Erudio/Drydens claimform - old SLC Loans . ***Claim Dismissed***

[RC710]

Sorry. Am making so many silly mistakes at the moment. Hopefully this will work. 

 

Claimants 2nd SWS.pdf

[dx100uk]

thats a nothing burger.

dx

 

[RC710]

I had to google what that meant! So nothing additional for me to be concerned about. 
 

I shall spend time tomorrow prepping, thinking about my responses to anticipated questions and making some notes to go in with. 
 

Is there anything else I need to be doing/thinking about to prepare for the trial?   

[dx100uk]

good luck.

just dont forget at every stage it's always been a speculative reply/letter/WS that they have sent, nothing 'concrete' hoping the judge will fall for their rubbish .

hope you do well.

dx

 

[AndyOrch]

Reading their statement they have offered or provided nothing new since their application was dismissed and their supplemental statement smacks of desperation " didn't sign the DQ, filed late, " 

[RC710]

Thanks dx and Andyorch.  This does give me a bit of a boost. 
 
Not entirely sure I’m ready but can no longer mange the stress of anticipation so in some strange way I just want to get on with it.   

I will update after the hearing. 

[RC710]

Hi

I won. Crying tears of relief.  
 

Will decompress and return later to explain what happened. 
 

Thank you so much. 

[dx100uk]

[AndyOrch]

 Wasn't worth the worry after all  was it .....well done topic title updated.

 

Andy

[comebackjimmy]

Fantastic,was not going to have a drink tonight.....but now I will!

[jk2054]

Congrats, glad to hear it

[dx100uk]

decompressed yet...dying to know the details ...this will be important to several users here currently in the same boat....

[RC710]

My apologies. I wrote this on Tues night but didn't press post. I wondered why no one had responded. 

Here goes:

Arrived at court and notified the usher at reception. She saw it was against a Student Loan company and told me she hoped I win, which gave me a bit of a boost. 

Legal rep introduced himself. He was super young.  Childishly I snubbed his handshake and he acknowledged that it was clear I did not want to talk. 

We were invited into the court room late. The Judge advised that there had been chaos, with too many hearings booked and everyone turning up so it seemed he was already a little harassed and impatient.  He took time to tell me about how things were going to happen. 

He was annoyed that there was no witness for the Claimant. He did not find it fair that their evidence could not be tested and that he and I would have no opportunity to ask questions of the witness, although he had to accept this as they had advised of this on their directions questionnaire.

The rep claimed he could answer the questions, but Judge pointed out this was a poor point. He advised that this was less than satisfactory and that as a result he would have to give less weight to their witness statements. 

The rep started with his submissions.  He asked for my Directions Questionnaire and WS to be disallowed as I had submitted these late.  He asked me why this had happened and I explained genuine confusion/oversight which was corrected as soon as I realised. I asked for relief from sanctions and pointed out that the Claimant had not been disadvantaged as they had been in a position to send in a further supplementary WS. 

While he reminded me that sending these late was a significant breach of the Court directions (and he told me I had to be held to the same standard of professionals) he was granting relief from sanctions and allowed my WS to be considered. 

 The rep also mentioned that me failing to sign my WS to them was a breach but I explained I had signed the copy to court, and he did not find this a significant breach. Judge said it was difficult to see what the prejudice could be. 

The rep made a submission about me not having reasonable grounds to defend, as I had offered nothing new but the Judge stated that I had a perfectly valid defence, even if merit remained to be seen. 

The Judge was pretty cross with the legal rep that no bundle had been supplied, and he was left searching through the various WS that the Claimant had submitted.  This was unacceptable, he said. 

The legal rep then did quite a shocking job of going through points to counter my witness statement.  At one point the rep admitted, "I'm pretty muddled" and the Judge muttered back "What you said". 

The Judge asked the rep about the threshold for paying back the loans, stating he needed to be satisfied that the trigger point has been met. How would he otherwise know. The rep couldn't answer this and asked to take further instruction. Looking at the clock, the Judge said no.  He should have already been instructed.  Judge stated this was a basic prior point. 

The rep directed the Judge to the blank copies of the agreements and the terms stated in these. The Judge acknowledged that I had been sent two slightly different copies, reflecting the original agreements.  He seemed satisfied with these blank copies. 

I was asked some questions; about the agreements (which I had to recognise had all of my details on), about my previous dealings with SLC and Erudio, and previous deferment). I suggested that the agreements provided do not evidence that they were legible at the time of signing and he told me that I was coming across as being disingenuous and that use of S.61 was "not a good point". 

I spoke about not receiving correspondence, not having an opportunity to defer, that I had no reason to ignore communication, that I would have deferred, and that I would have been open to mediation - had the Claimant only provided me with the info I was entitled to under S.77 (referring to a clear statement of account).     When I mentioned mediation, the Judge said this was a separate point, a costs point. 

The rep argued that the Annual Statement counts as a statement of account. I denied receiving any of these thus far, but admitted they may have been sent during years I was deferring. I drew the Judges attention to the fact that they had added small sums of payments, and included balance adjustments which were not explained.

The legal rep later offered that these sums matched the court costs which infuriated the Judge. He said they do not belong on an Annual Statement and also highlighted that the Claimant had lost the application for summary judgement and these were not costs for me to bear.  Notably the Judge did consider that the Annual Statement (without the discrepancies) would have met the criteria under S.77. 

The Judge picked up on the matter of the change of Erudio's communication method and said that this might be "your best point". 

I explained the FOS decision contained as an exhibit in my first WS.  

He then went back to the blank agreement copies which state that the debtor will be invited to refer and will be told of the deferment threshold.   

The Judge said that I had diligently deferred previously. He acknowledged the array of communication sent by Erudio to me in a short space of time and found it did "not make sense" and found that on the balance of probability the letters were not ever sent to me. 

The rep raised the letter Erudio sent around setting up a direct debit for £206, and the subsequent letter about Erudio being told that I had instructed my bank to cancel the DD.  I denied all,

asked where the evidence of the direct debit mandate was, evidence from my bank, and rather cheekily pointed out the figures did not match (one letter saying they want £206, the next my DD for £103 per month was cancelled).  They obviously could not refer to the phone call I had all those years back  in fact there was no suggestion the legal rep had any knowledge of this. 

The Judge then concluded that they seem to have mixed up my paperwork with someone else. 

He did question my current earnings - which I gave rather reluctantly.  He then realised that none of us in the room knew the current threshold for deferment, and confirmed with the legal rep that reinstating the loan was not an option available.  

The Judge stated he found me to be thoughtful and frank, and added that I was clearly an intelligent and articulate woman. 

He accepted that I had no interest in ignoring correspondence and noted how quickly that they moved to legal action.  He accepted my evidence that I had not received correspondence throughout 2020. 

He found the Claimant to be in "serious breach of clause 6" of my agreements, staying it is crucial for the defendant and many others to be given proper opportunity to defer. It is particularly important and incumbent on the Claimant to provide a defendant with "every opportunity to defer".  He was satisfied that I was not given an opportunity to defer in 2020 or thereafter. 

The Judge raised the "small but inexplicable credits" on the most recent annual statement (Sept 2023) sent to me, and mentioned that I had expressly stated my £1 was not to be used for these purposes.  He said that the court costs had "no business" being on the Statement of account. 

He said that I was denied an opportunity to defer for further years ("deprived of the right to defer" - he went over and over this!) and that as a result they had "substantially prejudiced the defendant". 

On the "finding of fact" he said that the Claimant had committed a "repudiatory breach" as from a financial perspective I had been "entirely deprived". 

Claim dismissed. 

The legal rep left and I caught the eye of the Judge to thank him. I felt like he was rooting for me from the start. The questioning was challenging and at one point I did think I would be walking away with a CCJ.  I certainly think I benefitted from there being a very inexperienced legal rep. 

On the way out I bumped into the usher, told her that I had won and thanked her for her earlier comment to me. 

One final question... DX knows I'm a bit worst case scenario.. 

 Is this really over?

Is it really behind me?   

The legal rep did not ask to appeal in court after the case was dismissed, and cannot see that they could come back from that?

Fingers crossed that I don't get struck down for the white lies I told in court today.   

Huge thanks to all on here - for the advice and encouragement to see it through. 

I really hope that my experience can in some way, help others. 

 

[comebackjimmy]

Woowee, what a roller coaster!

Congratulations on your walk through the lions den.

Also, for your gutsy stand-up given the trepidation you felt before.

You must now justifiably feel much more confident of yourself.

Also, well done on such a great and detailed description of the event.  Your note taking or memory are first class.

I would not worry about any white lies.  The claimant had no concern about their many dodgy actions.

Well done...again!

 

[AndyOrch]

1 hour ago, RC710 said:

The rep started with his submissions.  He asked for my Directions Questionnaire and WS to be disallowed as I had submitted these late. 

While he reminded me that sending these late was a significant breach of the Court directions (and he told me I had to be held to the same standard of professionals) he was granting relief from sanctions and allowed my WS to be considered.   The rep also mentioned that me failing to sign my WS to them was a breach but I explained I had signed the copy to court, and he did not find this a significant breach. Judge said it was difficult to see what the prejudice could be. 

As I posted earlier smacks of desperation and clutching at straws.

 

1 hour ago, RC710 said:

Is this really over?

Yes.

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

that's a great account and is soo important for the many others here, i hope they all come here and read it in full. 

ive often wondered how drydens get away with using local reps that know noting about these cases and are not he ones that write these fictional witness statements either so cant be questioned about them in detail.

the FOS deferment method change decisions also played a very useful part here.

well done

dead buried gone now.

dx

[Nurselayer]

CONGRATULATIONS!  I've got my court hearing coming up very soon and so it is very, very heartening to see a case where Erudio have lost.

I'm going to PM you as I may wish to use, "It is particularly important and incumbent on the Claimant to provide a defendant with every opportunity to defer" in my case, for which I'd need the name of your case and your judge.

 

[dx100uk]

you need the claim number and the court .

erudio v xxxx

case number xxx

date xxxx

 

[RC710]

Hi,

Erudio have sent me four separate letters (one for each loan agreement) stating they are a ‘notice of sums in arrears’ given to me in compliance with a.86B of the CCA 1974 as I am ‘behind in payments’. 

Three of the sums allegedly owed look similar to that already demanded, the first loan seems to have have £1000 added on to it! 

I assume I just write to them and refer to the outcome from court? 
 

What persistent b*ggers! 
 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

its what they have to send if they think the debts are enforceable and they wish to levy fees.

you can ignore it.