017 was the cause of action, this is patently untrue - the termination notice does not determine the Statute of Limitations date.

 

Pursuing a debt after a 6 years is clear breach of OFT guidelines and CPUT.

 

5. Addressing points 21,22 and 23 - the claimant contends its unfair to allow a set aside 16 months after a default judgement, yet failed to issue a default notice within the 6 year limitation period therefore breaching the rules of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 87/88.

 

6. I the defendant, contend 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.

 

7. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £2489.03 or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied. 


 

8. The defendant’s costs in dealing with the claimants default judgement and their set aside application to be paid by the

claimant within 28 days.

 

(a separate costs sheet is attached).

 

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.

 

Signed: xxxx Dated: 17/05/2022

 

Costs Sheet

Cost of N244 application form:

£255.00

 

 

 

Edited by PumpUpTheVolume
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, PumpUpTheVolume said:

issue a default notice within the 6 year limitation period

no.. it does not say that!...

 

 

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

Just got back from work and trying to sort to send of this eve.

I can't see the mistake you're pointing out in post 83. I quoted your correction verbatim. 

However, I am past myself so I may have missed the glaringly obvious! Apologies in advance!

Px

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Find that text in your statement remove it. That is not correct

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

Thank you! So sorry for being so dense 🤦‍♂️

Sorted:

Addressing points 21,22 and 23 the claimant contends its unfair to allow a set aside 16 months after a default judgement, yet failed to issue a default notice and to adhere to the rules of the consumer credit act 1974 section 87/88.

👍

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now i'm no expert so i'd rather @Andyorch check that over please 1st

 

 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

3 The Defendant entered into a student loan agreement(s) with the Student Loan Company (“SLC”) under the following agreement number below:

 

Quote

1. The Witness – xxxx states in point 3 that:

 

“It is noted that the Defendant does not dispute entering into a credit agreement with the Claimant.

 

This in not true. I have never entered nor admitted to entering into an agreement with the claimant.

 

States you entered into an agreement with SLC from their statement  :???:

 

I don't have time to go all the way through your topic but what was your last deferral ?

 

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 OTHERS

 

 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

On 16/12/2021 at 12:14, PumpUpTheVolume said:

DSAR deferment end date -   96'          - 24/03/14

                                                   00'          - 24/06/14 

 

 

from the sar sent to SLC:

 

last successful deferment letter sent 26/06/13 (this set aside is for 00' one andy)

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 is a set aside for the 96 loan.

I paid the 2000 one.

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2022-05-19 at 08.16.50.pdf

 

This is a supporting statement. I sent a brief statement in January with my N244.

 

I sent it last night to my county court but retracted it this morning when I realised I'd laboured over the wrong dates for last written acknowledgment. I'm now in doubt of which dates are which on the SLC DSR 🤦‍♂️

 

Can either of you shed any light on it?

 

My hearing is next Wednesday.

 

I feel like I might have messed this all up now! Really stressing out.

 

Px

Link to post
Share on other sites

their bundle states the 96 loan

 

Date of loan           Agreement number            Original Loan Amount
2 December 1996 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                  £1,645.00
It

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

I think you may be over complicating your statement...the crux of the argument raised by the claimant is the cause of action /default date and whether their claim was made on time. This is a very grey area with recent judgements determining that the cause of action starts from the the date of default notice + 14 days.

 

I'm not sure whether DX has any source legislation that the deferment date is the cause of action but if so that really needs to be ironed out in a short statement in response.

 

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 OTHERS

 

 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

On 08/01/2021 at 16:17, Andyorch said:

Then their default dates are nonsense....possibly imposed when the debts were assigned to them.

it took erudio years to register the defaults as with most already SB's SLC loan claimform threads or backdoor CCJ threads already here

 

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

Then the claimant should be put to strict proof within the statement to explain why the defaults were issued on such date and so late  after deferment/ and coincide with the assignment date ?

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 OTHERS

 

 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

On 18/05/2022 at 01:41, PumpUpTheVolume said:

2. The default notice mentioned in point 6 was issued on 26/04/2017 and served 4 years, 3 months and 27 days after the last written acknowledgment of the debt on 30/12/2012 by myself. Thus, the cause of action delayed by 4 years 3 months and 27 days and the Limitations period prolonged to 10 years, 11 months, 16 days. This, 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.

yes as above but i think the whole statement needs a tidy.

 

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

I had also mentioned that Erudio and Drydens made no attempt to contact me at my address registered with the SLC at the time, all correspondence was sent to a an address I hadn't lived at for over 10 years. I'd kept my addresses up to date with the SLC.

 

I thought this would be a good 2nd line of defence.

I believe Badgergirls hearing hung on a similar point and SB claim was ignored.

 

Px

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dx100uk said:

it took erudio years to register the defaults as with most already SB's SLC loan claimform threads or backdoor CCJ threads already here

 

 

My 96 loan deferment period ended on 24/03/2014.

 

It took Erudio 3 years and 4 days to issue a default notice!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

your last acknowledgement of the debt was when you sent that form 24/3/13

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

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...