Jump to content


Backdoor Erudio CCJ - old Student Loans


Recommended Posts

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

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)."

 

 

.

  • I agree 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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

 

 

.

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

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’.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • 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

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

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 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 by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes very important to leave that  in!!!

 

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

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

 

 

.

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

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.

 

 

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Badgergirl25
missed out text
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

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

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. "

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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 .

 

 

 

 

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 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 ?

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

ps one of many like threads travelling the same boards

 

 

  • 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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...