Backdoor CCJ Erudio/Dryden - old Student Loans - set aside hearing

[dx100uk]

you cant mix anything with sb, but insure it's the one that mentions about default notice many years after and running SB date to infinity etc etc.

 

its above i think 

bad weather here out herding sheep to safety.

cant scroll back easy.

[Julio4]

Hello 

I have prepared a witness statement, let me know what you think.

I was unsure if I should add the parts about strict proof/right to lay a claim etc as before, and that I had also requested full disclosure from Dryden and this was not honoured.

Many Thanks

 

 

 

Letter to Court Draft2.pdf

[dx100uk]

did the refund your £275 N24 court Fee if thats what the judge ordered?

 

your last deferment to the SLC (you need to add whom you sent it too) before the Gov't sale of all remaining unsold Mortgage style student loans in late 2013  must have been 2013 not 2014, as drydens state it expired sept 2014 (1 years term). their WS sec 34 ii. refers.

 

you also need to address the default notice so adapt yous to include

 

The Default Notice was issued dd/mm/yyyy and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.

 

 Therefore the Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

 

 

 

[Julio4]

They did send a refund via a cheque.

The concerning thing about the dates is that it is speculative as I am referring to the dates Dryden are claiming on the form, which is September 2014. 

I know I spoke to Erudio when I first asked to defer, and I was refused. 

I only once had that initial contact with them, which is also when I gave them a new address. 

Unfortunately I had not seen the Martin Lewis coverage of the SLC loans at this stage.

I am not sure when that conversation was exactly, so I think that it could be around 2014.

I wonder if the reason that they are pursuing this so fervently ,is that they may have submitted the court order within the correct time frame.

I did ask Dryden for full disclosure as this would have enabled me to establish the exact dates. 

They deliberately did not provide all of the info I needed.

I have run out of time to ask SLC or Erudio for SAR as I have to submit to court by 4pm Monday.

[dx100uk]

eh?

not sure why you are so confused

the CLAIMANT states the date in their WS.

 

end of your problem.

you dont HAVe to prove SB, the CLAIMANT does, and they have shot themselves in the foot by para 34 ii.

 

just follow what i have suggested.

 

dx

 

[Julio4]

I will do, thanks again dx.

I imagine you on a windswept rock in the Shetlands

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

no that one is +100miles south

[Julio4]

Hello

I just have a couple more questions before submitting today.

I read through the thread about Badger Girls situation, and we are both confused about the same default notice statement and how dates should be presented.  Please can you assist as it is rather baffling?

 

The Default Notice was issued 11.11.16 and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X __months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run. 

 

These are the dates alleged by Dryden 

- Last deferment - Sep 2014 (In Dryden WS)

- Default Notice sent 11.11.16  (did not receive)

- Change from Erudio to Dryden 14.02.20  (did not receive mail)

- Pre Action Protocol - 21.02.20  (did not receive mail)

- Court Claim issued 14.12.20  (did not receive mail)

- CCJ added to file 11.01.21  (did not receive mail)

- I did make contact 23.11.21  (found about ccj via court and credit check)

- CCJ removed May 22  (after phone hearing)

 

I understand that Dryden did not pursue badger girl in court in the end. 

Do you know if this was due to her defence & WS, or due to the tragic circumstances that happened around that time?

Tx in advance

 

[dx100uk]

Last deferment was 2013 not 2014.

Dryden's are mistakenly quoting its end date for some reason.

 

 

Dx

[Julio4]

This is the paragraph that is causing the confusion, it was the same for Badger Girl.

Please can you assist to fill in the blanks

 

The Default Notice was issued 11.11.16 and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X __months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run. 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

Well its years not months.

So sept 2013, till issue date of the DN.

 

Dx

[Julio4]

Hello again

Re Court next week - the case is going ahead and has not been struck out unfortunately.

I filed a second defence on Monday, and have just had a response from Dryden.

They state that they do have the legal right to the loan, and it is not statute barred.  

The part that concerns me is that they say I phoned their office in March of 2020, this is a complete fabrication.

I have never phoned Dryden's office and did genuinely only discover the CCJ on my file in Nov 21, when it had already been there for almost a year.

To say I feel harassed by these people is an understatement. 

Have any of you read about a similar situation to this one? 

Any advice moving forward would be greatly appreciated.  I have attached the letter from Dryden.

 

This is the SARS request I was going to ask of SLC, Erudio and Dryden, are there any points that I should add or is this comprehensive enough?

 

 

Dear Data Protection Officer 
 
Re: Subject Access Request – S.7 Data Protection Act 1998. 
 
Under the Data Protection Act 1998 I request that you supply me with all data in your possession that relates to me and am entitled to under Section 7(1) of the Act. 
 
If you store older records on microfiche, the Information Commissioner clearly states that you must send me this in fully legible and comprehensible form. 
 
I hereby request the following information; 
 
a) A true copy of the signed credit note (credit agreement) 
b) The Deed of Assignment 
c) Novation Agreement 
d) Statements of Accounts 
e) Duplicate statements or print out of all transactions 
f) Copies of any stored telephone calls 
g) All internal/external emails sent by you 
h) All internal/external letters sent by you 
i) All computer logs, notes, transcripts and memos stored on your computer 
j) Details in any format of ALL information disclosed to a third party by you and to who and why 
k) A true copy of the terms and conditions when the account was opened 
l) A true copy of any subsequent amendments to those terms and conditions 
m) True copies of any Notice of Assignment 
n) True copies of any default notices, court orders or pending legal action 
o) Information related to any charges such as returned payments etc, please include your breakdown of the actual costs and your liquidated damages 
p) All information that is stored by you, by any means of storage. 
q) All handwritten notes, memos and letters sent by you 
r) All information held by you and any of your other companies, including all of the above requests for each company 
 
If you are unable to comply with any of the above listed requests, you must inform me of such and give your reason why you can not comply. 
 
If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner's Office can assist you and can be contacted on 0303 123 1113 or at http://www.ico.org.uk 
 
Yours sincerely" 

 

Witness Statement - Nov22.1.pdf

[dx100uk]

You phoning anyone does not and cannot reset any statute barring. The debt was already statute barred at the time of the original claimform, not even a judge can unbar an sb'd debt 

 

Forget the sar's . Pointless. 

 

Dx

[Julio4]

I am not sure why they are still pursuing this in court if they think it is not SB'd, and the judge has not struck it out either.

What do you think of their latest document?

It's a hassle to go to court as I am overseas.

 

[AndyOrch]

Quote

1. The Defendant’s Counterclaim be dismissed;

 

Did you make a counter claim ?

[Julio4]

Yes I did, the reason was because I wrote to them in Nov 21 (sent recorded delivery and was signed for)

They left ccj for another 6 months so I could not purchase mobile phone, obtain wifi to the flat, which stopped me from getting a job working remotely.  I have not asked for all the schedule of losses, I have asked that they make a donation to a not for profit charity.

 

 

[AndyOrch]

Okay no mention of a counter claim in your defence posted #28 just a defence

[Julio4]

Apologies, i decided to add this on Monday 9th Nov.

[AndyOrch]

It would be helpful if you could post this then we are aware of what you are adding without advice.

[Julio4]

Sorry I was rushing.  I will post all the recent docs from this week asap.

[dx100uk]

counterclaim.. where have we ever said anything about counterclaiming......!!

[Julio4]

I have posted the previous documents on the thread between myself and Dryden, here are the latest documents for this week, which include defence, ws, counterclaim form sent two days to court and Dryden.  These are then followed by a new WS and counterclaim response from Dryden.

 

Court Docs 07.11.22.pdf

[AndyOrch]

So not a formal counter claim simply a reference in passing as part of your statement in hope that the court would take it into account.

[Julio4]

I attached a N9D form, which I believe makes up part of a counter claim.

I wrote that I am not claiming for all the 6 month losses, just suggesting that they make a donation.

The CCJ was on file for almost a year and a half, in total.  I discovered the CCJ after it had been on file for a year. 

I wrote to them with new and address sent recorded delivery, they then did not respond, and left the CCJ on file for another 6 months.

[AndyOrch]

It will be invalid if you have not stated a figure or paid your fee for the counter claim.