Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, I've been following this thread and have some experience to share... Stand by for lots of words.   About 6 weeks ago, the engine seized on my car - 10 days before planning to use it for our 2 week trip around the UK!  I searched the internet for companies who could replace/rebuild the engine and get it back to me in time... One company that came up was 169 UK. I called the number and explained my predicament and the chap on the phone (who called himself Lee - I'm not convinced this was his real name) promised that if the vehicle got to him the next day or so, he'd have it done in time for our holiday!. He gave all kinds of reassurances about the types of vehicles they work on, from Porsches etc, even people from Spain taking their cars to him.. All work came through 3rd party websites (how i'd found them too) so you generally wont find reviews.    I was weary going into this, but you got to put your faith somewhere, right? so off it went on a trailer to Essex. NOW... I'd already asked where it would be going and I also tracked it by leaving a mobile phone hidden in the car. Interestingly, the place i was told i'd be collecting it from was not the same place the recovery guy (called Patrick?) told me he was delivering it to..    Anyway, they get the car and straight away tell me that the sump is full of diesel and that my ECU is faulty and its locked open one bank of injectors - causing the failure. All of this is feasible, but it meant that the car would not be ready in time for my holiday  He also tells me the DPF's (i'm sure it only has one, but he referred to there being more) were also completely blocked solid and needed to be dealt with (in this case, drilled and mapped out - which is also illegal) All of these little extras have now taken the cost from £3500 to nearly £5000  - as he was " putting together a special package for me" I tell him ok, i'm now away for 2 weeks so you have a little more time, i'll collect it when i get back.  I call him on the Friday before we travel home, asking how its going... he says "well, we aven't done it.. you said you were gonna be away for 2 weeks" apparently he marked to dairy wrong. So i call him again on the Monday following, I say I want to collect it that Thursday... not unreasonable. He then starts with the excuses that he has loads of guys off sick at the moment etc.. BUT, The car IS in the workshop and the boys ARE getting on with it. I say, OK.. but keep me updated daily as i need to make arrangements to come and get it. Tuesday passes without a word, so Wednesday morning i txt him asking for an update. He called me back around and hour later to tell me that the ECU they sourced for me is also faulty (they tested it before fitting it as they're nice like that) and it has water damage so he has to get another one, but that isn't going to get to him until the following Tuesday - which brings us up to this week.   Everything up until this point has been feasible if not a little annoying, BUT here is where is gets good...  On Sunday i happened to be in Essex on other business so decided to swing by Basildon and see if i could find my car. Knowing where it had been dropped off before the tracking phone died, i had a good idea where to look. And i also had the address of the garage where i'd be picking it up from. Hoping to not find it too easily - after all, it was being worked on on the Monday; Imagine my surprise to find it in the exact location it had been dropped off 4 weeks previously!  I lifted the bonnet - nothing had been touched.  The amount of dust on the bodywork and distinct lack of any hand prints etc strongly indicated that nothing had been touched and it certainly hadn't been moved in all that time. He may well have taken the ECU out to test but put it back, that's easy to do - but there is now way to tell from there that the DPF is blocked without removing it, or having full access to the ECU - which is faulty, remember?  It had all been LIES.  Now i am annoyed, but informed and he doesn't know that i know he's been lying to me.  I spent the next couple of days talking to various people i know and arranged my own recovery to get the car back - even if that meant effectively stealing it back. Long story short, i had it collected and got it back to me last night.  The guy who collected it went to the garage i'd been told i'd be collecting it from - Unit 28 Noble Square( Essex car and Commercial) and asked for Lee... Low and behold no-one by that name works there and the car (and others parked in the same place) were nothing to do with them! but then one guy did say "oh hang on, i think i know who you mean, let me give him a call"... 10 minutes later, 'Lee' showed up.  My man then had to endure conversation with this charlatan, but did glean some information that might be of interest.  "LEE" doesn't directly do any of this work... he takes on jobs, maybe up to 30 at a time and then farms them out to local garages. This explains why nothing had been done and why so many others get stuck in this net.   I was surprised that he was calm and didn't get the hump about me taking the car back, i still don't really understand what the scam is, but there definitely is one.  I think i've been very lucky that no money has been paid, i owe him nothing and i got out of there.  The amount of mental anguish and anxiety this has caused me has been extreme.  Now i'm back to square one, still with a broken car. But i'm only £500 out of pocket (for the recovery each way) and not £5k that it was supposedly going to cost... at some point, who knows when!     
    • Good luck from me as well Dixon, fingers crossed.    HB
    • Last time, the Judge provided me with, I would say, the most amount of time to speak. She started with HMRC, and they moved on to me. Essentially, since HMRC last responded to me (the original document I scribbled notes on), I feel it's right I should go first and just comment on each of their responses.   I'll leave sending that link to them, just in case HMRC then find something against it. I'll just bring it up, and mention the above quotes.
    • It's fine. Someone who deals with this more often than me will know.   HB
    • OK, your notes make sense but the outcome depends on what time you're given to voice your concerns.    I'd mention that HMRC have repeatedly failed to address your concerns that they repaid tax for an EIS Company that simply didn't exist - totally negligent !   Great bit of video given by Mr Wilde (bald HMRC guy) admitting they failed to even check if an EIS Sceme even existed or was genuine and this was criticised by the MP. Well done to UncleB for finding this.   Probably too late to fwd this to the FTT but no harm in trying.   Good luck !  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Erudio/dryden claimform - old SLC loan.


Recommended Posts

will it allow you to click on file a defence?

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

Brill 

Do so 

There are numerous erudio claimform threads here 

 

Find our std defence and get it filled..but post it up here 1st for checking.

 

If not I'll post one latter 

 

No real rush but by midnight should do 

 

Please don't panic 

Let us check or give it too 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

Thanks DX!  

 

I have put together what I think is the standard defence in this situation, I hope its correct.

 

They haven't complied with my CCA request, Do I need to add something in my defence regarding this?

 

 

 

1.The Claimant claims £5999.52 for monies due from the Defendant

 

2. This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and The Student Loans Company.

Each agreement had an individual account number as follows:

 

3. The defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s) being terminated.

Notice of such is served by a Default or Termination Notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s).

 

4.The debt was assigned to the Claimant on 22/11/2013 with a notice provided to the Defendant.

A new master reference number ***************** was also applied upon assignment.

 

The Claimant has complied with the Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims

 

The Defendant contends that the Particulars of Claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. Paragraph 1 & 2 are noted the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with the original creditor - The Student Loans Company. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or debt nor do I recognise the agreement numbers the claimant refers to .The Defendant has sought verification from the Claimant by way of a section 77 request which as to this date has failed to comply and remains in default.

 

2. Paragraph 3 & 4 are denied. I am not aware of any service of a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the consumer credit Act 1974 by the claimant nor the original creditor, nor of any legal assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 section 136 (1).

 

3. It is not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

 

b) show how the Defendant’s alleged debt has reached the amount claimed for; and

 

c) show the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and

 

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

 

4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant proves the allegation that the money is owed.

 

 

5. On the alternative, as the Claimant claims to be an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

 

6. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to add in about being deferred every year to xx date, when you got no reply and that you have never earned above the threshold etc. 

 

Should be in most erudio claimform threads here 

 

Sorry I'm out till very late tonight herding sheep and can't search 

 

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 minutes ago, Plonker1 said:

Maybe the end of paragraph 1 doesn't apply to me as they have fulfilled my CPR request?

Include they dont know you received it.

 

 

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

Just to clarify CPR 15.5 allows a defence to be submitted a further 28 days than normal IE 56 days.  (14th May 2022) The fact that they have allowed  further time is very generous on their part.

 

Andy

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

add back in the CPR line

go file that defence now.

protect yourself from a default judgement.

 

 

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

Morning DX,

 

Crashed out last night!

 

I shall submit the following defence today and have added point number 6 as you advised regarding the year until which I was in deferment and never earning more than the threshold.  

 

The Defendant contends that the Particulars of Claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. Paragraph 1 & 2 are noted the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with the original creditor - The Student Loans Company. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or debt nor do I recognise the agreement numbers the claimant refers to. The Defendant has sought verification from the Claimant by way of a section 77 request which as to this date has failed to comply and remains in default.

 

2. Paragraph 3 & 4 are denied. I am not aware of any service of a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the consumer credit Act 1974 by the claimant nor the original creditor, nor of any legal assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 section 136 (1).

 

3. It is not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

 

b) show how the Defendant’s alleged debt has reached the amount claimed for; and

 

c) show the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and

 

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant proves the allegation that the money is owed.

 

5. On the alternative, as the Claimant claims to be an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

6.  The defendant was in continued deferment until 2020 and has never earned over the threshold.

 

7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I ok to file the following defence:

 

The Defendant contends that the Particulars of Claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. Paragraph 1 & 2 are noted the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with the original creditor - The Student Loans Company. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or debt nor do I recognise the agreement numbers the claimant refers to. The Defendant has sought verification from the Claimant by way of a section 77 request which as to this date has failed to comply and remains in default.

 

2. Paragraph 3 & 4 are denied. I am not aware of any service of a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the consumer credit Act 1974 by the claimant nor the original creditor, nor of any legal assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 section 136 (1).

 

3. It is not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

 

b) show how the Defendant’s alleged debt has reached the amount claimed for; and

 

c) show the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and

 

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant proves the allegation that the money is owed.

 

5. On the alternative, as the Claimant claims to be an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

6.  The defendant was in continued deferment until 2020 and has never earned over the threshold.

 

7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Plonker1 said:

6.  The defendant was in continued deferment until 2020 and has never earned over the threshold.

remove^^

 

replace

33 minutes ago, Plonker1 said:

1. Paragraph 1 & 2 are noted, the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with the original creditor and the claimant regarding Student Loans. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement nor any debt.  The defendant always continued deferment until around 2020 when this was refused . i have never earned over the threshold.  The Defendant has sought verification from the Claimant by way of a section 77 request which as to this date has failed to comply and remains in default.

 

 

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

Thanks DX,

 

I'll submit this now:

 

 

 

The Defendant contends that the Particulars of Claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. Paragraph 1 & 2 are noted, the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with the original creditor and the claimant regarding Student Loans. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement nor any debt.  The defendant always continued deferment until around 2020 when this was refused. I have never earned over the threshold.  The Defendant has sought verification from the Claimant by way of a section 77 request which as to this date has failed to comply and remains in default.

 

2. Paragraph 3 & 4 are denied. I am not aware of any service of a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the consumer credit Act 1974 by the claimant nor the original creditor, nor of any legal assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 section 136 (1).

 

3. It is not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

 

b) show how the Defendant’s alleged debt has reached the amount claimed for; and

 

c) show the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and

 

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant proves the allegation that the money is owed.

 

5. On the alternative, as the Claimant claims to be an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

6. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Submitted.

 

Let's await their response now.  

 

Really appreciate all your help DX, learnt a lot last night after some more searching!

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...