Erudio/Drydens Claimform - old SLC debt - stayed since 2019 - now N244 to lift stay &/OR SJ ***Application Dismissed***

[lifttheveil]

The girl said the court hearing was still happening. She wasn't really sure what I should do.

She did suggest emailing the court to repeat what I had told her.

She also suggested contacting Drydens to clarify, but I'm not too keen to tell them how they've messed up.

[AndyOrch]

Tricky  so you can either advise Drydens of their error and suggest they withdraw their application and vacate the hearing or you can submit a short simple reply by way of a statement in objection to their application (must be filed not less than 7 days pre hearing date) advising the court that the claimant has referred to incorrect claim numbers not associated to your claim and respectfully request the court dismiss the claimants application.

[lifttheveil]

Mmm, will either option cause them to lose their fee?

[AndyOrch]

First option yes second option if your statement is successful yes.

[lifttheveil]

So second option would be a witness statement then?

Along the lines of:

1. I, xxxxxx

2. I am writing in response to the Claimant’s N244 dated 7^th September 2023. Although my name is stated on the form, the claim number (xxxxxxx) at the top of the form does not belong to any claim I am associated with. I rang the court today to confirm this.

3. As the claim number is invalid, I respectfully request that the court dismiss the Claimant’s application. 

[AndyOrch]

Yes fine, lay it out as a statement Court Name Claimant  V Defendant etc claim number.

1. I, xxxxxx

2. I make this Witness Statement in objection and to oppose the claimant application dated 7^th September 2023 for Strike Out/Summary Judgment in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated xxxxxx pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a/b. Although my name is stated on the form, the claim number (xxxxxxx) at the top of the form does not belong to any claim I am associated with. I rang the court today to confirm this.

3. As the claim number is invalid an unconnected, I respectfully request that the court dismiss the Claimant’s application. 

 

“I believe the (claimant or as may be) believes that the facts stated in this [name document being verified] 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.”

 

.

.

[lifttheveil]

Great. Thanks Andy. Do you think I need to include exhibits (eg copy of the N244)?

[AndyOrch]

Yes I would make it as easy quick ref for the DJ.

[AndyOrch]

Just one other point so you understand....Its the signed statement thats invalid that refers to incorrect claim numbers ...incorrect numbers on the N244 are important also...but the statement as been signed and it should end with

“I believe the (claimant or as may be) believes that the facts stated in this [name document being verified] 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.”

Ive also added your statement truth above to post # 33

[lifttheveil]

Um, Drydens' witness statement does refer to the original (correct) claim number, in contrast to the N244.

It is signed with the statement you have quoted above.

[AndyOrch]

Thats okay then still go for the N244 application that remains invalid.

[AndyOrch]

Just an after thought in case the court treat it as de minimis and allow it alter your statement as follows.

1. I, xxxxxx

2. I make this Witness Statement in objection and to oppose the claimant application dated 7^th September 2023 for Strike Out/Summary Judgment in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated xxxxxx pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a/b. Although my name is stated on the form, the claim number (xxxxxxx) at the top of the form does not belong to any claim I am associated with. I rang the court today to confirm this.

3. As the claim number is invalid an unconnected, I respectfully request that the court dismiss the Claimant’s application. 

4. Should the court allow the application to proceed without correction it is respectfully requested that I be allowed to submit a further in depth full response to the claimants application.

 

“I believe the that the facts stated in this [name document being verified] 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.”

 

[AndyOrch]

What date has the hearing been set for ? Would you have time to draft a further statement should they allow the application to proceed ?

Just covering all basis as you will only have one stab at responding to their application /statement.

[lifttheveil]

18th April

[AndyOrch]

So your deadline would be this coming Fri 4.00pm.

Its your choice but I personally would continue after 4 with points of objection to their statement which you know are incorrect.

Then you have all basis covered...hopefully they would reject the application but if they didn't and allowed it to proceed you would be going into the hearing with no statement or evidence points raised.

 

.

[lifttheveil]

It depends on how quickly they get back to me if the application is rejected.

Would I have to ring the court or would they let me know somehow in time to submit another statement?

Does this mean that dx's last post is worth including?

[AndyOrch]

If that's true and is a complete defence then yes you could but if they can defeat the SB argument have you nothing else to fall back on ?

[lifttheveil]

I wasn't planning on relying on it but was wondering if it had legs?

I would prefer to gamble that the application is rejected on the claim number being wrong, but only if I am informed by the court in time to submit a second statement

[AndyOrch]

Well thats the point I've been making, will they thats why I suggested a double edge sword.I don't think they will in time and if you informed the claimant they will have time to correct by Fri.

 

.

[lifttheveil]

I'm swinging back and forth between thinking I've got a good case to thinking I'm stuffed

[AndyOrch]

Have a go at adding to the statement and we can polish it for later in the week 

[lifttheveil]

Thanks Andy. I think I need to get it done tonight so I can send tomorrow. Otherwise Wednesday is the latest I can send it I believe?

Here it is:

1. I, xxxxxthe Defendant in this claim. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge.

2. I make this witness statement pursuant to CPR 24.5(1) in objection and opposition to the Claimant’s application dated 7^th September 2023 for the stay to be lifted and defence struck out/summary judgment.

3. Although my name is stated on the N244, the claim number at the top (BCD23456) does not belong to any claim I am associated with. I rang the court today to confirm this.

4. As the claim number is invalid and unconnected, I respectfully request that the court dismiss the Claimant’s application.

5. Should the court allow the application to proceed without correction, then I will respond below to the Claimant’s witness statement with the claim number ABC12345.

 

6. The Claimant’s witness statement admits to relying on hearsay evidence in its introduction. To my understanding, notice of this is required pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(b) and the section 2(1)(a) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995. Additionally, CPR 33.2(2) states that when serving the witness statement, the Claimant should:

a.    inform the other parties that the witness is not being called to give oral evidence; and

b.    give the reason why the witness will not be called.

7. The claim form I received from drydensfairfax, the Claimant’s solicitor, dated 2^nd November 2018, bases the entirety of the claim on Student Loan Company (SLC) account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  which to my knowledge is not a valid SLC account number.

 

 

8. The Claimant did not communicate with the court or myself within the standard time limit, so the claim was automatically stayed.

9. As stated in paragraph 2, some 4 years and 8 months after the claim was stayed, the Claimant applied to lift the stay and strike out the defence. 

10. The Claimant’s witness has provided copies of 2 discrete agreements in pages 1 to 4 of SR1 dated 6^thFebruary 1995 and 31^st January 1996.

11. The terms and conditions attached to the credit agreements in SR1 pages 2 and 4 are reconstituted and identical to the one on SR1 page 6, which is clearly marked as being from 1997. Note that the signed agreements are pre-1997.

12. If the terms and conditions are considered accurate, then Condition 2 clearly states that the agreement is not binding until it is signed on behalf of the SLC. Neither agreement has been signed as such.

13. In paragraph 9 the Claimant’s witness states that a Notice of Assignment was sent to me dated 28^th March 2014. I have no record of ever having received such a notice at the time. 

14. Contrary to paragraph 10 of the Claimant’s witness statement, I never received any deferral forms nor a web link for online deferral from the Claimant. I did not receive reminders to defer as claimed in paragraph 11. 

15. SR1 pages 39 – 72 show a copy of the last deferral letter and accompanying payslips to the SLC dated 10^thJune 2013. These show I was not earning above the threshold to make repayments on the Mortgage-Style student loans. I have never earned above the threshold.

16. Had the agreements been deferred as previously, in 2021 I would have already reached the 25-year anniversary since signing the last agreement, and would have been eligible for cancellation of repayments under Condition 8 of the terms and conditions of the agreements.

17. The Claimant sent an annual statement dated 1^st September 2016, in which £7.25 of unexplained charges had been added.

18. The annual statement dated 1^st September 2019 included charges of £80 and £185 added to the balance of SLC agreement 94ABCD12345, which corresponds to the court claim issue fee and solicitor’s fee respectively.

19. Subsequently, I received a letter dated 8^th June 2021 stating that these were default sums that had become payable under the agreement.

20. I then received a letter dated 16^th December 2021 from the Claimant informing me of an administrative error resulting in a charge for the solicitor’s fees, and that they were hence deducting this from the balance.

SUMMARY

21. The Claimant submitted a claim form without being in possession of supporting evidence to the court when issuing the claim, as admitted in paragraph 24 of their witness statement.

22. They did not respond to my defence until 3^rd March 2020 as shown in exhibit SR1 pages 73 to 75, some 16 months after issuing the claim.

23. The Claimant waited almost 5 years to attempt to lift the stay.

24. The Claimant has repeatedly misquoted agreement numbers, claim numbers (including for the Application Notice), and has demonstrated multiple accounting errors.

25. In view of the information set out above I respectfully submit to the court that the Claimant’s application be denied and the Statement of Case struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(b) as an abuse of the court’s process. 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that 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.

 

 

[dx100uk]

2 hours ago, lifttheveil said:

14. Contrary to paragraph 10 of the Claimant’s witness statement, I never received any deferral forms nor a web link for online deferral from the Claimant. I did not receive reminders to defer as claimed in paragraph 11. 

this is a very well know point even the FOS have ruled against erudio several times pointing to no evidence that they did ever send out letters or emails and should have carried out better residency checks before doing so too.

 

what about overall this debt should now be well statute barred as the 2/11/2018 claim appears to have been made to solely stop the SB ticking etc as i put earlier. IMHO you can include all it. 

the rest is great and further expands away from just SB as andy pointed out.

dx

 

[lifttheveil]

Thanks dx. I'll add something to that effect into the statement

 

[lifttheveil]

Paragraph 21 amended to:

The Claimant submitted a claim form without being in possession of supporting evidence to the court when issuing the claim, as admitted in paragraph 24 of their witness statement. It is reasonable to believe that they did so in order to avoid the loans becoming statute-barred under section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980.