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

[dx100uk]

just thought id let you know

you dont have to flag us in each post you make by @

anyone that has posted to your thread automatically gets notified when anyone else inc you posts here.

now unless you mis described to us what the judge stated .....

your 1. the 1st bit you have slightly mis described why you are filing a new witness statement, its not to oppose their SJ nor their strike out of your defence, they lost. it's in response to the judge allowing the stay on the original claim to be lifted. 

the rest seems just a copy of your original WS which you dont need to repeat at all.

simply refer to it as a complete doc in your 2

now if you've nothing new to say bar the above

you dont need to file a new ws?

thats the way i read it. repeating your old one is pointless confusion.?

@andyorch am i right?

 

 

[AndyOrch]

No a further statement must be submitted/served and on time The content will be very similar/same obviously its the same claim same argument but you cant use point 1 as your not objecting to SJ or SO or their application...that's past they lost.

Think back carefully to the reasons why the judge rejected their application and use those points to strengthen your statement.

A more standard point 1 in this instance would be :-

 

1.I ******, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;

Further to the hearing dated xxxxx in regards to the claimants application for Summary Judgment /strike out of my defence in which the court dismissed. I make this Witness Statement in  support of my defence dated xxxxxxxx and in response to the claimants claim dated xx xxxxx 20xx which was submitted through County Court Bulk Centre :- ( and remained stayed for xxxx years as the claimant never made a response to the court or myself.) 

remove the last sentence if not applicable.

Then insert your statement from above 2 onwards.

 

 

 

.

 

 

.

 

[RC710]

Thank you. Your comments and advice are so welcome. 

A renewed attempt is below

I have amended paragraph one, and added in a paragraph about why mediation hasn't taken place. 

I re-read over the notes I made at court to look for anything else I could focus on, but slim pickings. 

The DJ did point out errors in the Claimants Witness statement, where they stated that the Default Notice and Termination Notice had been sent by the original creditor. The legal rep responded that these were typos. I can't see that this adds to my defence. 

I had made a note that the DJ queried whether a Claimant could rely on a Default Notice in reliance of S.77 - providing total paid, total become payable, and various amounts comprised of that sum when each became due.  The legislation states it must be signed by the Claimant. Erudio Student Loans is printed on it.   

 

In the county court at XXXXX

21 November at 2pm.
 

Erudio Student Loans Limited V XXXXXX

Claim No: XXXXXX

Witness Statement

1.I ******, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;

Further to the hearing dated 24/08/23 in regards to the claimants application for Summary Judgment /strike out of my defence, which the court dismissed, I make this Witness Statement in  support of my defence dated 24/11/22 and in response to the claimants claim dated 25/04/23 which was submitted through County Court Bulk Centre 

I will respond to the same numbered paragraphs as the claimant’s statement as follows:

2. The claimants witness statement opening paragraph confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the draft’s person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding that they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act and also be in attendance at hearing to give evidence in support of the claimant’s witness statement. 

Background

3. On receipt of the claim form, dated 26/10/22, I sought clarity from the claimant’s solicitor via a CPR 31.14 request, letter dated 31/10/22 and sent by Royal Mail, requesting a copy of the original agreement, a copy of the terms and conditions as applicable at the start of each agreement, a copy of any default notice or termination notice, and a copy of the legal notice of assignment showing their right to take action.

4. Neither the Claimant nor their solicitors had replied to my requests by the time my defence was filed on 24/11/22.

5. On or about 25/11/22 I received a letter from the claimants solicitor stating documentation was available via an online portal. I could not make the portal link operate. Given I had used the appropriate legal framework to request the documents, the onus was on the Claimant to provide the documentation in the prescribed manner.

6. The Claimant failed to further communicate with the court, or the defendant, and following the standard time limit after my defence filing their claim became autostayed.

7. On or about the 25/03/2023 I received a letter from the claimant’s solicitor enclosing some documentation and a request for income details should I wish to enter into any payment agreement via a Tomlin order, at cost to me to, avoid further court action.

9. On 25/04/2023 the claimant raised an N244 request to lift the 4 months stay on proceedings seeking to strike out my defence and attain a summary judgement as they now had attained all the information I had requested.

10. On 24/08/23, before District Judge XXXX, the claimant failed to evidence and justify its application to dispose of this claim without a trial where a claim or issue or a defence to a claim or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial (CPR 24.2).

Defendants Response to Claimants Application

11. In reference to the claimants Witness Statement paragraph 6, the defendant did not admit in their defence nor has at any time admitted entering into these particular loan agreements with the original creditors. 

12. In response to paragraphs 8 and 34, the agreements referred to at pages 1 - 8 are illegible due to age, as per the Claimant’s own admittance and therefore are unenforceable pursuant to S.61/65 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;-

S. 61 Signing of agreement.

(1)A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

(a)a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

(c) the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

S.65 Consequences of improper execution.

(1)An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only.

And therefore pursuant to sec 127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

13. In reference to paragraph 42 in which the Claimant refers to the “full balance” becoming due, it is unclear what sum is being claimed. The Claimant has not provided a Statement of Account signed by, or on behalf of the creditor, as per the Claimants duty in response to my S.77 CCA request.

S.77 (4) - If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; 

 

14. At no point has any payment been made towards this alleged debt by the Defendant, however an Annual Statement dated 8/09/23 (Exhibit X) evidences that the Claimant has used the payment fee for a S.77 CCA request towards the alleged debt, against the Defendant’s expressed written instruction.  This Annual Statement also includes various “Balance Adjustment” fees. It is not explained how these form part of the original debt, given they are listed against “Loan Number 1”.

15.  Since the Claimants application for Summary Judgement, which failed at a hearing on 24/8/23, I have completed and returned to both the court and the Claimant a Directions Questionnaire, indicating that I agree to the case being referred to the Mediation Service, in the hope that the matter can be resolved in order to negate the need for a trial.   The Claimant has, via their solicitors, twice sent letters (Exhibit X and X) requesting that that I make a financial proposal, which they will consider formalising by way of a Tomlin agreement.  Finding the Claimant wholly untrustworthy, I have contacted the Mediation Service to request support, however I am advised that this is not available to me because it requires both party’s consent, and the Claimant has not made contact with the Mediation Service to request this themselves.

Conclusion

15. In view of the information set out above I respectfully submit to the court that the Claimant’s application be denied. The claim remains stayed until such time the claimant can comply with section 77 of the CCA 1974 or in the absence of that compliance strike out the claimant claim and dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of truth

I,  XXXXX , Defendant, believe 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.

 

Signed: 

Print Name:

Dated:

 

[RC710]

Hello

Apologies to ask, but is anyone able to cast their eyes over my latest attempt? I will have to get it in the post tomorrow, as it will already be a week late.

Are you able to give a guess at my prospects of avoiding a CCJ with this?   Looking at it, would it be worth making a very token offer direct to Erudio? 

I'd welcome thought and advice. 

R710

[AndyOrch]

I have already checked it as per my last post now you have corrected point 1 its fine.

[RC710]

Thank you Andyorch.  The statement has gone off to the court and Dryden’s today. 
 

 

[RC710]

Update -

Today I received a bundle of papers from Drydens, including a new witness statement from them, and a claim form to the tune of £1627.  I note that it is dated 7th Nov so wonder if they submitted to court on this date.  I've attached their new WS.

They raise - for the first time (paragraph 26) - that I cancelled my direct debit to them. (I set this up when they advised I would have to start paying but agreed to half payments for 4 months - they have not mentioned this - but I cancelled when I realised I could not afford to pay and started seeking advice here). 

They counter my argument about the agreements not being legible, but don't address the statement of account which the Judge raised.

The Judge questioned that the notice of default met this criteria, and read out the legislation about how they have arrived at sums owed. 

The legal rep asked for an adjournment to provide this info, but the judge refused this, indicating it would not be right for them to be given an opportunity to create this.   

All I have had since from Erudio is the annual statement which includes  "balance adjustments" and the £1 CCA fee split between the loans. 

Can you please look at their defence to see what you think?

I am really struggling to hold my nerve. 

If I am on very shaky ground, I would rather know. 

All I could do is try to settle with a small borrowed sum, although to be honest, given their fees, I can't imagine it would now be accepted. 

Erudio SWS Nov 2023.pdf

[dx100uk]

18 hours ago, RC710 said:

a claim form to the tune of £1627.

i think you mean costs list?.

they are trying to tie you in knots and distract the judge away from important points 

18 hours ago, RC710 said:

Can you please look at their defence to see what you think?

its not a defence its a supplementary witness statement, only the defendant submits a defence and you did that oct last year.

we will need all their exhibits esp these: 

Quote

The Defendant claims that she was applying for Deferment and did not receive any reminder in 2020 to defer. However this does not appear to be the case. Exhibited at pages [31 to 45] of 'LON2' are letters that the Claimant sent to the Defendant dated 14 April 2020, 29 April 2020, 27 May 2020, 13 June 2020, and 26 June 2020 enclosing Deferment Application Forms for her to complete.

we need to see these and all the exhibits attached to this new SWS , unless we already have them?
looking back at the start of your thread , theres no mention other than a discount letter of just pay 25% and its done to you (post 17?)

[RC710]

Sorry, yes, a statement of costs. 
 

I will upload their supplementary WS and documents this afternoon as I am at work at the moment.

This is the first time that they have provided as evidence a copy of the posted deferment form and evidence that I cancelled my direct debit to them. (I was about to start repaying but had not paid anything). 
 

Will share the docs as soon as I am able.

Please see the Claimant's supplementary Witness Statement - (with several pages of How to Pay forms, Income and Expenditure Forms removed). 

They have not provided any evidence of the agreement I was forced into on the phone to pay half payments for 4 months, but they have then provided a letter (dated 1/7/23) about me cancelling a direct debit.   

I note that this "Payment Review" letter refers to half payments  (£103.26) when their letter dated 26/6/23 refers to the original payment amount of £206.52, 

I assume I could ask them to explain this inconsistency - I remember you saying that they cannot raise my phone call with them if they have not referred to it in their WS.

Very aware I have 3 days in which to make an agreement if I have a high likelihood of losing in court. 

Am I right to still try to defend this? 

I'd be grateful for your advice.

WS Claimant Nov 2023.pdf

[dx100uk]

yes as i said before anything said/done on the phone can be discounted totally non admissible.

it gets a bit frustrating when every time you get a letter from anyone you think its game over ...i cant win now, i wanna give in and think you have to go crawling to them for this 'arrangement'

its also worthy to note that some of the statements you have made about what was said by the judge at the last hearing don't appear to match up with what drydens state she said. you appear to be continually always painting the bad worst case scenario picture.

you are not time limited to come to an arrangement , thats their time limit not yours. however you wont be doing that!

i dont think you realise what a strong position you are actually in regarding :

  

On 24/08/2023 at 23:36, Andyorch said:

Well done, I dont think you realise how rare it is for a claimant to lose a SJ application and how difficult it is for a LIP to stop it in its tracks.

Usually a failed SJ application does not bode well for a claimant and its even  rarer for the claimant to proceed to trial after losing.

The following is hilarious for a District Judge to state:-

Thats possibly because section 77 does not refer to Legibility its section 65 as per your WS above. 

If you refer back to my amendment in the conclusion of your statement you will now see why its imperative to conclude and prompt the court to test if the claimant can show and prove it has the means and evidence to pass the threshold to be awarded Summary Judgment.

Well done.

i would be including to include again the following and make the point clearer  - as the judge seems to think you want them to re-instate the falsely terminated agreement. nope you want him to pay attention to the fact that erudio were very well know for not sending out deferment forms at that time and has this actually happened, we would not be here at all... from your WS...In these circumstances the Financial Ombudsman Service made decisions that Erudio must rollback arrears and accept post deferment forms due to their error. 

i would also note in the court has said regarding the next hearing..Court Bundles must be lodged not less than 2 working days before the hearing.

are you saying that the docs relating to pages 19-24? regarding deferment you never received?

it appears from your previous very early posts when you came here ....  you did not. or did not mention them.

it also appears that in their letter dated 20/04/2020 inviting you to use an online deferment site they also say  Please note: .your deferment application form will still be issued as normal if you choose not to defer online.

then on 29th april they say in a letter here they are? did you ever get them? 

you did nothing then till june 22nd when deferment was due 24th ..when you rang them..so you knew you had to defer?

i am not trying to catch you out here im trying to workout how/why you did not get these letters/form and what prompted you to ring them 2 days before the due date.

 

 

 

 

[RC710]

Thanks for your reply DX100uk

My apologies. I do appreciate your frustration that I am becoming more panicked as the trial date nears. I am really so anxious about going back into the court room and of the implications of losing this case. 

I don't meant to have misrepresented the Judges comments.   I picked up on what things I thought were important relating to the strengths and weaknesses of my defence.  I do tend to consider worst case scenarios, it's part of my job role. 

In respect of the docs P.19  -  22, I likely did receive these but their existence is mentioned for the first time in the Claimants Supplementary WS.  I have a copy of the doc on p.19. 

I knew I needed to defer, called Erudio at the end of May time (2020) to explain my circumstances (then, part time increase in hours taking me over the threshold), they lied about deferment pushing back age related maturity, I felt pressured into making an agreement for half payments (my husband had lost his job), set up the direct debit with them. 

I then sought advice on here, and cancelled my direct debit.   The first payment was due out at the end of June 2023, when my deferment had ended. I was then immediatley in arrears - although their plan to allow me to make half payments for 4 months was always going to leave me in arrears. 

My big mistake was then not paying attention to Termination Notice etc. and coming back to seek advice at that point. 

So my white lie - about not receiving docs, has grown into quite a big white lie, which I am not proud of, but here I am.   

[dx100uk]

24 minutes ago, RC710 said:

I have a copy of the doc on p.19. 

what? from when? already in your possession before eruido ever 1st recently contacted you that resulted in the  claimform? 

[RC710]

Yes, it will have prompted my phone contact with Erudio. After the default, they gave no further opportunity to defer, no further deferment forms were sent to me. I truly apologise if I didn’t make this clear, no intention to mislead. 
 

 

[HaroldLloyd]

Just wanted to give you some moral support @RC710 - I had massive issues with Erudio in 2017. 3 outstanding "mortgage style" loans from my time doing a BA(hons) in 1992/3/4. 

I deferred religiously with SLC every year until around 2013 when I never received the usual deferment forms as I had done since about 1998. Never moved house without informing them. Always sent P60's, and their own forms.

All good. Slipped my mind in 2014 when forms didn't arrive, so long ago I didn't bother chasing up.

Suddenly I get litigious scary letters from a company I'd never heard of, and certainly not a company I'd ever had credit from or signed an agreement with called Erudio!

These people are ****. I wonder what sort of personal relationships they have in their personal lives once they leave work? The horror of what they do to vulnerable people is akin to sadism. 

I got them off my back, playing the mental health card and threatening to literally take a shotgun to their offices if they didn't leave me alone. Went full retard on their asses (to quote the film Tropic Thunder).

I still get the 6 monthly default notices, which apparently they are "legally" obliged to send. Good! It must cost them £20(?) a year to get some numpty to lick the envelope, print out my default, frank the package and walk down to the post office! Ha!

I last deferred over 11 years ago!

Keep the faith, they won't get a penny from you mate. They are beyond ambulance chaser ****, they're more akin to the type of people who read obituary columns in newspapers and turn up like ghouls at a funeral hoping for a free meal.  

[dx100uk]

no you get a notice of sums in arrears , not a default notice.

 

 

[HaroldLloyd]

@dx100uk quite so, apologies. However to the layman, of which I'm one, it makes no difference. 

I  enjoy your ASL energy with it! 

Who cares if it's a "FINE" or speculative invoice?

Who cares if it's a DN or "sum of arrears"?

This is all just semantics.

We all understand what is implied, and what it is implied to mean/threaten.

It's easy for you to cut/paste your favourite phrase: "Check it doesn't say "Will anywhere" or "DCA is not a bailiff despite their magical powers idiot".

We are dealing with people who are not so battle-hardened as you, dude. People who come here are probably scared. 

Your words are, as I said last night, very arrogant and dismissive, like you are blaming everyone for not being as clever/wise/intelligent as your great self?

Are you possible of growing and learning yourself, @dx100uk? 

Or might, could, "doesn't say will anywhere", you grow and feel other people's pain?

Either way, delete my responses as I've seen you've already done with my others which didn't suit @BankFodder or your narrative.

CAG has so much potential.

Over this past decade it seems to be a trolling factory for about 6 Site Team posters. (I don't include HoneyBee in that - she seems like a kind old Miss Marple lady who has love in her heart. More power to her.)

Anyhoo, I've been on this site over loads of different user names since around 2009. Had some fantastic advice, always end up getting deleted/blocked once I displease Bankfodder or DX.

Shame really. If those 2 egos could grow offline.

 

[dx100uk]

not for this thread, not what its here for helps the op zero.

dx

[RC710]

@HaroldLloyd Thank you for your moral support. It certainly is welcome. You are right that I am so scared to be in this position but I am so grateful for DX100UK and AndyOrch's advice here.

I would have caved ages ages to the pressure from Erudio without this and I would not have stopped the Summary Judgement application without their help. 

I am so close to the trial date that I am keen to keep the focus on this thread to that alone. 

DX100UK - does the information about the posted deferment form change your view at all about my position?

[RC710]

Drydens have sent a further supplementary witness statement addressing the points in my supplementary witness statement. 
 

They talk about me not submitting my supplementary WS on time, yet surely this is what they are doing but sending something as late as two working days before the hearing.

They also state that I have not paid anything back which contradicts the annual statement which I have included as an exhibit showing the £1 taken as payment across all loans. 

They say that they are open to mediation but have not received any order or notification that it is to take place. I learned from the Mediation service that it is the claimant and defendants responsibility to request this directly from the Mediation Service. I did at least make the call to the Mediation Service, when they did not. 

I’ll copy, anonymise and scan their additional WS for you to see late this afternoon. 
 

I am hoping this shows their desperation to intimidate me and not that they have any more damming arguments against me. 
 

I note they have also, on their cover letter, changed the time of the hearing. I have heard nothing from court about this. I assume an error rather than an attempt to fluster me further. 
 

[comebackjimmy]

Is the time of the Hearing they mention later than the time scheduled by the Court?

[RC710]

No earlier. 10am rather than 2pm, which makes me hope it was an honest error. 

[comebackjimmy]

Might be wise to check with the Court but does not seem to be sinister, just a mistake.

PS following with interest, keep going, seems to me you are doing all right!

[RC710]

Will do, thank you. 
 
I am desperately trying to hold my nerve but it’s not easy at all.  It certainly all feels a bit precarious which means I am sick to my stomach constantly.  
 

[RC710]

Here is the supplementary WS I have received today. 

In addition to my quick notes above, I notice they claim to have sent me their first WS on 7th Nov - the same day that they claimed to have sent theirs to court, within the 14 days required by court. This is not true. I received it on the 14th Nov. The exact same day that they would have received mine. 

Supplementary WS Claimant Nov 2023.pdf

[dx100uk]

thats exactly the same pdf as you uploaded 2 days ago

dx