Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for taking your time and helping me on this. Would you recommend I also send a letter tomorrow to both BMW and Motonovo?
    • she and  johnson need to be kicked off the taxpayers credit card - for starters I'm certain there is cause - taking up 'jobs' when they shouldn't, bringing the nation into disrepute with their antics .. I'm sure it would be a very popular act from a new labour guv
    • Please have a look at this draft letter. It is modelled on yours but I have cut out a load of the unnecessary information. Also, the responsibility lies with the finance company because the vehicle was brought on hire purchase. You send it to them and a copy to big motoring world.   Let us know if there's anything that you disagree with, which is wrong, which you think should be added
    • According to Alastair Campbell on Twitter, anti-Le Pen parties are pointing to RN's fiscal policies and saying they'll cause a 'Truss-style market meltdown'. Liz Truss charged taxpayers for Amazon Prime subscription - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK The subscription costing £95 gives the ex-PM free shipping from the retail giant, as well as the ability to stream films and TV shows such as My Fault...  
    • Thank-you @BankFodder, your statement is a correct understanding of my position and I agree, it is actually really what I was looking for in starting this thread, as I too believed that the maximum I could claim for is that which I sold it for, even though this was substantially below market value at the time. And so, this sold value is what I shall be claiming for + the other expenses. @dx100uk I get your point, but this is just not what I want to expose myself to. Unfortunately I was one of the unlucky ones to have my details stolen in the Peoples Energy hack, and in 2020 I discovered that those details had been used to take out car insurance, and that the insured was then involved in a collision and my details were dragged through the mud. Despite Aviva cancelling the claim and treating as though it never were, even though I have the letters from them to say that they have removed this claim from the insurance database, I still get refused insurance and credit products to this day until I send across the letter from Aviva which explains that I was a victim of fraud. So you'll forgive me for not jumping up and uploading my data to a server utility for which I have no control over its retention policy, or where the server is located globally, its legal jurisdiction, or its security protocols.
  • 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
      • 161 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

Erudio/Drydens SLC Loan CCJ - Advice Please - Set a Side claim proceeding.


owk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 719 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

On 19/01/2021 at 20:03, owk said:

The payment is  on SLC SAR - then it says 1/03/2014  DD cancelled by SLC - I'm cross referencing it with my bank statements. 

 

Erudio SAR says no payments apart from the one they took out end March 14 - without my knowledge. On bank it says new dd set up. 

 

On Erudio  SAR  there is a spreadsheet which also says a payment in April 14 -but this was upaid by my bank I still have the letters - so this is false.

 

 

On 11/02/2021 at 15:22, owk said:

Last payment to SLC Feb 2014. ESL then attempted to take a d/d in March 14 and then April 14. ( The payments were unpaid and reversed - but Erudio SAR does not show this.)They are still showing as payments taken..I have the bank statements.

 

 

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 notice there are no payments after nor before that mar payment..me thinks thats a phantom payment imho.

 

no other evidence either stick with it being sb before claimform issuance.

 

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

Ok I did not say statute barred in my written defence - shall I just say this at the hearing? 
 

Also the last hearing directed me to file my defence back in April 2021  14 days after the hearing as requested. 

Then in July / August a letter from the court regarding mediation, which I responded to immediately saying yes to.  and - Drydens also sent me out a copy of the mediation letter.

Drydens must not have responded yes to mediation


Out of the blue a letter for this hearing - I did not resubmit my defence - will my one from April still be with the court? 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 04/11/2021 at 12:34, owk said:

I’ve got it on a bank statement 28th March 2014 ESL limited - this is a new dd
 

I can’t upload it - as it a photo. 

But you never signed a DD mandate with ESL did you?

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

Listen lets be clear here...put everything else aside, it's all totally irrelevant...and confusing you.....

 

You have never signed a dd mandate with erudio, you have never complete d a deferment form from erudio

 

so the debt was already statute barred upon issuance of the original xlaimform.

 

simply state that to the judge and do not allow yourself to be compromised. Stick by it, entertain nothing else. Rebutt any other non sence as irrelevant twaddle.

 

yOUll win hands down.

 

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

Eh?

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

So what nowt to do with it being sb'd before they ever issued the claim  

 

HOwHow'd it go you should be clear by now anyway......

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

and?

 

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

It was a 30min hearing, I now have 5 weeks to submit all documents and my evidence.

 

There were initial discussions between judge and solicitor re Covid restrictions and changes etc...I had previously filed evidence but Solicitor said she didn’t have it. 

 

The next one will be 90minutes and I need to submit my defence. With a timeline etc.. and what was said to me & when- even if I don’t have all of the evidence to hand. 

 

Solicitor wanted me to submit my evidence before theirs, but the judge said no and that she had given her directions. 


There was also a long discussion about emailing of evidence - judge said fine / but solicitor said not sure if D’s could accept it that way. Judge queried why this would be. 


I said the solicitors witness statement was very generic and would they be providing more evidence / as I already have Erudio SAR and SLC SAR

 

I wanted the judge to know I already have these, as I was scared they would try and change/ add to it. I also said if I opened a FOS complaint would it have any bearing on proceedings, as I have been awaiting the final response from SLC since February! 

 

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

chancing their arm.

 

your should get a directions order from the court soon then.

 

anything else you remember was said, even if it seems unimportant just send it in a msg here, the more the better.

 

i would be making it clear to the sols that you will NOT be accepting email upon anything further regarding the case from them

snail mail only.

you don't want them producing a load of lies (as they do!!) with fake paperwork 1 min before any deadline, removing your chance to rubbish it.

though what you have is pretty water tight.

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

Ok thanks! I will do that first thing. I’ve got some notes from earlier.. will message anything else tomorrow.  Yes will certainly take your advice re email address. Thank you again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

also what was said if you mentioned that you'd now discovered the claim was SB'd...that s important too.

 

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 wasn’t given the opportunity to say anything like that - the judge did not want to hear the evidence in this hearing and said so from the outset... . so I certainly did not want to annoy her. 


The judge also asked if we had been in negotiations beforehand, the solicitor said they had spoke to the claimant yesterday and kind of made out they were really hurt by this and couldn’t possibly consider a settlement with me.


That made me chuckle a bit...I said I had replied “yes” to mediation and the other side had not - but apparently this doesn’t count as is a free service. 


I said I had a mountain of paperwork bank statements etc,.and then the solicitor started going on about did the court have a page limit on evidence etc...? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done perfect

 

i'll pop in later.

 

 

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 thats a load of ole twaddle and actually plays into your hand re its statute barred in a perverse way..

 

now ive put back up a new properly redacted erudio sar as in your earlier hidden post 

here i make ref to the PAGE numbers in that PDF not your version so note carefully they will be diff.

 

worthy pages to note:

 

page 28

last deferment 24/04/2011

last payment £17.32

 

page 23.

payment 28/03/2014 

 

but no other payments before of after that were not reversed by SLC some months earlier.

and no signed DD mandate to erudio

they cant just hijack the old SLC one!!

and in their own bundle say they were but have not produced the proof  despite saying its an exhibit.

also page 23 shows no change is balance for that payment amount for that date either

but if you look ay the others earlier it does show balance going down..

 

well gather it all later and tidy it up.

 

bottom line 

that payment does not count/exist.

 

last deferment was 2011

claimform issued more than 6yrs after 2011 - debt was statute barred.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Hello, 

 

I am drafting my defence ahead of the trial. This was a successful Aside in April 2021 which is now going to a full hearing. 

Any tips gratefully received...The claimform was issued June 19. 

 

1. If the hearing was on the 08.11.2021 - am I correct in thinking I now have 14 days to submit my defence?

2. Full hearing was discussed to be held in 5 weeks time. I have not had a letter from the court yet - but these are the timescales discussed. 

3. I would like to send a SAR to Honours to confirm all payments made, am I able to ask for a delay to the hearing, so I can present all of the evidence I have? 

 

The court have asked for a timeline which I am in the process of collating. 

 

Many thanks as always. 

 

 

DEFENCE_16112021.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

post it here as text please so we can quote/edit

 

not sure how many times we need to point out the Honours student loan is NOTHING to do with this claim.

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

If last payment to SLC was feb 2014 (albeit incorrect)  how can it be S/B if their initial  claim form was sent to incorrect address in 2019?
 

I surely need to prove why the payments were incorrectly being taken in 2013 due to SLC mishandling my deferment (Erudio & Honours)  before sold to Erudio and assigned March 2014??

 

If the claim is fresh from today - it is definitely SB, what is the legal clarification on this, following a successful set aside
 

Will the court definitely  work from the June 2019/ July date or from 2021? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...