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

[Andyorch]

Quote

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).

 

There is only one claim...no first claim. " The claim was stayed as it didn’t meet compliance guidelines within the Consumer Credit Act (1974)."

 

 

.

[Badgergirl25]

I've changed to...

 

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

 

The claim was lifted AND then stayed for 3.5 years

[Andyorch]

A claim cant be lifted and stayed.....makes no sense...it can be stayed and an application was made to lift the stay on x date.

What does  " as it didn’t meet compliance guidelines within the Consumer Credit Act (1974)."  mean exactly as Im sure a judge would also ask the same point ?

 

 

.

[Badgergirl25]

Yes, I see what you mean. My interpretation of law is a bit shite, sorry.

 

I got it from part of the claimant's bundle below - this was when we first got knowledge of the earlier claim that I posted on here a while back.

 

REMIDIATION AND APPLICATION TO LIFT STAY

16 Following the Claim being issues, the Claimant became aware that the account required CCA remediation with regards to required data corrections, replacement Notice of Statements in Arrears and/or Annual Statements to ensure they met compliance guidelines within the Consumer Credit Act (1974).

17 The matter was placed on hold until remediation was complete but was one of approximately 40,000 cases affected by these issues.

18 Letters were issued to the Defendant on 27 March 2018 and on 2 April 2020 to invite the Defendant to reach payment arrangement without the necessity for continued legal action. The Defendant failed to engage with the Claimant and so an Application to Lift the Stay and obtain Judgment was made and granted by the Deputy District Judge Wilson on 9 November 2020. A copy of the Application and Court Order as exhibited at ‘pages 18 – 21 of SR1’.

[Andyorch]

So that's their reason for letting the claim become stayed...whilst they corrected the errors in the paperwork to meet the compliance guidlines.

Its not really something you can use to your advantage or be part of a defence.

 

Quote

this was when we first got knowledge of the earlier claim that I posted on here a while back.

 

Your comment above really concerns me in that you still do not understand the process of issuing a court claim...so again there is only one claim ...no earlier claims no secondary claims...one claim that was stayed then lifted then judgment applied for and then set a side.

 

One claim one claim number.

[Andyorch]

So which way are you defending this...is it statute barred given the issuance date was 2017?

[Badgergirl25]

Thanks for the explanation and I think it is sinking in.

 

Apologies, but I have no idea what I am doing, I'm just trying to do as advised on here and have no prior knowledge of law. 

I have changed the defence below, but if it is not statute barred then there is no defence surely. 100DX thinks it is statute barred but I have no idea any more.

 

When I originally paid for the set aside, I had no knowledge of the claim being made earlier than 2020 and that seems to have changed everything. I am so grateful for all of your help here, but please advise if I'm wasting time with this and I will go ahead with the Tomlin order, before it costs me a lot more.

 

 

 

CLAIMANT
ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LIMITED
– AND –
DEFENDANT
xxx

DEFENCE OF xxx

 

I, 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 served over 6 years from the last written acknowledgment of the debt on 08/03/2017. 

 

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 defence are true. 

Signed: xxx 

Edited October 19, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[Andyorch]

Well I will let DX comment on whether its statue barred or not ...I really only came in to make sure your defence was written correctly and that you understand the procedure and that there were not previous claims.

[dx100uk]

3 hours ago, dx100uk said:

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

 

You sent last deferment 11ish/02/2011.

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

 

Dx

as i said earlier^^^

 

no claim should have been issued in the 1st place, regardless to what has happened since.

 

your defence is perfect and watertight and very difficult for drydens to counter.

 

should be a walk in the park, but....we can't protect against judge lottery.

[Andyorch]

Then simply submit the standard statute barred defence....but it must sate the the correct date the claim was issued " 08/03/2017 "

[Badgergirl25]

Thanks both

 

Leave in this bit? They relied on the default notice date for issuing the claim in their argument both to me and the judge so I wasn't sure whether to leave it in or not...

 

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.

[dx100uk]

yes very important to leave that  in!!!

 

dx

[Andyorch]

The default notice was served 11½ years after the initial breach ? 

 

 

.

[Badgergirl25]

18 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

The default notice was served 11½ years after the initial breach ? 

just over 5½ years

[Andyorch]

Quote

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 

 

Then just state 5 years 6 months..the above reads as 11½ years.

 

 

. 

[Badgergirl25]

1.     The Default Notice was issued 13/10/2016 and served over 5 years 7 months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by over 5 years 7 months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years + 5 years 7 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.

[Badgergirl25]

20 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

 

Then just state 5 years 6 months..the above reads as 11½ years.

 

 

. 

That's an explanation of them changing the limitation period from 6 years to to 11 years and 7 months. Should I change it to read as such?

 

1.     The Default Notice was issued 13/10/2016 and served over 5 years 7 months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by over 5 years 7 months and the Limitations period prolonged to 11 years 7 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.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Badgergirl25
missed out text

[Andyorch]

Quote

and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years + 5 years 7 months

That equates to 11 years and 7 months ...the limitation period has not been extended if the breach or deferment was dated February 2011.

Default Notice issued 13/10/2016...its within the 6 years and the claim was issued  08/03/2017...its all within 6 years ?

[Badgergirl25]

I'm not sure what to put then - can you help? They believed that they were well within the limitation period as that was 6 years from the date of the default notice or it is terminated and gave the following blurb...

 

"The debt is not Statute Barred as claimed by the Defendant. The Defendant was served with a Default Notice on 13 October 2016 due to her failure to make payments or defer the loans and so was served with a Default Notice. The Defendant failed to remedy the breach as described and to the account was terminated.

 

Section 5 of the Limitation Act states 'An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.' Taking into consideration the date of Default, and date of issue, the Claimant is comfortably within the time allowed to bring a money Claim.

 

The Claimant shall rely upon BMW Financial Services v Hart where the Court held that limitation does not start to accrue until the agreement is terminated due to non-compliance with a default notice served pursuant to section 87 of the act.

 

The Claimant shall also reply on Doyle v PRA, where it was held that the limitation period is not triggered until a default notice is served; as such, the Claim was not Statute Barred at the point it was issued.

 

To summarise, given the account was terminated on 11 November 2016 and the Claim issued on 8 March 2017, the debt is not Statute Barred. "

[Andyorch]

Wait until DX pops in and he can clarify why its statute barred....although I agree with the above claimant's stance that it cant be although I assume they stating you didn't defer is a myth as you maintain your last deferment was dated Feb 2011.

[Badgergirl25]

Ok will do. I have a copy of the letters dated 12/02/2011 giving me 14 days to defer and then another letter dated 22/03/11 confirming deferment that I attached to my statement.

[dx100uk]

good your have evidence...tough luck drydens!!

 

the cause of action for issuing the default notice must be the last written/signed comms from the defendant, that being deferment feb 2011. bar ofcourse payments after then. you've made none, nor earned above the threshold 

 

neither bmw nor doyle can be seen to allow a creditor to run the statute of limitation to an infinite date of their choosing.?

 

drydens have tried this numerous times, all claims have resulted in a stay or loss here so far , they've not won one slc case trying this dodge on sb .

 

 

 

 

[Andyorch]

So your deferment made Feb 2011, which lasts for 12 months...did you make any further deferments up until the default notice dated 13th Oct 2016 ?

[dx100uk]

ps one of many like threads travelling the same boards

 

 

[Badgergirl25]

15 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

So your deferment made Feb 2011, which lasts for 12 months...did you make any further deferments up until the default notice dated 13th Oct 2016 ?

 

No, Feb 2011 was the last one I did