Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They wont take you to court. I'm not sure what they'll do about the letters and if they will or wont send you the letters from their retail prevention company, but you can ignore those letters. You'll be just fine don't worry.
    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. 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.
  • 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

Loan to Erudio about to paid off but worrying about interest rate in Portal?


emmy1979
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 844 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

have had numerous issues with Erudio, as is pretty usual with this shower regarding their distribution of paperwork.

 

My physically abusive ex husband withheld my post for a year in 2014-15, when I left him so my account went into arrears, as I couldn't defer as I didn't know it had been sold.eventually sorted it out via the police

 

paid Erudio £100 a month (whilst in deferment) towards arrears

then my income went over the deferment threshold

have been paying the contractual amount (that they set) of £139.48 for 20 months.

 

I phoned on 08/10/18 to ask if I could change my DD to 1st of month and the man on the phone said no as it would be breaking my contract.

 

Today I received an aggressively worded letter dated 09/10/18 from them terminating my account and demanding £3055.87 by 07/11/18 to pay off the arrears.

 

The remaining balance is £3905.33. Citing 'You have broken the terms of your agreement because you failed to pay your repayments on time and in accordance with the terms of the agreement.'

 

Why would they pursue this two years later, after accepting a repayment plan?

I have already paid £2236.59 .

 

This year I am below the deferment threshold.

Should I ignore?

 

I want to actually take this further and see if I can look at if taking them on and argue that they entered into a new contract by accepting and setting the contractual payment amount and by not issuing a further default notice and that they have not followed process as they have jumped straight to demand in full.

 

Surely they would be hard pushed to get a judge to agree with them that I am not doing enough to settle my debt when I am not taking up the option to defer even though I am now under the threshold and I have maintained monthly repayments?

 

I am also mentioning unfair treatment as they are refusing to give a reason why they have suddenly made this decision.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

You only owe money when over the threshold

Work out what you owed and thus paid.

 

Then send in using the old slc deferment forms ones to cover any other period

 

Check your credit file too

S

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

but is this due to erudio?

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

doubt it arrows

they do this all the time

just get those forms in

 

lots of threads here to read.

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

don't worry about what they have said

it just to spoof you.

 

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

don't need to show what you've paid they know that.

all you need to do is ensure you've only paid for the period when you needed too.

else if you've paid for when it should have been deferred then I can see you can demand that moneyback as you didn't owe it.

 

that know doubt will not happen and will be added to your complaint about them to the FOS

as I can see that's the way this will go just like every other wrongful default/termination issue here.

 

get reading as many thread here in the SLC forum as you can

the more you read

the stronger we become.

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 DX, sorry to bother you again. I just wanted to know if you think this is a good idea? I work for local government and sit near the legal / contracts department and asked my friend what she thinks. She said to send Erudio a letter saying on the lines of:

 

"On X November 2010 [the company] notified me I could continue to pay X per month.) and at the end say "These actions amounted to a waiver of any alleged breach of contract on my part and as such, under our current contract, [Company] is not permitted to terminate the contract".

 

She also said that:

 

The problem is the loan contract may well specify:

 

a) no waivers (although this could be argued)

b) that it has the right to call in the loan at any time.

 

Just wondered what your thoughts are on this? Or if I need to withhold entering into a dialogue with them about contract?

 

Thanks for all your help so far. I'll donate to the page as it has helped reassure me quite a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

estopple but I wouldn't worry about it

 

erudio will say something totally diff in their next missive anyway.

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 just an update,

went to pull all my paperwork from storage yesterday (currently homeless so all my stuff in storage).

 

I'm a social worker so I never get rid of paperwork, it's in my bones to keep everything and every letter I ever got from Erudio is there,

 

the first is dated 27/11/15 saying some interesting things about being unable to send statutory notices.

 

My last deferment was dated 1st March 2014. Think this will strengthen my case with FOS as I can pretty much prove that they let 'arrears of £2517.20 build up before contacting me and these arrears built up between 01/03/15 and 27/11/15.

Also got proof that my first payment to them was dated May 2016.

 

Just thought I'd update where I am in my complaint.

Not heard a thing from Erudio.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I ended up getting a promotion and going over the deferment threshold so have been paying my contractual amount.

 

I now have approx £200 left to pay.

2 payments left.

I will cancel my DD with great pleasure.

 

Just worrying they might try it on as the Interest Rate on my overall balance on the portal says 0%.

When I look at the detail of my 3 loans, one is overpaid by thousands but the first two are still showing as default and in debit

- received Notice of Sums of Arrears through the post for these two loans but I have been paying them down so ignored and thought their admin is wonky.

 

Should I be worried?

 

TIA.

Edited by dx100uk
block of text spaced to paragraphs
Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to look at things as a whole sum.

 

overpayment by £1000's on one loan should be used to settle the others.

 

forget about any interest.

 

what do you totally owe ?

what have you totally paid?

 

thats the crux.

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...