Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Have we seen your court bundle?   If we haven't then it's probably an idea to post it up here especially the index page and the witness statement so we can see if there is anything which might need adding or changing 
    • "Care to briefly tell someone who isn't tech savvy - i.e. me! - how you did this?" Its pretty simple although not obvious. You open the google maps app > click your profile picture > Click Timeline from the list > click today > choose the date you want to see the timeline from. Then you'll see your timeline for that day. Often, places you have visited will have a question mark beside them where google wants you confirm you have actually visited. You either click 'yes' if you have, or you click 'edit' to enter the actual place you visited. Sometimes, you'll see 'Missing visit' This probably happens if your internet connection has dropped out at that time. You simply click 'Add visit' and enter the place. The internet on my crappy phone often loses connection so I have to do that alot.   OK dx, understood mate. 
    • I have now been given a court date vs Evri, 4th Sept 2024. I have completed my court bundle, when am I expected to send copies to the court and Evri and should it be in hard copy or electronic? The Notice of Allocation states that no later than 7 days before the directions hearing both parties must send to the other party their final offers to settle. Does this mean I will have to tell Evri what I'm willing to settle? Rgds, J
    • Ok how about this to the CEO? I know it sounds super desperate but lets call a spade a spade here, I am super desperate: Dear Sir, On 29th November 2023 I took out a loan of £5000 with you. Unfortunately very early into 2024 I found myself in financial difficulty (unexpected bills and two episodes of sickness and the tax office getting my tax code wrong resulting in less pay for two months) and I contacted you (MCB) on 13th February 2024 asking if there was any way I could extend the length of my loan to 36 months. I fully explained why I was requesting this and asked for your help. I did not receive a reply to that email so I again contacted you on 7th March 2024 to advise you of a change in my circumstances which resulted in me having to take out a DMP and asking you to confirm that the direct debit had been cancelled. You would have also received confirmation of this DMP from StepChange but you did not acknowledge receipt of my email. I have only managed to make one payment from my loan but did try and contact MCB to discuss extending my loan, help etc.  I have now therefore fallen behind on several of my debts, yours included, and as a result you have lodged a Cifas marker against my name for "evasion of payment", which has resulted in me having to change banks, which has been an extremely difficult process because of the Cifas marker. I do not feel you have been fair or given me the opportunity to fully explain my situation to you before you lodged the marker against my name. I appreciate it is a business and you have acted accordingly, but I did try to make contact to arrange alternative arrangements and at no point, not even to this day, did I ever intend to not repay my loan. I cannot stress to you enough how much this has affected my mental health. I am having trouble sleeping and my existing health condition has been exacerbated by all of this. What I would like you to do is to please, please remove the Cifas marker and let me make arrangements to pay the loan back through a DMP.  Please sir, I am begging for your help here. I am not a dishonest person and I have never been in a situation like this before. I am desperately trying to make things right but this marker is killing me. Please can you help me? I look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully,
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

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 676 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

to be safe i've hidden the upload .......edit upload now sorted -dx 

to date i can see your pers info on pdf page 25?

 

sorry fat fingers page 13

and page 19,20

 

i would pers also remove file, tally UID cols from the last pages too

 

 

 

 

 

updated^^^^^

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...

Hello, 

 

I've been checking other threads, my last SLC deferral  period was 2011, and my last payment to SLC was feb 2014.

 

SLC then cancelled my DD to SLC on 4/03/2014. 

 

 Erudio/ ESL Limited then took a payment not authorised by me in March 2014 - .

 

March 2014 was paid to ESL limited through, without my consent  & 1 payment in April 2014 not paid by bank. 

 

I contacted my bank at the time and they had not heard anything like that happening before and advised to cancel until I could find out what was happening. 

 

I moved to  my new  address  on 13/06/2013  and I believe this new address  was not updated by SLC correctly-  although there is a note on their Personal Details Changes SLC SAR   update page of me contacting SLC 2/3 weeks after my house move  SLC on 09/07/2013.

My old house telephone number was removed, mobile mobile number left yet no new home address was inputted at that time.

 

I can only assume whoever took the call - did not update my new address.  on 09/07/13

 

As a direct consequence of this I received no letters, communication from SLC about the sale of the loans to Erudio

 

I did not receive an Erudio Notice of assignment supposedly sent 22/11/2013 by Erudio ( from Erudio SAR)  this was sent out by Erudio 5 months after I had moved home.

 

SLC  already had my correct mobile number on file.

 

I surely would have been ringing them on 09/07/2013  to let them know of my house move, as all of my previous addresses had been included in the SAR from SLC. 

 

I also have still have email evidence from SLC regarding my 2012 deferment and 2013 deferment, ( I was on maternity leave Oct 12 - July 2013, and to be honest was unsure as to the progress of this at the time.

 

This was not processed for some reason by SLC. in December 2012. In this month I gave birth to my first child - so I was somewhat distracted as you can imagine.  I remember my husband scanned the forms on my behalf and sent them to SLC in December 2012. 

 

I was confused that payments were taken, but then presumed the deferral would begin sometime later in 2013. 

 

I then got back in touch with SLC in 2014 and set up payments for the Honours Student Loans via SLC  thinking this was still the SLC - as a dd was coming out for this roughly the same amount as before.

 

I believed the whole  matter was taken care of. 

I thought the two SLC, Honours and SLC  companies were one in the same thing... I had never received separate correspondence previously. All loans were listed jointly on the paperwork. 

 

Some time later I paid off my loans to a  DCA company - and cleared the balance over the phone - and I thought it was closed. I assumed that the DCA's were all in competion with each other, and as I was paying a student loan company monthly I was up to date. Hence I did not update my address when I then moved in Dec 2017. 

 

My N244 Hearing is set for 31.03.2021, I have followed your advice and I have used  Check My File - my current address from 2018 is on my file (Electoral Roll information source.)  The CCJ was sent to my old address I moved from in Dec 17. 

 

Erudio and SLC have had my correct email throughout and I would have responded to this serious matter, had I have known about it previously I would have acted.. 

Drydens, SLC and Erudio have all emailed me  on this same email address- since I have found out about this CCJ in November 2020. 

 

My main concern is the CCJ on my file - but I am also worried about being awarded costs, should I approach Erudio to settle this matter or await the hearing? 

 

 

Many thanks 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

all makes no odds the debt was statute barred before the issuance of the claimform.

why you want to settle a ccj that should never have been gained is beyond me.

 

 

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

Hi Dx100uk, 

 

Thanks for your response.

 

I'm not sure as to why it is SB though? 

 

If my last payment to SLC  (not Erudio) was Feb 2014 - and the CCJ was July 19?

 

Many thanks 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

was it not confirmed that that payment was reversed sorry?

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, 

 

No Feb 2014 - payment to SLC 

 

SLC - cancelled my DD March 1st 2014 

 

March 2014 Esl Limited - I contacted my bank etc... as it came out on a random date at the end of the month... bank had no info. 

 

I had never received any handover info or paperwork as went to an old address - I had moved to this address June 13 - spoke to SLC and I do not believe my address was updated by SLC - although there is a record of me on SLC SAR contacting them in July 13 re my contact details, hence no paperwork.about the selling of loans. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

forget the issues with addresses that's immaterial some what..

 

are these supposed payments to slc showing in the SAR from erudio?

and im not sure who ELC are never heard of them ever to do a student loan debt.

 

so cross reference between 

SLC statements

bank statements

erudio statements 

 

that everything matches.

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

Hi there, 

 

I'm getting really nervous now as N244 Set Aside nearly upon me - its scheduled for March 2021.  My judgement date was July 2019, the judgement was sent to an address I have moved from in Dec 17. My new address is on electoral role, I have checked this with Check My File. 

 

Ref your previous post ELC  must have been a typo for SLC or Erudio Student Loans .... SLC

 

1) I've followed your advice and checked Erudio SAR - against SLC. I believe Erudio SAR is incorrect re April payment 14.   -

I have the evidence on my bank statements. 

The March 14  payment was a DD taken without my knowledge. I tried at the time to reverse the payment with the bank - but they must have advised me to contact Erudio. No mention of any of this on Erudio SAR. There is info about suppressing a DAF March/April  - this area all looks quite shady - figures have been set to 0000000. 

 

2) SLC company DSAR - there is a note in November 2020 - I contacted SLC to request DSAR from them, Erudio must have contacted SLC in the same week to request a "spreadsheet" from SLC.....

 

Can I now request this spreadsheet from SLC ? SLC never sent this to me in their DSAR I have received from them. 

 

I was not in arrears with SLC when my account was picked up by Erudio after sale.   

 

In Erudio SAR there is a Notice of Termination but notice Notice of Default - is this significant? 

 

Erudio have listed some historic default sums in one letter of £2.00, £3.00 ish to SLC dating from 2008, that I was never made aware of.. can they use this?? 

 

Many thanks 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, owk said:

I believe Erudio SAR is incorrect re April payment 14.   -

I have the evidence on my bank statements. 

The March 14  payment was a DD taken without my knowledge.

 

so know how to cover your backside on that one if they bring it up.

erudio had no authority to take it... the fact they did is irrellevent and why none either side in date? phantom payment to circumvent statute barring.

 

37 minutes ago, owk said:

I have moved from in Dec 17. My new address is on electoral role, I have checked this with Check My File. 

 

thats immaterial as ive said numerous times. you must inform your creditors of a change of address.

 

 

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 19/01/2021 at 15:44, owk said:

The only payment I can see to ever to Erudio was end of March 2014, under ESL limited.. which was taken without my knowledge using SLC  DD details. 

 

On 19/01/2021 at 15:44, owk said:

I can see further payments.

 

I think I can see payments following on from that - I continued to pay what I thought was SLC company until 2015.

 

seems to run with the above

 

the only thing i can think of as a poss defence/is it really sb'd ...is how can a DD setup for SLC be changed to Erudio without your consent/new DD mandate.

 

so there were payments going directly to SLC before it transferred/sold to Erudio (ESL) 

what was the last date of a payment to SLC themselves (and do then the payments show in the erudio SAR return)

sorry too busy too check back at your uploads

 

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

Hi - no worries at all! 

 

I am dithering.. so thank you for your response. I now know.... 

 

Last deferral according to SLC was 2011. It should have been Dec 12-Dec13 - but my deferral due to imminent maternity leave was not processed correctly, having applied for deferral in the Oct 12 - was rejected the three payments up to that point were still above the threshold. 

 

I have an email and it is on SLC,  SAR they were accepting of my deferral status from Dec 13 - but SLC continued to take DD. SLC do make admin errors!!!!!!!!!

 

My first loan 1997 - was sold to Honours S L

1998 - Erudio

1999 Erudio 

2000 Erudio

 

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.

 

I had no idea at the time who ESL were. 

 

13/06/2013 - moved house ( I know you feel this is irrelevant - but the impact of SLC not updating my record correctly on this day led me to be completely in the dark and very concerned mistrustful of the whole situation in March 14.) 

 

09/07/13 - note on SLC DSR of me calling SLC &  updating my new contact details, new name change due to marriage. My new address was not recorded by SLC which I believe must have been an admin error on their part. 

 

Although it was clear I had as someone had removed my previous home number on that  very date!!! 

 

22/11/2013 N.O.A sent out by Erudio - my new surname spelt incorrectly & to my old address (up to 13/06/13. - and all correspondence  throughout has incorrectly spelt my new surname.) 

 

March 14 - time - still having no paperwork from Erudio a D/D taken from my account without any notice whatsoever, called bank who at the time told me this couldn't happen and must be a scam. 

 

I must have googled to see what was happening and got a number for Erudio, but though they were the just same as other debt collectors etc.. if the odd payment doesn't go through then reverts back to student loan. I was very nervous of credit files etc.. as had just gone through the mortgage process - so when I eventually got some paperwork through from Erudio my name was spelt incorrectly - I had previously advised SLC of this so again I just thought it was a scam DCA

 

A couple of months later in 2014  I must have re -instated direct debit with Student Loans company - not sure why that was ever cancelled and continued to pay - until I was offered a final settlement figure. (btw I now know this was indeed Honours and separate to Erudio.)

 

I have the bank statements to confirm - I also can see a spreadsheet has been sent to Erudio from SLC when I requested the SAR from SLC. SLC have not sent me this spreadsheet, but have allowed Erudio to send it to me. Going back through previous bank statements, this spreadsheet from SLC  via Erudio does not appear to be correct - Am I within my rights to request this from SLC? If this is what Erudio will use as their evidence? Erudio payments taken from me  appear to be null and void? 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/01/2021 at 16:04, owk said:

a letter out of the blue from Dryden Fairfax - advising there is a warrant of control order to my address for a CCJ issued to my old address in July 2019. 

 

1 hour ago, owk said:

Last payment to SLC Feb 2014.

 

1 hour ago, owk said:

SLC 

SAR they were accepting of my deferral status from Dec 13 - but SLC continued to take DD. SLC do make admin errors!!!!!!!!!

 

last deferral from you was dec 13,

court claim issued june 2019,

judgement CCJ July 2019

 

claim was issued within 6yrs from dec 2013, debt is not SB'd set aside will fail.

 

if SLC hadn't accepted your above dec 13 deferral (debt acknowledged by you) it would be dec 11 last deferment so would be SB'd.

the payments till feb 2014 are immaterial as the dec 13 deferment negates their need.

 

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 so my mistake I meant Dec 12 - only my maternity letter from my employer is there and the SAR and SLC say it will be kept on file ( i assumed a deferral  - but no deferment happens and I do not chase. 

Dec 11 is my last deferment - 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, owk said:

Last deferral according to SLC was 2011. It should have been Dec 12-Dec13 - but my deferral due to imminent maternity leave was not processed correctly, having applied for deferral in the Oct 12 - was rejected the three payments up to that point were still above the threshold. 

 

14 minutes ago, owk said:

only my maternity letter from my employer is there and the SAR and SLC say it will be kept on file ( i assumed a deferral  - but no deferment happens and I do not chase. 

Dec 11 is my last deferment - 

 

you now need to firm up and prove your theory that SLC stating payments up until Feb 2014 should not have been taken was an admin error??.??

 

but there was by then no valid deferment in place as the last one ran out dec 12 so SLC were entitled to take payments but you were not earning above the threshold? you say?

 

and from dec 12 SLC have not defaulted/terminated you....

could still be the payments then were valid and thus SB runs from feb 2014 so the CCJ was within 6yrs...

 

1 hour ago, owk said:

Last payment to SLC Feb 2014.

 

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

My husband posted it/ scanned it from work Dec 13- I will see if there is anyway they can check the post and scanner details.

 

The actual & the HR  letter from my employer giving all of my maternity leave dates and information is there on my SAR?? Along with my October deferral form.  

 

I may not be able to prove it was sent.. my emails to chase up my husband will be on my old work phone.

I gave birth on 03/12/12 - hence he would have done it on my behalf. 

 

Sorry I mean Dec 12 he would have posted it 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello, 

 

I have the N244 hearing next week, I have additional evidence to send in and can’t get through on the phone to the court. 

 

Dryden sent me a pack of evidence yesterday, which I need to go through. 

 

I have sent sent a complaint in to SLC - should I include that? 

 

I think my S loan should be statute barred - as the payments SLC took after my Dec 12 deferment look to be in error. 

 

Should I present all of my case/ evidence  next week? 

 

Many thanks 

Link to post
Share on other sites

what additional evidence?

surely this is only backing up what you have already claimed on you N244 to be the case and the reason for the set aside

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

Evidence 

A copy of my open Jan 2021 complaint to SLC regarding my deferral for 13-14 which SLC had on file in SAR  - and it was also in Erudio SAR

 

A “we are sorry you have  a complaint” letter sent to me last week from Erudio. I have only raised a complaint directly with SLC - what data are they sharing? Are they trying to get me to acknowledge the debt in writing? 

 

Bank statements - to show Erudio took payments without my consent in 2014. 

 

All Erudio paperwork is blank - they have had nothing from me DAFs or DD forms. 

 

Erudio SAR saying suppress any DAF request  in 2014 & 2015. 

 

Student Loans Company at the time of transition said speak to Erudio, we can’t help you. 

 

Although a couple of months later, I was passed to Honours S L thinking it was SLC and eventually paid this off in total. 

 

I’ve found Department of BIS government letters inSept 2014 saying joint loan holders paperwork could be processed by SLC. 

 

I was not in arrears with SLC when loans sold, I should have been deferred. 

 

A lot lot of letters from  Erudio SAR saying account in Remediation and sorry letters etc.. 

 

No copies of  letters from Erudio ( in SAR) to my current address 2014,2015.

 

I believe these letters were all non compliant. 

 

SLC did not update my address correctly in July 2013 (on SAR) - which let to all the N.O.A being sent to old address & spelt my married name incorrectly on paperwork but correctly on their DD.

 

No default notice whatsoever, just a demand in Full in 2016.Nothing on my credit file

 

Drydens are quoting costs of £1000 for next week. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

havng just looked at what you put in your N244 before you came here, you've basically portrayed a story that you paid, but since then you've discovered this was to Link on an old HSL loan, not part of the Erudio picture and the CCJ you thus got.

 

i think you need to urgently update your reasons for the set aside and clarify because you now have the results of all the SAR's which are mentioned in your N244, ....that in 2014 SLC took payments in error (that they admit too) and that as your last deferment was dec 20xx, the claim was issued outside of 6yrs so the debt was already SB'd at time of issue.

 

if you win the set aside, then things are reset as to if you've only just received the original claimform.

the judge or erudio might just drop it there and then i'e you won or there might be a later rehearing concerning the original claim.

thats when all the above will come into play.

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

you will need proof the slc agree they took the payments in error, thus resetting the SB clock.

i thought you had that in the SAR?

where did this admittance of the error come from then?

 

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

Yes SLC had my old company HR letter in SAR and I’ve also got the emails from them saying it would be kept on file and processed when the baby was born. Erudio also has this as a copy. 

 

I rang SLC last week again to see why it didn’t ever happen. 

 

The failure on theor part to update my address - even though you can clearly see on my SAR that I called them led to me not ever receiving the N.o.a - hence the confusion with Erudio / Honours in 2014

Link to post
Share on other sites

but where does that state they should not have taken the payments so thus it was their error.......

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...