Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Stayed Erudio SLC Loan Court Claim - missed deferment as i moved - ombudsman found in favor claim stayed can i sue/counterclaim Erudio


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 160 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have a detailed Erudio court case that I miraculously found out about and took through their in-house complaints service (rejected via Final Response) and the first stages of the ombudsman  (rejected and now hopefully being escalated to the Ombudsman).

 

It is currently stayed but is quite detailed and since it's subject to court proceedings I am reticent to post the N9B defence on this thread even though I've redacted my details.

 

These are for loans predominantly taken over 25 years.   

Unfortunately, I haven't posted enough to be able to message directly but am hopeful I can respond to one sent to me directly.   I have been in monthly contact with the CCBC to confirm the status of the case but they are trying every trick in the book but I am concerned they will try and lift the stay without notification/a hearing.  I have a detailed timeline/thread ready to share if appropriate

Would it be possible for an admin/site expert to contact me to review my post to see if they think it's suitable for publishing on this forum?

Thank you sincerely, 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic moved to Financial legal Issues forum in view of the on going court claim as previously advised. You will have to post all the details and upload copies of the document's if you want any effective advice we don't play secret squirrel here it does not help anyone.

 

Please read the following and complete and copy back here so we have all the details and history in one post.

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/357877-you-have-received-a-court-claim-issued-in-england-wales-what-you-need-to-do/#comment-4355834

 

The court must notify you if the claimant makes application to lift the stay.

 

Andy

  • Like 1

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 OTHER

 

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

Thank you Andy,  below is a summary of my situation.  Apologies for the long read if anyone takes the time to look into it.   

Hi all, I'd really appreciate some advice on this one because it's getting difficult to know what to do and I cannot afford legal representation. If any of you could help, I'd be incredibly grateful.

Claim Issue Date: 09 Jan 2023


Have you Acknowledged the Claim?: Yes


Total Amount Claimed : £8500. (This includes additional fees/court costs of approx £600)
Claimant’s Name: Erudio


Solicitors Firm: Drydens

 

Original Creditor: Student Loans Company


Original Debt (eg. Credit card/Loan/Overdraft) : Student Loan


Particulars of Claim:

 

1. The Claimant claims £8500 (rounded) for monies due from the Defendant.

 

2. This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and the Student Loans Company Limited. Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: (removed as required ).

 

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 (removed as required) was also applied upon assignment.

 

5. The claimant has complied with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims.


Is the debt Statute Barred (have you had any contact with the creditor or claimant over the last 6 years?): Successfully deferred for approximately 25 years until 2021 when communication broke down.


List any letters you have sent (eg: CCA/ CPR

 

I have acknowledged and responded with N9B defence which I will include on this post.

Background Details:

I initially got extra time to respond with an AoS and will start this by providing context and then a copy of the N9B defence I submitted when I first found out about this court case (by miraculous chance).


I have been deferring this debt due to not meeting the income threshold for repayments for almost 25 years.

 

Since submitting my defence I raised official complaints with Erudio asking for my account to be reinstated in deferment which they refused to do in a Final Response.  I then contacted the Financial Ombudsman Office and raised a complaint. The investigator agreed to look into it.

 

Today, I found that the assigned Investigator has not upheld my complaint but advised I can raise it to the Ombudsman. I have asked it be raised to the Ombudsman given new information regarding agreement dates and possible misinformation/mistakes by the claimant regarding the dates of when the original agreements were first made (three separate loans 1996, 1998 - 1999), am concerned that I cannot add this to my court defence since it has already been submitted.

 

I will be contacting the CCBC tomorrow to confirm that the case is still 'stayed' as I contacted them last month and they told me it had been (They had already confirmed receipt of my defence).

 

The following information is in the order I submitted it, firstly the N9B defence followed by the discovery of new information relating to the dates of the loan agreements when I submitted a SAR. However, the written responses were simple letters and do not include the original contracts. I believe the earliest loan agreement date (1 of 3 separate agreements forming the the total claimed) has been changed/mistaken.


As of today, I am led to believe, having checked advice from Moneysavingexpert site that my particular loan type is written off after 25 years which makes the dates particularly important.

N9B Defence:

I filled in the relevant references and ticked the following boxes:

1. “How much of the claim do you dispute?”
 I ticked “I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form” 

2. “Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?”
I ticked “No"

3. Defence Statement: (Quite long, sorry!)

:

Your honour,


This claim relates to my student loans, borrowed 24-27 years ago during my attendance at University in the mid/late 90’s, The claimant is not the original lender. The original loan agreement does not require the borrower to pay back the loan(s) if their gross annual income falls below a threshold, as set by the UK Government. Annually, Erudio Student Loans open what they refer to as a “deferment window”, whereby they contact the borrower requesting they provide evidence of income to prove to them that you do not meet the income threshold that requires repayment.


The claimant states in the particulars of the claim: The defendant failed to make payments as per the terms of the agreements, among other claims.

 

I contest:


1) Erudio failed to contact me in the preferred method both they and I were demonstrably accustomed to, failing to notify me of the opening of the ‘Deferment window’ and subsequent issues.

 


2) I did not and do not meet the income threshold, as per the terms of the original loan(s), to make me eligible for repayments now or at the point communication failed.


 

3) Referenced ruling that provides legal precedence from the Financial Ombudsman issued in similar circumstances for a case/claim vs Erudio that apply to this claim.

 


4) Erudio are acting unreasonably.

 


5) Erudio have unlawfully terminated my agreement.

 

Please see further detail/explanation of points below: (page.1 of 4) 

For context:


I was made aware of the claimant writing to me on the 18th of January 2023 by the former owner of the property I previously rented. She had sold it in 2018 and we moved out. The couple that had bought it had advised they had been receiving some mail for me.

 

The property owners had regularly been returning all post to sender advising I was “Not known at this address”/“No longer at this address” for a considerable amount of time. Thankfully, they decided to open the most recent correspondence regarding legal action and contacted the previous owner who then contacted myself. (They are willing to provide written testimony to this effect.)

 

Unfortunately, I had not been in receipt of any documentation, legal notifications or reminders from Erudio Student Loans/Arrow Group or Drydens solicitors as they did not have my correct postal address.


Upon hearing about this claim, I immediately contacted Erudio via telephone to resolve this matter and raised a complaint regarding the handling of my account.


 It is my contention that Erudio has failed to contact me in the preferred and expected manner given the many years we have chosen to use paperless, climate friendly means of communicating via email and their online portal. I have a demonstrable historic record of these emails, deferment requests and reminders to which I have responded to in a timely manner.


1) Erudio failed to email me in 2021 or 2022, as expected, in regards the opening of their deferment window. During those periods of time I was eligible for deferment as per the original terms of my SLC loan agreement.


Having spoken to Erudio (Customer service rep: (REDACTED)) on the 18th of January 2023, he confirmed, after checking his system records, that they had NOT emailed me as usual, but they had sent a text. I did not receive this text nor any other notification or reminder.


Furthermore, I had already successfully deferred twice via paperless means at my new address (which Erudio did not have) for the period of 2019 and 2020, meaning I had no reason or concern to prompt me to update my physical address and had never needed or expected any reason to require it.


Erudio had previously encouraged clients to sign up to their online portal as a means of submitting evidence of income and completing the process of deferment. I signed up to this portal and preferred paperless/carbon neutral method of managing communication with Erudio in 2016 and electronically submitted my evidence for deferment, upon request, successfully till 2021.


There are two clear failures of procedure demonstrated by Erudio:


Firstly, Erudio failed to communicate in the expected manner when the deferment window opened as they had demonstrably and historically done for years previously.
.


Secondly, Erudio failed to respond to the returned mail over a period of several years and multiple attempts notifying them that my address was incorrect. At this point a phone-call or email to myself, using my alternative contact details, which they have and that have remained the same throughout, would have rectified the situation. I am also on the electoral roll.


Furthermore, in terms of mitigation for not proactively contacting Erudio regarding deferment, my reasons are as follows:


- I do not know when the deferment window opens, that is a matter for Erudio to notify clients to allow timely deferments, which previously they had done via email - they failed to do so.


- The paperless means of communication had long been established as the preferred means of communication between myself and the claimant (Erudio). To which I can provide evidence of both email requests, email receipts and email notices of successful deferment using the online portal and email.


- In early 2021 my partners father was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis which took our attention after he had a fall and was hospitalised. Sadly, his wife (my partners mother) was suddenly too taken ill and diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, dying shortly after diagnosis in October of that year. , Also, personally I am still getting over SARS-COV2 which I caught in late 2021 just after my mother-in-laws death to which some symptoms still persist.
- Lockdown was in effect during the first missed deferment ‘window’ if opened before the end of March 2021.


2) Throughout the aforementioned period (2021-present) I met and do still meet the criteria for deferment of my original Student Loans Agreement. I can provide proof of eligibility of deferment for the contested periods (period ending 2021 - present) as a matter of urgency or on request.


3) Legal Precedence Financial Ombudsman Decision: Mrs P. Vs Erudio Student Loans Limited Ref: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org....DRN4474962.pdf


Whilst this case refers to an age related write-off the principle(s) of procedure and eligibility bear tangible similarities to this claim.

 

In particular, I draw attention to the Ombudsman’s comments regarding ‘process over people’ and the recognition of the defendants consistent eligibility despite a breakdown in communication. Furthermore, whilst I accept I should have remembered the annual deferment, I believe my previous statements provide strong justification as to why I did not.

Given the timely raising of an official complaint within both Erudio and Drydensfairfax providing the aforementioned information, the claimants experience of previous claim(s) and their procedural failings in this case demonstrate Erudio have acted unreasonably and that this is an unlawful termination of my account. I also contest that continuing to use the court in this case is vexatious.


This action could also negatively and disproportionately affect my credit history, standing and position as a director of a small startup company I am an office holder in. It has already caused unnecessary stress and taken up many hours of my time.


I request my account be withdrawn from Drydensfairfax solicitors (Ref: (REDACTED)), the court claim be cancelled and my account be reinstated in deferment or adjudicated to be written off due to the age of the debt and the claimants mismanagement. I reserve the right to contact the FoS on receipt of the claimants response to my raised complaints.
Sincerely, (REDACTED)


***DEFENCE STATEMENT ENDS***

————————————————————————-



After receiving the Final Responses from Erudio to my complaint, I contacted the FoS, I provided my N9B and some context. I then found out that Erudio had a voice recording of a telephone conversation I had with one of their representatives in 2020, to which I updated the Investigator with the following information: 


 


“I would like to point out there is a recording of a phone call I made to Erudio to find out if my deferment was successful which their complaints department provided me with after submitting my N9B defence. I am heard telling the representative that I will notify them of my change of address when asked about my postal address.

 

When I first heard this recording I briefly wondered why on earth did I not update my address there and then, but quickly remembered the context of the call and the mitigating circumstances that I believe make this a moot point for a number of reasons;


As stated in my defence, I had been using their online portal exclusively for a number years to submit evidence, fill in forms and successfully defer - I did not expect Erudio to change/stop their policy of contacting me via email notifying me when the 'deferment window' opened so I could use their online services to defer.

 

However, as importantly, this phone-call was made during the height of Lockdown restrictions and fear regarding the pandemic. My family and I did not want to handle mail. We let all post fall into a bin bag we'd taped behind the letter box for a couple of days just incase it was contaminated. It seems rather crazy looking back at it, but we had young children, immune compromised relatives we had to visit to help and weren't taking any chances, especially since I hadn't needed any physical paperwork to defer since 2016 and had already deferred twice successfully at our new/current address. There was also a possibility we'd have to move again at the time.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


At this point I realised I made a mistake in my N9B where I said the property had been sold in 2018. It hadn’t. It was sold in late 2020, but I moved out with my young family in 2018 and continued to collect mail including during lockdown as it was my grandmothers bungalow (I was her informal carer) till she died and relatives had to sell the property to divide the inheritance. 
The property was then sold in late 2020 during Lockdown and at that point mail was returned to sender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The Investigator did not uphold my complaint regarding Erudio acting unreasonably.

 

This is their response:


“Financial Ombudsman Service
Investigation Outcome – (REDACTED); v Erudio Student Loans Limited - 6 April 2023 



The Complainant:

Mr (REDACTED) (C) is unhappy Erudio (B) are trying to take money from C’s account, despite that he isn’t earning enough. Despite C deferring repayment of the loan a number of times, B are still looking to take C to court.




The Outcome:

I’ve now received and read all of the information provided by B and C to investigate this complaint. Having considered the same, I don’t think B have acted unreasonably, so I am not upholding this complaint. I appreciate this will be disappointing, but I hope C understands the reasons for my view.


The Key Points:


B have told me the last deferment was accepted on 15 July 2020, which ended on 14 May 2021. I can see a letter was sent on 17 March 2021 enclosing the deferment application. A further letter was sent to the address held for C on 16 April 2021, which explained; ‘We are yet to receive your completed Deferment Application Form.

 

As such repayment of your Erudio Student Loan(s) is due to start at the end of your current deferment period on 14/05/2021. Your next payment of £141.38 will shortly be due on 15/05/2021.’ On 18 May 2021, B sent another letter to advise your period of deferment has now ended. So I think B did enough to get in touch with C. 



C said he had moved addresses and B said they weren’t informed of this. I have been provided with the terms of the agreement, which states 13. Change of Address – If your address changes then within fourteen days of that change you must notify us in writing giving us your new address. Therefore, I am unable to say B have done anything wrong here, as it is the C’s responsibility to ensure the address is up to date. 



B said their main form of communication is letter, so I think B acted in line with their process, even if C has received emails previously. 



This is the opinion of Investigator (REDACTED). Unless either party wants to take things further, there’s no need to do anything and this case will close on 20 April 2023. If either party disagrees and wants an Ombudsman to consider the case, they must inform us — and submit any further evidence or representations — by 20 April 2023. Requests for more time must also be made by that date. More details on how the Financial Ombudsman Service makes decisions can be found here. It may take a few months for a case to reach an Ombudsman.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Tonight I emailed back the v FoS Investigator asking for the case to be raised to the Ombudsman with the following two emails:
Email 1: 

Dear (REDACTED)

"Thank you for your letter and your consideration of my case. Given the incredibly unusual circumstances of the Pandemic and Lockdown, the fact that I have continually not earned enough to be eligible to make repayments throughout the disputed period, the consistent deferment using Erudio's online portal (which I was encouraged to do from 2016 onwards) and Erudios decision to not email me when they had done so consistently since 2016 means I have no choice but to seek a decision from the Ombudsman.


I have not run from this debt, as soon as I realised that I had not updated my postal details during the crazy time we all experienced I addressed the issue as a matter of urgency. Furthermore, I have read and can reference decisions by the Ombudsman in the favour of people in very similar positions to mine and feel strongly that this is putting process over people at a time when consideration should given to the way the world was in 2020.


Whilst I did have access to letters up until the property was sold in late 2020, I had successfully been notified and deferred at my new address without incident via email and their portal so had no reason to believe there would be any further issue.

 

I would like clarify that Erudio did not send a physical letter regarding my successful deferment in 2020, nor an email, so it was in fact Erudio who broke contact first which is demonstrated by a voice recording of the telephone call I made in 2020 to confirm my deferment. If you do not have this evidence I can provide it on request.


I would like this case to be reconsidered by the Ombudsman.


Will the Ombudsman receive the N9B defence as well as the emails I have sent you? Or do I need to compile them for his/her consideration? Please advise the next steps."
Sincerely, (REDACTED)

Email 2:

Dear (REDACTED)
"Further to my previous email, I have only just been informed that some of these debts would be wiped as per the 25 year limit as to when I took them out. The first loan was taken out in 1996. They are attempting to take me to court for all of them.

 

I believe this adds further weight to the reasoning as to why Erudio did not contact me regarding deferment in 2021 via the established emailing system, as well as failing to notify me of my successful deferment in 2020 - 2021.


I had, up till then (2021), successfully deferred for approximately 25 years from the date of the first loan agreement (1996) as rather than pursue my career in London I took the decision to care for a family member locally on Portland in Dorset whilst working and subsequently never had a job that paid above the income threshold set by the Government to make repayments.


I will find the exact dates of this from the Student Loans Company directly as Erudio (who purchased the debt in 2013) have stated in written correspondence I took out my loan first loan agreement at university in 1996 on the 22 April 1997 and I'm fairly sure I was in Canada on a gap year, in which case they are misinformed and have made a "mistake" with their original contract dates.

 

 

Even if this date is not a mistake (which I'm 99% sure it is given the loan reference number has the year 96 in it) the first loan would be now be almost 26 years old now and subsequently wiped with the second one dated 1998 25 years old also (TBC exactly).
I am also waiting for copies of my original agreements as per a written Subject Access Request from Erudio which I have not received that I will also chase up today."
Kind regards, (REDACTED)


————————————————————————-
 



…and that’s where I am today.

 

I rang the CCBC today just to confirm the case is still stayed but they are closed for the Easter bank holiday. I then rang the Student Loans Company to issue them with a SAR/find out the actual dates of the original loans and try and get a copy but their systems are down till Tuesday. 

What a week! If you made it this far, God bless you and thanks for any advice or help you can provide.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you but if you could copy and paste our link that would be more helpful.

  • Like 1

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 OTHER

 

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

I'm sorry Andy, I was up all night drafting my response to the FoS investigator once I noticed an inconsistency with dates provided as a result of my SAR.  I will do my best to read that thread and respond in the format required.  Thank you for your time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Appreciate that its just that our template asks certain questions to enable us quickly to look for errors in the procedural process and if the claimant /original creditor has complied with the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Your lengthy post will be helpful later as we move through the process.

 

Take your time there is no rush given the claim is currently stayed.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

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 OTHER

 

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

Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre (1788)

 

Name of the Claimant ? Erudio Student Loans Limited

 

Date of issue –  09 Jan 2023

 

Particulars of Claim

 

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 

 

1. The Claimant claims £8500 (rounded) for monies due from the Defendant.

 

2. This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and the Student Loans Company Limited. Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: (removed as required ).

 

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 (removed as required) was also applied upon assignment.

 

5. The claimant has complied with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims.

The original account numbers (x3) referring to my Student loans are 11 digits long, the new master reference assigned by Erudio is 16 digits long and encompasses three separate loans.

 

What is the total value of the claim? £8500 (inc £600 fees)
 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?

 I don't think so, but am unsure of this answer.  I believe the Claimant states they sent one but since all mail was being returned to sender I have never received this personally.  I found out about this court action by pure chance, the new owner of the previous property decided to open one of the letters and then contacted the former owner who in turn, contacted me. 
 

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Yes
 

Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? Yes and no.  I unfortunately did not update my address at my new property due to lockdown and having successfully deferred at my new address via their online portal since 2016 I didn't notify them in writing of the update to my address.  I felt I had strong mitigation for the reasons but this is just my opinion. 

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Student Loans 
 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? Before
 

Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? If I recall, by post.  It was 25+ years ago I entered into the first agreement
 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? No
 

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/Sold to Erudio in 2013
 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall. 
 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? No, but again, they claim they sent all information to the old address. 
 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No, as above. 
 

Why did you cease payments? I've not made any payments, I had successfully deferred up until 2021. 
 

What was the date of your last payment? N/A
 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No
 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? I did ask for a review and raised a formal complaint with Erudio listing the mitigating circumstances but it fell on deaf ears. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

looks to me this is a typical case like 100's here already whereby the fleecers saw an easy backdoor ccj because you'd moved. its now stayed..

 

they would not have gone for a court claim if they'd known you'd get it. they'd have pulled the arrears dodge to stop writeoff, again as with 100's of people here already.

 

let them get on with it.

 

the writeoff date will be from the last one in the chain as they were all for the same qualification.

 

dx

 

 

 

  • Like 1

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Stayed Erudio court case - missed deferment as i moved - ombudsman involved

Hi Dx, 

Yep, that's about the size of it. 

 

I saw you post such a comment before on another topic and completely agree with that sentiment.  They even told me I had a court date on the 30th of Jan, which upon contact with the CCBC was a date neither I, nor they, recognised. 


 Interestingly, the first loan was for a course in Software Engineering Management (in 1996).  After this first year i decided to change course and took a gap year.  The subsequent 1998/1999 loans were taken out for a different course Business Systems Information Management. 

 

I'm a little bit unsure if the loans fall within the same rules as I understand the agreements changed in 1997.   This is primarily why I think Erudio is 'mistaken' regarding the first loan since they claim I borrowed the money in 1997 but I started the course in 1996 and the original agreement reference number has the first two digits (96xxxxxxxxx) and the others correctly reflect the (98xxxxxxxxx and 99xxxxxxxxx).   

Thank you for your input. 

P.s. I want to fight this, but am concerned that they can add huge charges if it is ruled in their favour,

 

moreover my position feels a little more untenable now the Investigator for the FoS has not upheld my complaint. 

 

I expect a Tomlin agreement offer to be part of mediation if they decide to do that, but at this point I'm a bit unsure of what to do, continue fighting or accept defeat to prevent further charges. 

 

 Either way I physically can't pay it so I guess it's a moot point. 

 

 

Further: I also don't know if I can update my defence to include this new information or will have the opportunity to do so if it were go to a hearing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok thank you

 

and yes there was heeps of info to take in there so you might have a point with the loan gaps, but fairs fair, you've had alot to deal with external to these fleccers.

 

pers, and im not just saying at to you, but as you already spotted (and it worked in your case!) i post in ref to all readers to come.

 

next time dont go runny off thinking you've gotta involve the biggest gun you can find, or you've gotta file a third part harmony defence, i think here these are you 2 biggest downfall. it sometimes very counter productive. the fos will never get involved once something is in court, however many nice pretty words they use.

 

what you should have done here was to simply file a bland defence you find here, giving away nothing and see where the fleecers go, 9/10, they simply let the claim get stayed, hope you move again, and they go for an sj on the quiet.

 

imho i'd go silent now , there is nothing to be gained by you getting the 1st written off removed from the sum.

 

if they want to move forward , you know you'll get notice from the court then we can counter them.

 

time here is on your side, the longer they leave it

the nearer you are to write off.

  • Like 1

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

Thank you Dx - do you think I should continue to raise to the Ombudsman or retract the emails I sent?  I appreciate that only 1 in 10 cases get overturned when ruled on by an investigator and I may not even get referred as I understand not all requests are escalated. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

again i've not got time to look into the finer nuances of the whole thing,

 

as far as i can tell,

if you didnt update your address on the online forum,

nor

during this call you've found, (other than its obvious you had moved as you stated so, but they wanted nor you gave it)......i'm not really sure where the FOS could help you if i were to honest going by the actual facts, sympathy with it just being chaotic at the time doesn't wash with them. 

 

Now they might well play a part going forward, as the longer its left stayed, the stronger your case becomes that all the loans should now be aged wiped, you were never over threshold, you'd deferred for xxx yrs without issue, etc etc.

 

of course, eitherway, because a court claim was raised or you failed to defer, so you've arrears might prevent this, but i think a judge is better at this that the FOS.

 

you wont get agreements in an SAR. but you dont need them. those can demanded as disclosure should they try and lift the stay.

 

i'd be going radio silent.

 

they cant get anything out of you as things stand so...

 

  • Like 1

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Stayed Erudio SLC Loan Court Claim - missed deferment as i moved - ombudsman involved

yes if an n244 @£275 is raised attempting too the court will write.

 

plus i expect drydens will willy wave with a threat they are all powerful and are going to do as and win and also strike out your defence 

 

there are 10's of erudio threads here in this same forum to read.

 

dx

 

 

 

  • Like 1

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

you have mis read.

 

thats an n244 without a hearing ,'on the papers only' it's still a court claim ... you are still served with papers.

 

which forum.. certainly not here,

you must always ensure you write to creditors/court with your correct and current address if you ever move.

 

dx

 

  • Like 1

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

If an application to lift the stay only is made the fee is £110 as it does not require a hearing nor can you object unless its been stayed say over 5 years and the court will issue you with a Proposed Notice re allocation N180.

 

 

Andy

  • Like 1

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 OTHER

 

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

Hi Andy,  thank you for the clarification.  Does that in turn lead to the mediation stage (if both parties agree), or if one party doesn't a ruling?  The only positive I assume in that scenario is that costs would not go up other than the £110 fee?  Is this correct or am I making too many assumptions?   

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats only if its just to lift the stay, resuming the existing stayed claim, not going for defence strike out/summary judgement as well though? as that would cost @£275?

 

dx

 

  • Like 1

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

20 hours ago, MoralMinority said:

Hi Andy,  thank you for the clarification.  Does that in turn lead to the mediation stage (if both parties agree), or if one party doesn't a ruling?  The only positive I assume in that scenario is that costs would not go up other than the £110 fee?  Is this correct or am I making too many assumptions?   

 

Yes its does assuming both parties opt for mediation sand if mediation fails it then proceed to allocation which the claimant will have to pay a hearing fee.

  • Like 1

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 OTHER

 

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

  • 1 month later...

Hi,

I’ve scanned through your posts and have been through a very similar situation with Erudio and have just had my complaint upheld by FOS after almost a year of back and forth and great stress.  I don’t know where you are with this now as I don’t have time to look through all of your posts but wanted to share some info in case it helps you or somebody else. 
 

Are you still able to provide further information to the ombudsman for the final decision? as I could possibly help with some information on previously upheld decisions. The FOS should now be fully aware that Erudio changed their processes in 2021 and no longer emailed the deferment reminder, causing many people who hadn’t updated their addresses to miss the deferment window. They claim they sent texts with a link to a reminder  but a lot of peoplereporting that they either didn’t receive text or the link didn’t work. 
 

FOS are upholding complaints on the basis that Erudio made no effort to contact people by any other method after deferments were missed and accounts went into arrears. These are people who have successfully deferred for 20+ years and FOS state that it is standard industry practice to try and find people’s new addresses in order to make contact. 
 

it is clear that Erudio chose to change their processes in 2021 to catch people out and of course it is in their interest not to make any effort to find these people. The only contact you eventually receive is once the debt has been passed on to DCA. I can refer you to a couple of decisions where people either didn’t change their address or Erudio claim not to have received the change of address. 
 

The key thing is though that FOS are upholding complaints mainly because they feel Erudio could have done more to contact people once the situation became serious enough to go to DCA. Especially if that person had been successfully deferring for decades. 
 

It is also worth pointing out that FOS don’t necessarily look at other decisions when considering your complaint and I’ve had to refer them to previously upheld complaints where the situation was remarkably similar. In fact, my first attempt at a complaint was not upheld but I appealed citing another FOS decision where the complaint was upheld. It then went back to the case handler who upheld it. Erudio appealed but it was upheld again. Erudio appealed again and then it went to ombudsman for final decision and they have upheld it again. 
 

I wish there was a way to tell everyone dealing with Erudio that they need to fight it. I almost gave up several times because it was so anxiety inducing. 
 

if this is too late for you, and I hope it isn’t, please bear in mind that you can always make an offer to pay off a percentage of the final balance to clear the debt. I’m sure there are people on here who would advise against this but I understand they are accepting as little as 15% of the balance (I was considering offering 10% at one point just to get it out of my hair as I did not want to leave a debt hanging over me). Like I say I only considered this due to my anxiety but my conscience just couldn’t allow it in the end as I’m just so disgusted with how this company operates.  My relative was willing to pay 10% to clear the debt but if they did not accept the offer then they would get £1 per month for the rest of my life. 
 

I will update my original post about this once the decision has been published. 
 

Oh I also got some compensation because of Erudio’s call handler’s disgusting phone manner. They tried to convince me that I hadn’t done things correctly because I had just had a baby at the time and probably had baby brain and misremembered my actions. Incredible. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

well done, yes please update your thread

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Update:  

I read the published case Beingfleeced provided that the Ombudsman upheld (Thanks very much for that).  My case is identical, same time frame, same year communication broke down, same consequences, same email issue,….identical.  



  Coincidentally, even though I had chosen not spoken to my investigator after they ruled against me, the investigator decided to extend it ‘just in case’ I changed my mind about raising it to an Ombudsman.

  Given I had a couple of days left on the extension and this new evidence appeared, I broke radio silence and gave my investigator another crack at it, citing the published ruling.   

I phoned the investigator, to make sure he had received my evidence and he assured me he’d take a good look at it and get back in touch.  

  I felt good, it was an obvious slam dunk.  I was wrong.  

  The investigator wrote back saying that although the case had similarities the FoS base each case on its own merits and no cases set a precedence.  He would not change his decision.  His email back felt like an exercise in muddying the waters, taking attention off the identical case discovered and downplaying the elements therein.  He stated that in the other, published case, Erudio were ‘aware’ that the customer was not living there but defaulted them anyway
, in my case the were not aware I had moved. 

  Talk about being picked apart on such an insignificant detail!   Nevertheless, that’s not what the ruling says and I have irrefutable evidence proving Erudio DID know I had moved.  He also said that Erudio didn’t receive any “Returned Mail” till long after the default notice was served (Convenient, although helpful to me that they’ve admitted they received returned mail).  He then provided a date for the default notice which I found even more convenient since up to now I had not been provided with one (despite SARs) and if they sent one I know it was returned “Not known at this address”.  

  

So I’m in two minds

- On the one hand I’m baffled and somewhat concerned at the inconsistency of the FoS whilst thinking that the Investigator is set in stone, incapable of changing his mind because humans can be like that.  In which case, I feel I should counter his rebuttals with a “Final statement” (summary of my case from my point of view) instructing him to add it to the case file for the attention of the Ombudsman, citing pieces from the identical upheld decision, insisting it be submitted as evidence in its unadulterated, unabridged entirety, highlighting all the identical elements, their impact, what’s fair and reasonable, best practice,

while simultaneously raising a case with the FCA citing their Consumer Duty measures coming into act in July, raise a case with the ICO for Erudio failing to complete my SARs and bring in my MP to ensure oversight that the FoS process is conducted fairly and consistently given the glaringly obvious matching issue I'm having.  

 

On the other hand, I’m starting to wonder if I’m being directed towards an Ombudsman ruling, which no matter what I do will go against me, so that it can be used as a stick to beat me with in court as an FoS Ombudsman decision is binding whereas an FoS investigators is not.



Nothing to lose and everything to gain or the other way around? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

pers id take it to the omds himself.

you've nothing to lose and dont have to abide by a bad decision if it stands.

 

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...