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

[RC710]

Noted. Thank you. 

[RC710]

Hi dx100uk/Andyorch

Does this look more appropriate? At this stage I do not need to mention not being invited to defer, that would come in my defence at trial? 

 

In the county court at  XXXXXXXXX
 

Erudio Student Loans Limited V XXXX

Claim No: XXXXX

Witness Statement

1.I, xxxxxxx being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application dated 25/04/23 to lift the stay and Strike Out Defence/Summary Judgment pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a & b in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated 24/11/22. The claimant confirms that this claim issued through Northampton CCBC on 26/10/22 and remained stayed since.

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 drafts 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. It is admitted that I have in the past had financial dealings with the Student Loans Company in the past.   

4. 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, 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.

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.

6. The Claimant failed to further communicate with the court, nor 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 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.

8. 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.

Defendants Response to claimants claim/ Application

9. 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 any agreements with the original creditors. 

10. In response to paragraphs 8 and 34, - the agreement/s referred to at pages 1 -8 as per their own admittance within its statement are illegible due to age.  The agreements are therefore unenforceable pursuant to sec 61/ 65 of the Credit Consumer Act 1974:-

 sec61 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.

sec65  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).

Conclusion

11. 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 CCA1974 or in the absence of that compliance strike out the claimant claim and dismiss the claim in its entirety.

 

Statement of truth

I, XXXXXXX 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:

 

[dx100uk]

22 hours ago, dx100uk said:

Since the 2013 assignment via the Gov't of these old SLC Loans to Erudio, Erudio have always written every year including their deferment forms to fill out and return. In 2017 their reminders changed to Email only referencing a log-in to an online portal. 
i deferred via this portal each years when a reminder email was sent. 

i did not receive any reminder in 2020 to defer, this resulted in the arrears and the subsequent default notice. 

i make ref to the FOS website and their relevant decisions about this period of change by Erudio in exhibits xx - xx attached, whereby numerous people suffered this issue around the same period and the rulings by the FOS that erudio should rollback arrears and accept post deferment.

i have never earned over the payment threshold and have always deferred when asked too.

i believe the claimants claim to be in error because i never received a 2020 deferment request.

 

On 15/08/2023 at 18:37, dx100uk said:

pers i think any arguments about not supplying stuff are now worthless as they have supplied them. so each of your points regarding non compliance are now somewhat worthless.

IMHO you really need to include the above . arguments about if/not the CCA return is compliant are not your main point. the fact Erudio did not send deferment reminders via email/post are a proven winner.

its just the correct format of your reply from mine that needs adapting to the example @Andyorch gave

[RC710]

Ok, working on this again. Just need to find the supporting FOS decisions. The ones I have seen relate to people having moved address and this being why the change has impacted them. 

dx100uk. - My best hope is that they reinstate things as to where I was before the "default"? 

 I maintained those full time hours ever since, and will have earned over the threshold to defer. (At the time I "defaulted" I did not know that the hours would continue and my original issue was that they would not take my annual average, but wanted to use the months wages I had increased my hours). 

When they discover this, do you think they'll agree a payment plan, rather than defaulting me immediately again? 

I'd be liable for the payments since they became due in June 2020 until the loans expire in Sept 2025?  Better than having to pay forever, although given the potential sums it may push me into a debt management plan (which they may not accept). 

Gosh I am learning a hard lesson... 

dx100uk -  better once I have found the FOS supporting decisions?  Grateful for your thoughts. 

In the county court at  XXXXXXXXX
 

Erudio Student Loans Limited V XXXX

Claim No: XXXXX

Witness Statement

I, xxxxxxx being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application dated 25/04/23 to lift the stay and Strike Out Defence/Summary Judgment pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a & b in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated 24/11/22. The claimant confirms that this claim issued through Northampton CCBC on 26/10/22 and remained stayed since.

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

1. 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

2. 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.

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

4. 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.

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 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.

8. 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.

Defendants Response to claimants claim/ Application

9. 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 any agreements with the original creditors. 

10. In response to paragraphs 8 and 34, - the agreement/s referred to at pages 1 - 8 as per their own admittance within its statement are illegible due to age.  The agreements are therefore unenforceable pursuant to sec 61/ 65 of the Credit Consumer Act 1974.

 sec61 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.

sec65  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).

11. In reference to the Claimant’s Witness Statement paragraph 8, the claimant includes an additional 'blank agreement', pages of which the nature of their source is not referenced and therefore questioned.  If from the claimants own internal sources, this does not comply to the consumer credit act request criteria.

12. At paragraph 16, reference is made to the issuance of their default notice issued 29/09/2020 due to a failure to pay some £826.79 arrears.   Since the 2013 assignment via the Government of these old Student Loans Company mortgage style Loans to Erudio, Erudio have always written by post every year including their deferment forms to complete and return. In 2017 their reminders changed to an email only process, referencing a log-in to an online portal. I deferred via this portal each year when a reminder email was sent. I did not receive any reminder in 2020 to defer, this resulted in the arrears and the subsequent default notice. 

Conclusion

11. 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 CCA1974 or in the absence of that compliance strike out the claimant claim and dismiss the claim in its entirety.

12. In addition I make reference to the Financial Ombudsman Service website and their relevant decisions about this period of change by Erudio in exhibits xx – x,  attached, whereby numerous people suffered this issue around the same period and the rulings by the Financial Ombudsman Service that Erudio should rollback arrears and accept post deferment. I have always deferred due my earnings being under the financial threshold.   I believe the claimants claim to be in error because I did not receive an invitation to defer in 2020.

Statement of truth

I, XXXXXXX 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:

 

[dx100uk]

On 19/08/2023 at 14:06, RC710 said:

12. In addition I make reference to the Financial Ombudsman Service website and their relevant decisions about this period of change by Erudio in exhibits xx – x,  attached, whereby numerous people suffered this issue around the same period and the rulings by the Financial Ombudsman Service that Erudio should rollback arrears and accept post deferment. I have always deferred due my earnings being under the financial threshold.   I believe the claimants claim to be in error because I did not receive an invitation to defer in 2020.

you need to make ref to the red part earlier in your statement, not refer to exhibited FOS decisions about a switch to email only from 2020, and mention why as the last part of that para.??

im not sure why you keep leaving the out??

Since the 2013 assignment via the Gov't of these old SLC Loans to Erudio, Erudio have always written every year including their deferment forms to fill out and return. In 2017 their reminders changed to Email only referencing a log-in to an online portal. 
i deferred via this portal each years when a reminder email was sent. 

i did not receive any reminder in 2020 to defer, this resulted in the arrears and the subsequent default notice. 

i make ref to the FOS website and their relevant decisions about this period of change by Erudio in exhibits xx - xx attached, whereby numerous people suffered this issue around the same period and the rulings by the FOS that erudio should rollback arrears and accept post deferment.

i have never earned over the payment threshold and have always deferred when asked too.

i believe the claimants claim to be in error because i never received a 2020 deferment request.

 

 

But I also accept Mr D made a reasonable assumption that he would be contacted by email as he had in previous years......

the fact that he had moved ins immaterial to the above

 

DRN-3629000.pdf

[RC710]

Thanks dx100uk. 

I've rejigged it, to highlight the FOS decisions in the main statement response, and not in the conclusion. 

I will be sending this, with the relevant personal details of course added. 

Yesterday I received a statement of costs from Drydens to the tune of £425. 

To manage my expectations, they are likely to actually go ahead with this hearing? 

I will try to read up about what to expect from the hearing, to help manage my anxiety around it.  

I know not to speak to the solicitor and not to deviate from what I have provided in this witness statement but is there anything else I should be aware of?

My final Witness Statement. 

In the county court at  XXXXXXXXX
 

Erudio Student Loans Limited V XXXX

Claim No: XXXXX

Witness Statement

I, xxxxxxx being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application dated 25/04/23 to lift the stay and Strike Out Defence/Summary Judgment pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a & b in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated 24/11/22. The Claimant confirms that this claim issued through Northampton County Court Business Centre on 26/10/22 and remained stayed since.

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

1. 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.

2. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 

Background

4. 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.

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. On or about the 25/03/2023 I received a letter from the claimant’s solicitor enclosing 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.

Defendants Response to claimants claim/ Application

10. 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 any agreements with the original creditors. 

11. 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.  The Claimant includes an additional 'blank agreement'.   Its source is not referenced and therefore questioned.  If from the claimants own internal sources, this does not comply with the consumer credit act request criteria.

13. At paragraph 16, reference is made to the issuance of their default notice issued 29/09/2020 due to a failure to pay some £826.79 arrears.  

Since the 2013 assignment via the Government of these old Student Loans Company mortgage style Loans to Erudio, Erudio have always written by post every year including their deferment forms to complete and return. In 2017 their reminders changed to an email only process, referencing a log-in to an online portal. I deferred via this portal each year when a reminder email was sent.

I did not receive any reminder in 2020 to defer, this resulted in the arrears and the subsequent default notice. 

I make reference to the Financial Ombudsman Service website and their relevant decisions about this period of change by Erudio, whereby numerous people suffered this issue around the same period. In these circumstances the Financial Ombudsman Service made decisions that Erudio should rollback arrears and accept post deferment, see Exhibit 1 (DRN- 3629000) attached.  

I have always deferred due my earnings being under the financial threshold.  

Conclusion

14. I believe the claimants claim to be in error because I did not receive an invitation to defer in 2020.

Statement of truth

I, XXXXXXX 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:

 

[dx100uk]

please let @Andyorch check it over 1st...i'm sometimes none too confident on the format required with some of these more complex matters/hearing submissions

dx

[RC710]

dx100uk. Thank you

Is there a way to flag this post to Andyorch? 

[dx100uk]

@ already does that. dont panic, 

[RC710]

@Andyorch Apologies, as I know you are very busy, but do you have some time to look over my response above? I have to return it today and I am panicking!

Thank you. 

[AndyOrch]

Conclusion

14. I believe the claimants claim to be in error because I did not receive an invitation to defer in 2020.

So have they complied with section 77 ? that conclusion is looking very weak ?

[RC710]

@Andyorch  They have only provided illegible copies of the agreements and a blank clear copy, but have not referred to the source. 

I had this in an earlier version, 

11. 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 CCA1974 or in the absence of that compliance strike out the claimant claim and dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Should I put this back in?

@Andyorch and thank you for coming back to help. 

[AndyOrch]

Absolutely your conclusion should be one the main parts of the statement.

I would add ...

11. 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 CCA1974 or in the absence of that compliance strike out the claimant claim and dismiss the claim in its entirety.

The claimant has 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)

[RC710]

Noted, thank you. 

Would it benefit from this, at point 11?

10. In response to paragraphs 8 and 34, - the agreement/s referred to at pages 1 - 8 as per their own admittance within its statement are illegible due to age.  The agreements are therefore unenforceable pursuant to sec 61/ 65 of the Credit Consumer Act 1974.

 sec61 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.

sec65  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).

11. In reference to the Claimant’s Witness Statement paragraph 8, the claimant includes an additional 'blank agreement', pages of which the nature of their source is not referenced and therefore questioned.  If from the claimants own internal sources, this does not comply to the consumer credit act request criteria.

 

And should I leave in the stuff about the changes to ways of deferment?  Can this be used now, or would it come in at the point I need to give a defence?

Honestly very grateful for your advice.. 

 

[AndyOrch]

Not really ...just what I have posted will suffice.

11. 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 CCA1974 or in the absence of that compliance strike out the claimant claim and dismiss the claim in its entirety.

The claimant has 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)

 

Quote

And should I leave in the stuff about the changes to ways of deferment?  Can this be used now, or would it come in at the point I need to give a defence?

 

Well you might not get another chance to use it if your statement fails so if you think its important in your objections then use it.

Again the whole point of this statement is to convince the court that the claimants application should be denied and that it has failed to evidence sufficient cause for Summary Judgment. After that whether the claim proceeds to allocation or the claimant withdraws is another day.

[RC710]

Thanks so much.  I can get this off now which will be a huge relief.  

 

[AndyOrch]

[RC710]

@dx100uk, @Andyorch

Application to lift the summary judgement is tomorrow. 

I emailed my WS on Monday, and posted a hard copy special delivery to both Drydens and the Court. 

I have since received a Statement of Costs from Drydens, to the tune of £425. 

I have also since been contacted by both Court and Drydens notifying that the case has been moved to a different local court - same date/time -  which I am hugely relieved by as it means I can be more anonymous given my profession.

I am ready to argue why my WS was late,  about their non-compliance by sending late illegible copies.  I do notice that their reconstituted blank "credit agreement" has lost the "deferment" section on the second page of the terms, so I will also raise this.    I have prepared an argument around why I would not have noticed that I had not been invited to defer in 2020 - and will add that I had nothing to gain from defaulting when I could have deferred, and have been heading to age related maturity. 

BUT I am extremely anxious that I will be given an utter grilling about the fact that I am saying not to have received any communication from Drydens until the Claim given I have not moved address. I just deny, deny, deny? They have no proof to think about pursuing me for contempt of court?   Will they ask me if what is shown on the illegible agreements, is my signature at the time?  

I'm desperately tying to keep my anxiety under control. 

Any last minute tips?   Anything I should anticipate? 

I know not to engage with the Dryden legal rep. 

Grateful for any last minute thoughts ahead of tomorrow. 

Thank you

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

don't worry about the costs sheet simply sent to unnerve you.

1 hour ago, RC710 said:

BUT I am extremely anxious that I will be given an utter grilling about the fact that I am saying not to have received any communication from Drydens until the Claim given I have not moved address.

contempt of court no. going too far there!. stop your mind from wondering to the worst that can't happen. 

and in a way you haven't, as in their original claim they mention complying to the pre action protocol, which you didn't rebuff in your defence so thats given as you did receive it and later found the letter of claim. as for the rest you didnt get it, who can prove otherwise...no-one

take it the otherway, and i'll have a wild guess theres a reason why they've made no ref to your earlier phonecalls explaining you can pay and if you deferred quickly they would wipe out the arrears... but they then never sent the forms...ummmmm...so it's tit for tat there really

just be aware somehow drydens WILL (IF they turn up) or a locum (whom will have ZERO background knowledge other than to try spoof the judge) pull some kind of stunt, this or that has not arrived or we don't have, which is done again to unsettle you and make you panic thinking your whole case will fail...when it's just a dirty trick, stick to your defence, your WS and what you sent and when.

good luck!

dx

 

[RC710]

Thank you. I'll update later this afternoon. 

[dx100uk]

how'd ya do...

dx

[RC710]

I'm back.  It was quite traumatic and I'm still trying to process all that was said. 

In essence the application for a SJ today was denied, but the case is going to trial "to be tested".     The stay was lifted. 

I'll try to summarise what I understood, as I did take some notes. 

The legal rep was present and introduced herself.  She asked if I wanted to ask her anything and I politely declined. 

The Judge did not invite the legal rep to make representations as I expected him to, he launched straight into dissecting the claim and defence. 

The legal rep did raise that I had submitted my statement late, but conceded that they were not prejudiced by the late statement and so my WS was allowed. 

The Judge raised the contradiction in issues I raised in my WS - namely that I queried the legitimacy of the agreements alongside an admission that I had had dealing with Erudio and had been deferring.  

He gave me a hard time about why if I am questionning the legitimacy of the documents now, why I did not at the time things moved to Erudio. If I claimed I did not know about the assignment, why would I have engaged with the deferment process for all those years. 

He also gave me a hard time about not receiving documents in the post. He made a point to say this should be "tested in the witness box". 

He got a little frustrated with me I think, rolling his eyes. 

He laboured around my claim about the copies of agreements being illegible. He agreed they could not be read in entirety but concluded that dates/signatures/sums were visible. He looked up S.77 and determined that it said nothing about legibility but added that the law is prescriptive and picked up on the fact that there was no Statement of Account that S.77 refers to.  He said he would expect this to be present and said it should have been provided. This should also be signed by the Claimant. 

The Judge said he was "worried" about Eruido's use of the portal to provide documents. He asked why I did not take them up their offer that I email them for them - and I asked why I would be required to request the documents for a second time, outside of the legal framework that I had already used. 

He seemed to accept that the "blank agreement" was a true copy, despite my WS raising the removal of reference to deferment in the terms and conditions that I could see. 

He was very focused on my original defence but now accepted that I was not disputing the issuing of the various documents, that I agreed that they had since been produced (aside from the issue of the agreements). 

He was dismissive of my point about a change in communication from Erudio. He noted this was not in my defence and seemed to say this was a "precarious defence". 

When the Judge had made his decision that this should proceed to trial the legal rep continued that my defence was "fanciful", that I could not pick and choose what communication I had received to suit me" and raised that there is no evidence that I had got into contact with Erudio, given it was my responsibility. 

The legal rep asked for an adjournment, explaining a trial was a "waste of resource", but the Judge was clear that an adjournment could not be used to give the Claimant time to "muster further evidence". 

He then asked the Legal Rep what directions she had been given for trial. She admitted she had none and the Judge was not very impressed, said he was surprised and advised that they should have prepared. 

He allocated the case to the small claims track and took some time to tell me about the pack I would receive and the directions I must read and follow.  It will not be before 26th Oct but will likely go back to the original court. (Which is what I did not want due to my profession). He estimated it will take 2.5 hours. 

The Judge in his summary advised that he could not say I did not have a real prospect of defending, but warned against me getting my hopes up. There should be a trial to assess Erudio's compliance with S.77.   He also referred to CPR 3.4 and 24.2 - but I was a bit lost at this point. 

He noted the FOS decision that I had attached to my WS and raised that he does not have the jurisdiction to reinstate the agreement but strongly advised that the Claimant and I work to resolve the issue to avoid a costly outcome for one or other of us. 

The legal rep asked for costs. He asked why, and pointed out this could not be justified as their claim for SJ had been opposed successfully. 

I now need time to decompress - I've been carrying so much stress around this. I'm terrified of a trial.  I could contact Erudio and try to come to an agreement.  They too were keen to avoid trial, maybe for good reason.   BUT although I have a better income, I am deep in debt - currently managed just about but I'll struggle to carry more...   

I'll await your thoughts and reassess when I have a clearer head.  For now I need to take a bit of time to be present for my family. 

Thank you for your help dx100uk and Andyorch.  I'd have buckled before now without your support. 

[dx100uk]

pers i would be in favour of directly approaching erudio and stating that all this would not have happened had they sent out the deferment form at the correct time and despite the hearing dated xxx and their documents, it has not become apparent why erudio did not do this in the first place

you go with the judges sentiment to resolve the issue save to costs and if erudio were to allow backdated and current deferments now, the situation would be mutually resolved back to a status quo. 

 

[RC710]

Yes. Seems a sensible approach. 

Although if they allow it, they will discover that I have earned over the threshold since 2020 - and I'll face a huge sum of "arrears" as soon as things are reinstated. I just wouldn't be able to pay this without taking out more debt.   It's something I'd have to figure out with them and I wonder how amenable they will be. 

 

[dx100uk]

its strange that HMRC have not informed them then as they usually do.

so for the complete years not deferred you are def over threshold for the whole year via say your p60 too?