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

[dx100uk]

eh?

if you mean CPR 31:14.

to what end?

you already have all their evidence in their WS.

 

 

[owk]

i've never signed their terms?

they will have no payments from me?

there is no default notice only a termination letter, they said there was a default notice?

how is the initial breach 2016 when erudio took over in March 2014?

they confirm my last deferment was 2011 to the student loans company

in the erudio SAR I have letters with incorrect amounts stated for initial SLC loans. 

 

 

[dx100uk]

it does matter what you did or did not sign.

it doesn't matter what you paid or did not.

it doesn't matter what documents they hold or not.

 

the debt is statute barred, your last deferment was 2011...

 

 The Default Notice was issued dd/mm/yyyy and served several years after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X years and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and Xyears which 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.

 

 Therefore 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 true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

[owk]

Good afternoon

The information supplied to us by our client indicates that a Default Notice was issued on the 12 January 2017. As such, the limitation period would begin again from this date.

 

Kind regards

[dx100uk]

load of BS see my last post.

 

dx

 

[owk]

Shall I just send the compliance team your post?

 

Dear Compliance Team,

 

Further to information which has been provided to me, can you please confirm as to why my the above was  not statute barred before issuance of claim form?

 

I have been advised due to my last successful deferment being 2011 by SLC, that this is a statute barred claim being issued in 2019?

 

Kind regards

 

Their response was 

 

Good afternoon

The information supplied to us by our client indicates that a Default Notice was issued on the 12 January 2017. As such, the limitation period would begin again from this date.

 

Kind regards

 

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

why are you entering into pointless email tennis....

 

 

On 14/01/2021 at 17:33, dx100uk said:

unless you deferred to erudio or you paid someone something regarding this loan, it was already statute barred as with 99% of erudio slc ccj's

 

not sure how many times since the above post i keep stating the same thing here.

[owk]

sorry but they are still saying this date was the initial breach?? 
 

I can confirm that the initial breach occurred on 28 October 2016, as outlined in the attached Witness Statement. 

 

 

[dx100uk]

7 hours ago, dx100uk said:

it does matter what you did or did not sign.

it doesn't matter what you paid or did not.

it doesn't matter what documents they hold or not.

 

the debt is statute barred, your last deferment was 2011...

 

 The Default Notice was issued dd/mm/yyyy and served several years after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X years and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and Xyears which 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.

 

 Therefore 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 true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

 

[owk]

their response.. 
 

Please refer to the email sent to you on the 4 May 2022, in which we informed you that the information supplied to us by our Client indicates that a Default Notice was issued on the 12 January 2017. As such, the limitation period would begin again from this date therefore, the debt is not Statute Barred.

 

In order for us to come to an amicable resolution regarding this matter, please respond to the email dated the 5 May 2022, in which we advised you that we would be prepared to offer you an arrangement under a Tomlin Order for repayment of the outstanding balance at an affordable amount.

[dx100uk]

as they will do.

next time never voluntarily respond unless under instruction of a court.

[owk]

Thank you for your email. As previously advised, your queries relate to your most recent complaint and as such your correspondence will be processed by our Complaints Team.

 

Following review of your email dated 18 May 2022, my understanding is that you are alleging that there was a delay in issuing the Default Notice in order to prolong the limitation period. Therefore I felt it was essential for me to fully understand the chronology of the account before addressing this dispute. 

 

Our client’s records show that the last deferment date was the 24 April 2011. The relevant limitation period in respect of this type of claim is 6 years pursuant to section 5 of the Limitation Act meaning that based on your last deferment date, the account would not have been considered Statute Barred until the 24 April 2017. However a Default was registered against you on the 12 January 2017, and pursuant to section 29(5) of the Limitation Act, the relevant limitation period accrues afresh on the date of default. 

 

When a student loan account reaches its 60^th month and there is still an outstanding balance, the account matures. This means it will exit the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and the balance becomes due in full. The maturity date is moved on by 12 months with each deferment period meaning that this account matured on the 31 March 2016. The Subject Access Request supplied to you by Erudio enclosed a number of letters that were issued to you throughout 2016, in which they clearly informed you that your account was in arrears. These letters made it clear that the client wished to work with you to agree an affordable repayment arrangement and that failure to do so may result in a Default being registered against you. Unfortunately, they were unable to reach an amicable resolution resulting in a Default being registered on the 12 January 2017.

 

As such, whilst I apologise if you feel that our client deliberately delayed issuing the Default in order to prolong the limitation period, I assure you that is not the case. As set out above, Erudio are contractually obligated to allow a 60 month period between the last deferment date and the account maturity date and acted in a fair and reasonable manner by allowing an additional 10 months after the account maturity date to give you the opportunity to resolve the matter before the Default Notice was issued.

[owk]

Happpy Erudio Friday!!! 
 

I never received a default and nothing has appeared on my credit file? What does this mean? 

[AndyOrch]

They never defaulted you or informed your credit files or issued a hard copy default notice however a Default was registered against you on the 12 January 2017 allegedly 

[owk]

Thanks Andy, where can I check this? 

[AndyOrch]

You cant...you have to take their word for it......lets hope they can disclose it in court.

[dx100uk]

SLC debts do not appear on credit files.

they are an ex Gov't debt so can't be included in credit files even after sale. erudio tried to change this with their new deferment forms from 2013 , but the FOS outlawed it as they did lots of other stuff erudio added which were never originally present. they also got fined heavily for doing these things and were made to write off 10'000's of loand and pay back arrears they had sucked from peoples bank accounts by also unlawfully demanding a signed DD mandate in their form changes which also got reversed by the FOS.

 

its all here in the SLC forum.

 

as for this stupid 'maturity' claim. it's all twaddle dreamt up by erudio again, which never existed in the SLC original agreement you signed upto under such an interpretation.

the only mention of maturity is with regard to when the loan no longer becomes due, you aged 50 or 25yrs since sign up etc. there are slight variations but thats the main crux.

 

its why erudio either dream up arrears or some other broken rule to prevent true maturity happening one way or another. 

and wrongly think they can issue a default notice years after last successful deferral , AFAIK there is nothing in the original SLC T&C's that allows a default to be registered upon 'maturity' as thats not how SLC explain that term there.

 

 

 

 

[owk]

Thanks I’ll hit them with this point again.
 

I’m running everything by their head of compliance for clarification

[dx100uk]

cant ever see the point in entering into pointless letter tennis.

[owk]

I know what you are saying but the court route so far has almost doubled the claim 

[dx100uk]

Eh?

a set aside is a fixed fee to you.

and you can get that and costs back when you win.

 

this is the pitfall of entering into pointless email tennis.

 

We never said conversing with these fleecers. They lie to scare you stop it!

 

Dx

 

[owk]

Having reviewed my previous response, whilst the overall position remains the same, where I referred to a Default, this should have referred to the full amount falling due for payment/the demand for full payment.  I apologise for any confusion that this may have caused and have amended my explanation below to replace any reference to the Default Notice.

 

Our client’s records show that the last deferment date was the 24 April 2011. Once deferment ends, the agreement takes effect in accordance with the terms thereof – i.e. the monthly payments fall due.

 

The relevant limitation period in respect of this type of agreement is 6 years, pursuant to section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 (‘the act’).  In respect of this type of agreement, limitation starts to accrue when the full amount owing falls due for payment, as the creditor does not have a cause of action to bring proceedings for the full amount of the claim until that time.  The full amount owing under the agreement becomes due (and the cause of action accrues) in one of two ways, namely:

 

1.    If the customer fails to make required payments, the creditor can serve a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.  In the event that the customer does not pay the arrears in accordance with the Default Notice, the creditor can terminate the agreement.  Limitation then starts to accrue from that date; or

2.    If the agreement is not terminated due to failure to comply with a Default Notice, the full amount falls due for payment when the full term of the agreement expires.  Limitation then starts to accrue from that date.

 

In this case, the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice.  The cause of action and hence, the limitation period therefore, started to accrue from the date when the term of the agreement expired.  This was a 60 month agreement.  When a student loan account reaches its 60^th month and there is still an outstanding balance, the account matures. This means it will exit the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and the balance becomes due in full. The maturity date is moved on by 12 months with each deferment period meaning that this account matured on the 31 March 2016, which is when the relevant limitation period therefore, started to accrue.  Limitation would not therefore, have expired until March 2022.  As you are aware however, proceedings were issued against you in June 2019 – i.e. comfortably within the relevant limitation period.

 

Further to the above, even if limitation did not start to run from the date specified above (which it did) and actually started to run from the date of last deferment in 2011 as you incorrectly allege, you did make some payments in respect of the debt, the most recent of which was on the 28 March 2015 in the amount of £90.73, which was paid to Capita under a direct debit.  Pursuant to section 29(5) of the act, the relevant limitation period accrues afresh upon each part payment.  In view of that payment, even if your view of when limitation initially started to accrue was correct (which it is not), it would have accrued afresh based upon the payment and would not therefore, have expired until March 2021.  Again, as proceedings were issued in June 2019, this was comfortably within limitation.

 

The Subject Access Request supplied to you by Erudio enclosed a number of letters that were issued to you throughout 2016, in which they clearly informed you that your account was in arrears. These letters made it clear that the client wished to work with you to agree an affordable repayment arrangement and that failure to do so may result in a Default being registered against you. Unfortunately, they were unable to reach an amicable resolution resulting in a Final Demand being produced on the 12 January 2017 and issued to you on the 14 January 2017 and it ultimately, becoming necessary for our client to then issue proceedings against you due to non-payment.

 

As such, whilst I apologise if you feel that our client deliberately delayed the cause of action in order to prolong the limitation period, I assure you that is not the case. As set out above, as the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice, Erudio were contractually obligated to allow a 60 month period between the last deferment date and the account maturity date.  They then acted in a fair and reasonable manner by allowing an additional 10 months after the account maturity date to give you the opportunity to resolve the matter before the Demand in Full was issued. 

 

I have also had sight of an email that you sent to my colleague, Richard Senior in which you requested us to confirm that we have complied with FCA regulation. Having reviewed the matter, I am satisfied that throughout our instruction we have acted in accordance with the relevant FCA regulation.

 

The payment they are talking about is the dd they set up on my account without my knowledge in march 2014 not 2015 !  
 

 

[owk]

Thank you for your email the contents of which I note.

 

It is unclear how you allege that the FCA individual conduct rules have been breached.  For the avoidance of doubt however, I do not agree that there has been any such breach.  

 

In terms of your contention that the debt is stature barred, this was addressed in detail in the email which my colleague sent to you on the   ……, May 2022.

 

As you are aware, we have responded to your complaints and addressed each of the issues which that you have raised.  I am aware that you do not agree with our responses and continue to dispute the claim but as you are aware, the matter is listed for a small claims hearing on …….July 2022 at which the Court will decide upon such issues.

 

In the event that you are unsure of your position, I would recommend that you seek independent legal advice

[owk]

Hi - an update, 

 

I have been sent a consent from Erudio/ Drydens  order to vacate the hearing in favour of an investigation by the FOS.

 

Do I have to sign it or can I print my signature  I’m scared of my signature being forged for documentation. 

 

[AndyOrch]

Sign it in a unique way ...not your normal signature.