Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It’s truly inspirational to think their £460,000 “Partygate” performance piece has not yet reached its final form. That will come as early as today, when a number of the officers tasked with not spotting Boris Johnson in a series of piss-up photos get signed off with stress.   Only when they’ve been on the sick for two years, then retired with a full pension but also returned to a high-paying station desk job, will Partygate have attained the British establishment gold standard.   - Marina Hyde
    • Hi allets, CCA to whoever is the debt owner today, let us know their response, or lack there of, for further guidance   Or you could read up other like threads and the advice will be the same, so you'll know what to expect   BT
    • OK, let's get stuck into these damn fleecers.  Building on last night's version, new bits in red.   LFI, can you check I've understood the POFA bits properly that you suggested (4.  NO KEEPER LIABILITY)?  Thanks.     IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD    CLAIM NO: XXXX   HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT) VS XXX (DEFENDANT)   Date: 3rd May 2022   Witness Statement   1. I, Mr XXX, of xxx am the Defendant against whom this claim is made.   1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX.   1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE   2. I confirm that i was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma Leisure Centre, Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (bank statement proof exhibit 1).   2.1. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   2.2.  In their Witness Statement opposing my set aside application the Claimant includes a site plan showing the position of their signs and a close up of a sign to make it look like it is featured in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest billboard in world history.   2.3.  The reality for the motorist is completely different.  I attach photos, some from Google Earth but most taken by myself, which show what a motorist sees when approaching the site in daylight (exhibit 2).  There is no sign at the entrance.  The car then drives past a gym and a cinema without encountering any signs.  When then parking in the car park outside McDonald's once again there is dearth of signage.  Admittedly a motorist who perhaps came out with binoculars might just about be able to make out signs in the far distance mounted on various buildings.   2.4.  The driver visited the site around midnight.  I further attach photos taken at night from the McDonald's area (exhibit 3) and defy whoever is representing HX Parking at the hearing to point out the signs the driver should have read.  There aren't any.  I have not doctored these photos in any way or deliberately not photographed visible signs.  There simply are no visible signs.   2.5.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   2.6. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it is likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   2.7.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   UNFAIR TERM   3.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit 4) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   3.1.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   3.2.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    3.3.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   4. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.     4.1.  The Claimant's PCN does not comply with Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  POFA states that a parking period must be stated and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit.  All that takes time.   4.2.  To transfer liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper, in their PCN the Claimant must include the wording at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)" but they have not. That in itself makes it non-compliant.   LOCUS STANDI   5.  Looking at the contract with the landowner which the Claimant included when opposing my set aside application, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of who actually signed.   5.1.  There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow court action in pursuit of non payers.   In section 11 which is like an addendum it states "the Company shall provide parking control" but does not state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   6.  After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   6.1.  The Claimant is supposed to comply with the law and the IPC Code of Conduct and they have done neither.  The new government Private Parking Code of Practice draws attention as well to s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS   7. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    7.1.  As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    7.2.  Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued” (exhibit 5).   7.3.  Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    7.4.  Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’   7.5.  In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    7.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   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.
    • Hi dx100uk. I didn't know about the above. Do I request a new CCA from Cabot? Are you  also suggesting that I stop payments to Cabot until this is sorted out?  I have since then built up a good credit rating from the reference agencies  and would not like to turn this sour again. It took some time to get straight. Allets.
    • ah! FCA their new name (well 15yrs ago) for the FSA.   interesting they helped here this must mean they have had a series of complaints then.   dx      
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Backdoor Erudio CCJ - old Student Loans - Already SB'd - ***Claim Discontinued***


Badgergirl25
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 124 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

try again...

 

dx

  • Haha 1

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 again,

 

More setbacks health wise unfortunately and I am due back into hospital on 5th November for further breast cancer surgery.  I need to file my defence now and get this over to the courts by 27/10/21.

 

I have had a look at the original witness statement and not sure how to change this to word a good defence. Should I remove all of the waffle and just stick with the statute barred defence or leave as is and add more about it being statute barred?

 

The other thing that worries me is the final line on the set aside where it says it is pending the court's determination at a final hearing as to whether I notified the claimant of my change of address. I have no way of proving this and the more I think about it, the more I am now doubting myself as well. I am also presuming that there will be no telephone/court session on 27th October - please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Please could you let me know the best way of writing my defence? I have looked at others on here for guidance but they are either really short and did not win or totally irrelevant to this case. I have uploaded my original statement to save hunting the thread, please feel free to remove if not needed.

 

Thanks in advance

Statement edited.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

just file our std SB defence with an added line at the top.....

 

 

my last written and signed acknowledgement of the debt was by way of a deferment form send date xxxxxx directly  to SLC..

 

 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.

 

 

see what @Andyorchthings.

 

short and sweet IMHO.

 

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 this one:

 

my last written and signed acknowledgement of the debt was by way of a deferment form send date xxxxxx directly  to SLC..

 

 The Claimant's claim was issued on dd/mm/yyyy.

 

 2.The date last payment made was the dd/mm/yyyy 

 

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

 

 4.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.

 

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

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,

 

Please check my defence - thanks.

 

Should the initial breach say 5½ years or 4½ years (1 year after the deferment was made)?

 

CLAIMANT
ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LIMITED
– AND –
DEFENDANT
XXX (PREVIOUSLY XXX)
DEFENCE OF XXX
I, xxx of, xxx, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;


1. My last written and signed acknowledgement of the debt was by way of a deferment form [approximately and probably no later than] send date of 18/02/2011 directly to Student Loans Company Ltd. 2. The Claimant's claim was issued on 09/11/2020.


3. The Default Notice was issued 13/10/2016 and served over 5½ years after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by 5½ years and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years + 5½ years 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.


4. 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.


5. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £4707.84 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: xxx
Dated: 27/10/2021

 

 

Edited by dx100uk
pdf place as txt in post so as to highlight errors..
Link to post
Share on other sites

the 1 yrs deferment period is immaterial.

i would remove 

 [approximately and probably no later than] 

 

have you not ordered by the judge to file a defence not a witness statement?

 

no need for the extra bits top/bottom.?

 

 

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 s a manual defence submission DX it must contain the headers and statement of truth.

  • Like 1

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

Not sure of actual date of completion and return. Is this ok?

 

Claimant
ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LIMITED

– and –
Defendant
xxx (previously xxx)

 DEFENCE OF xxx

 

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

 

1.     My last written and signed acknowledgement of the debt was by way of a deferment form send date of February 2011 directly to Student Loans Company Ltd.

 

2.     The Claimant's claim was issued on 09/11/2020.

 

3.     The Default Notice was issued 13/10/2016 and served over 5½ years after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by 5½ years and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years + 5½ years 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.

 

4.     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. 

 

5.     The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £4707.84 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: xxx

 

Dated: 27/10/2021

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amend your statement of truth as its not a witness statement at this stage...finish it simply with  .....

 

“I believe the that the facts stated in this defence are true.

 

Sign 

 

Date

  • Like 1

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

Thanks, done.

 

On the judgment at 3. it says

 

...pending the Court's determination at a final hearing as to whether the Defendant had notified the Claimant of her change of address as alleged at paragraph 11 of her statement of 8th September 2021, costs of the application are reserved. 

 

What does this mean? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subject to that one point if its proved that the claimant was notified of a change of address...then the court will allow your claim for costs of your application .....assuming you have success.....IE the court dismissed their claim.

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

That's why its so important to maintain a paper trail of all correspondence. Like wise they have to prove that you didn't inform them so the burden of proof should not fall completely on the defendant.

 

As for adding the fact that the claim was initially issued on 08/03/2017 and a stay was imposed and lifted then that should be stated at your point 2.I don't know why you have stated "  2.  The Claimant's claim was issued on 09/11/2020. "  ??

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

My bad then from our SB Def txt.

 

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

5 hours ago, Andyorch said:

 

 

As for adding the fact that the claim was initially issued on 08/03/2017 and a stay was imposed and lifted then that should be stated at your point 2.I don't know why you have stated "  2.  The Claimant's claim was issued on 09/11/2020. "  ??

 

Because that claim was the one that the set aside was for. The one that was lifted and stayed only came about when Drydens included it in the paperwork. Apparently it was thrown out and I knew nothing about this until just before the set aside hearing for the backdoor CCJ on 09/11/20. It was mentioned that this could be a 'bugbear'. Is it? I'm really confused now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 17/10/2021 at 15:43, Badgergirl25 said:

1. My last written and signed acknowledgement of the debt was by way of a deferment form [approximately and probably no later than] send date of 18/02/2011 directly to Student Loans Company Ltd. 2. The Claimant's claim was issued on 09/11/2020.

 

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

Okay well I'm still not really following it.....as long as the second claim has a different claim number.

 

So first claim, number xxxxxxxxx was issued 08/03/2017  and the defence you are submitting now is claim number xxxxxxx issued on 09/11/20 ?

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

why ofcourse its sb'd!!

 

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

It is sb'd what are you going on about...

 

You sent last deferment 11/02/2011.

Claim issued 08/03/2017......more than 6yrs apart 

 

Dx

  • Like 1

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

Not sure of the actual date in February it was sent, probably the 18th as would have been the friday after receiving it.

Please check amended defence below...

 

Claimant
ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LIMITED
– and –
Defendant
xxx (previously xxx)

DEFENCE OF xxx

 

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

 

1.     My last written and signed acknowledgement of the debt was by way of a deferment form send date of February 2011 directly to Student Loans Company Ltd.

 

2.     The Claimant's first claim was served over 6 years from the last written acknowledgment of the debt on 08/03/2017. This was lifted and stayed as it didn’t meet compliance guidelines within the Consumer Credit Act (1974).

 

3.     The stay was lifted on 09/11/2020 resulting in a County Court Judgment, which I became aware of on 22nd January 2021.

 

4.     The Default Notice was issued 13/10/2016 and served over 5½ years after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by 5½ years and the Limitations period prolonged to 1 year + 5½ years and then 6 years + 5½ years 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.

 

5.     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. 

 

6.     The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £4707.84 or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.

 

Signed: xxx

 

Dated: 27/10/2021

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Backdoor Erudio CCJ - old Student Loans - Already SB'd - ***Claim Discontinued***
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...