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

[lifttheveil]

Hi,

Apologies if I am posting in the wrong forum, but this relates to a thread from here:

Could someone clarify to me how section 87(1) of the CCA specifies that a default notice must be served for each agreement in this case? How does it stop a company bundling together multiple agreements and issuing only a single DN for all of them together?

[dx100uk]

because unlike other highstreet lending regulated by the CCA 1974, slc loans are treated as a 'chain'

whats your real problem please?

have you a court claim and is this regarding SLC loans now sold to Erudio?

dx

[lifttheveil]

Hi,

Yes, I have some pre-1998 SLC loans.

Erudio made a claim against me that was stayed after they didn't submit any evidence to the court to my holding defence.

That was 5 years ago and they are now trying to lift the stay and apply summary judgment.

Similar to others who have posted, they only sent a single default notice and single termination notice for all the loans under their own account number.

I was reading Plonker1's thread and was wondering what his appropriate response would have been to the judge who claimed that this was not an issue.

[dx100uk]

so the debt is now statute barred then and you can file as such.

the submitance of an n244 attempting a lifting of a stay and SJ should be made in a timely manner ...not 5 yrs later.

i will guess the dn is 2016 i bet?

can you please complete this :

 

 

and post up the defence you filed

and erudios complete n244 inc exhibits.

thread title updated

dx

 

[lifttheveil]

Thanks dx100uk. I'll get that info uploaded ASAP.

Just one question though - I thought the claim stopped the clock when it comes to being statute barred?

[dx100uk]

sure it does... but not for 5yrs!!.

it's almost like they purposefully did the claim either hoping you'd wet yourself and cough up or to halt the clock as they knew their DN was 'faulty' ( which it is and has been successfully won in court - issued many years after it should have been ) .

theres a good few threads on these here and comments from @Andyorch upon that very +5yrs stay/DN subject in Erudio claims too.

dx

 

 

[lifttheveil]

Thanks for replying and thanks for doing so on a Saturday evening too 

Here are my questionnaire responses:

Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton

Name of the Claimant ? Erudio

How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self

Date of issue –  02 Nov 2018

Particulars of Claim

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

1. The claim is for the sum of £4000 in respect of monies owing by the defendant on a credit agreement held by the defendant with Student Loans Company under account number **************** upon which the defendant failed to maintain payments.

2. A default notice was served upon the defendant and has not been complied with.

3. The balance owed was assigned from Student Loans Company to the claimant, and the defendant has been notified of the assignment by letter.

Contact drydensfairfax solicitors on 0113 823 3402

What is the total value of the claim? £4000

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes, but i was away when it arrived

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No

Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No

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 ? Not sure

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Don't know

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 to Erudio

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I don't recall receiving one

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? No, only from Erudio

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes

Why did you cease payments? I never paid. I always successfully deferred with SLC until 2013. I never entered into any kind of correspondence with Erudio.

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? No

Here was my defence:

The Defendant contends that the Particulars of Claim are vague and generic in nature. Accordingly, the Defendant sets out his case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.     Paragraph 1 is noted and the Defendant accepts that he has in the past had financial dealings with the Student Loans Company, but has no recollection of the precise details of the alleged agreement and has requested verification from the Claimant who has to date failed to supply any supporting evidence.

2.     Paragraph 2 is denied as the Defendant is not aware of the service of any Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

3.     Paragraph 3 is denied as the Defendant is not aware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to section 136 (1) of the Law and Property Act 1925 by either the Claimant or the original creditor. 

4.     Having received this claim, requests for information pursuant to section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and CPR 33.14 were posted to the Claimant and the Claimant’s legal representative respectively on 15^th November 2018. To date, the Claimant remains in default.

5.     It is not accepted that the Defendant owes any monies to the Claimant, who is put to strict proof to:

a)    show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement;

b)    show how the alleged balance has been calculated; 

c)    show the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

d)    show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity, to issue a claim.

6.     As per CPR 16.5 (4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

7.     On the alternative, as the Claimant claims to be the assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

8.     By reason of the facts and matter set out above, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed in the Particulars of Claim or to any relief.

[dx100uk]

good well done.

just the full N244 now please

and if you have a hearing date yet...

dx

 

 

[lifttheveil]

Ok, here goes.

It's a massive bundle

copy of last deferral form to SLC (dated 10/6/13) and multiple payslips not included.

N244 full.pdf

[dx100uk]

do you NOW meet any of the following age related criteria for write off?

 

Pages from N244 with figures-compressed.pdf

 

in 2014 at time of NOA Bal was: £3615.99

DN was issued 2016-06-01 for £1560.99 ARREARS.

TN was issued 2016-06-30, the agreement was thus ended bal: £3639.63

Letter Of Claim 2018-09-26 Bal: £3642.32

2020-03-03 following the issuance and stay of the 2018-11-02 Court Claim the bal is now £3904.63 

Chase letter 2022-02-23 Stated bal: £3824.63..discount to £2732.74

somewhere they are either adding interest past 2016-09-26 - the agreement was terminated ..thats not allowed

or

they've charged you £262.31 for a stayed court filing...not on! court fees cant be added until judgement allows so!!

dx

[lifttheveil]

I'm not 50 yet, so no.

Yes, the figures are all over the place aren't they?

I also don't recall ever receiving an NOA, although they have sent a copy of one in the bundle

Thanks for highlighting that for me by the way.

I was about to get onto analysing all the figures but you did most of the work for me

[dx100uk]

what was the date of you signing the last agreement?

dx

 

[lifttheveil]

Signed 31/1/96, issued 7/2/96

[lifttheveil]

Hi,

I'm a little confused.

The claim no on the 'Notice of Hearing of Application' (#1) is different

to the one on the N244 (#2),

which is also different to the one on the N1

and the WS (#3)??

Should these be the same or not?

Thanks

L

[dx100uk]

if you mean the alpha numeric number say top right of the original claimform?

if so then all other related docs/n244 etc  should hold that same claim number

if not it means you must have more than one original claimform issued which is very rare for a series of SLC loans as they are always lumped together on all erudio court claims.

erudio cant litigate on SLC loans individually if they were all part of your 'qualification progress' year after year

 

dx

 

[lifttheveil]

That's what I'm confused about. The N244 claim no is definitely different from the one on the original claim form.

The one on the notice of hearing (first page of the document I uploaded) is again different from both of these.

If you look at page 9 of the document I uploaded (N244 FULL.pdf), which is a letter from Drydens, then the claim number quoted is the one on the N244 but not on the original claim form or the witness statement!

Following what you said, dx, the 2 loans I took out were from 2 entirely different university courses.

 

Is it possible that they have issued more than one claimform against me without me knowing about it?

If so, how they they apply to lift a stay on a claim that I have never defended nor have knowledge about?

Or have they messed up? If so, is it incompetence from my local court that has allowed the N244 to proceed to a hearing?

[dx100uk]

which could explain why you've doubted certain things since even back to your 1st post like:

On 30/03/2024 at 18:47, lifttheveil said:

Could someone clarify to me how section 87(1) of the CCA specifies that a default notice must be served for each agreement in this case? How does it stop a company bundling together multiple agreements and issuing only a single DN for all of them together?

and my reply.

On 30/03/2024 at 19:35, dx100uk said:

because unlike other highstreet lending regulated by the CCA 1974, slc loans are treated as a 'chain'

what about things like quoted SLC agreement numbers?

like on the org claimform

the default notice

N244/WS/Exhibits?

how do they match up.

..........................

and any funny things like i know again you've mention before about £totals.

On 01/04/2024 at 00:50, dx100uk said:

somewhere they are either adding interest past 2016-09-26 - the agreement was terminated ..thats not allowed

or

they've charged you £262.31 for a stayed court filing...not on! court fees cant be added until judgement allows so!!

dx

 

[lifttheveil]

I don't doubt what you're saying - they're total cowboys.

My original post was to clarify how to argue the DN issue in court, as Plonker1's argument was dismissed  by the judge at the time.

Although I can see many holes in what drydens are saying, and can point out many inconsistencies in the paperwork, I have never been in court before so trying to get all my ducks in order and have a coherent response to anything the judge might throw at me.

[dx100uk]

the judge doesnt 'throw things at you' , its not like you might see on TV, it doesnt work like that calm down!!

but you've gotta atleast do a statement in reply to the N244 application and thats gotta be there soon i expect.

typically its pre 14 days but yours says different? .

answer my questions above 

though could the over riding factor be here if you ignore the issuance of any claimforms (that might have stopped the SB clock) , those are +4 or 5 yrs ago and the debts are now well 6yrs +DN issuance so arer STATUTE BARRED.

i'm wondering if just to file our SB defence in retort to their N244 with a diff claim number (as you say this could be a admin error, but very unlike erudio/drydens to do that)

pinging @AndyOrch

dx

 

[lifttheveil]

I didn't realise you were asking me questions in your previous post - I thought you were pointing out inconsistencies you had spotted.

The original SLC agreement numbers are correctly referenced in their NOSIAs, the DN, TN

The original claimform quoted the Erudio ref no, but mislabelled it SLC account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The N244 stated an entirely different claim number as I've stated

The letter (WS exhibits p18) entitled 'Notification of account transfer to a new agency quotes the "Original Account Number" as the Erudio one. Interestingly it only refers to one of the loans (Date of original agreement: 15/02/1995), yet states that the outstanding amount as the total of the 2 loans.

The NOSIAs I have received in the meantime have tried to add court costs to the total, then deducted the issue fee (£80) from it later.

Just to clarify how the claim numbers differ:

The number on the original claimform and the witness statement is ABC12345

The one on the N244 is BCD23456

(Obviously these aren't the actual numbers)

[dx100uk]

thank you. that clears things up.

it's typical for erudio to use their ref number as the agreement number in most cases, but use the total outstanding of ALL SLC loans as their £ claimform figure in the POC. they have also inc both agreements in their N244 exhibits and thats typical of other WS's.

whats not on though is them adding the/any stayed claim costs to the outstanding balance for the loans as they additionally then try and claim those costs again if they win the N244, so thats something you need to address if they do win.

now as far as i can see, they are taking the wee here. 

you last deferred to SLC directly in 2013 to SLC before the sale to erudio, so even if they argue that expires at the END of that deferral period, its 2014.

a DN was Issued in 2016 some xx yrs/mts after the date of your last written acknowledgement of the debt - your direct SLC deferment.

a claimform was issued 02/11/2018, that court claim became stayed following you filing of a defence.

an N244 to lift stay/SJ was written by drydens 07/09/2023 - 10 YEARS FOLLOWING YOUR LAST ACK OF THE DEBT IN WRITING 

a court notice of hearing was issued on 11/01/2024 with a hearing date of 18-04-2024.

...........

now to wrap up this claim number issue.

in their WS they state the claim was issued 2/11/2018, 

in our sticky you state:

On 30/03/2024 at 22:46, lifttheveil said:

Date of issue –  02 Nov 2018

so it must just be a typo.

@AndyOrch  over to you 

an n244 statement something like :

1 The Claimant's claim was originally issued on 02/11/2018

 2.The date the defendant last made any written acknowledgement concerning the debt was by a deferment form directly sent to the Student loan Company dated XXXXX

 3.A Default Notice was issued by the claimant dated 01/06/2016  and was served xx years + xx months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X years + x months and the Limitations period prolonged to x 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.

4. a court claim was issued 02/11/2018, the defendant filed a defence. the claim has remained stayed for 5years 5 months. (NOT FAIR OR TIMELY!!)

 4.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.

 5.The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 nicked from Andyorch
 

just musing

 

 

[lifttheveil]

I'm trying to wrap y head round what you've said there, but I'm sure Andyorch can clarify!

The issue of the claim form numbers is still there though - ie the number on the top right of the claim forms (N1 and N244) and NOT the SLC or Erudio agreement numbers.

[AndyOrch]

The claim number must be the same on all documents.(assuming there is only one claim) With regards to their application n244 (which differs claim number wise) does it refer to your correct agreement numbers ?  

The above posted response by DX is not suitable as a witness statement in response to an application for Summary Judgment. Please wait until you have clarified my first point.

 

Andy

 

.

 

[lifttheveil]

I rang the court this morning to clarify.

It appears that Drydens did put the wrong claim number (BCD23456) on the N244, but put my name and address on it.

Somehow my local court allowed the Notice of Hearing of Application to proceed, but created a different claim number (CDE34567).

The original claim number (ABC12345) is not recognised on my local court's computer system.

The girl on the phone told me that the reference that Drydens had put on the N244 (BCD23456) actually belongs to another case!

The covering letter that Drysdens sent with the witness statement refers to both the wrong claim number (BCD23456) and the court's new one (CDE34567). The witness statement, however, still refers to the original number (ABC12345).

I have uploaded all the relevant documents below.

PS the N244 doesn't make any reference to the agreement numbers (see the pdf). Nor does the witness statement.

Drydens mess.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Then their application is invalid ( unless they they resubmit it with the correct claim number) 

21 minutes ago, lifttheveil said:

The girl on the phone told me that the reference that Drydens had put on the N244 (BCD23456) actually belongs to another case!

Thought so....you need to clarify with the court if they have dismissed their application or should you still respond to it.

 

Andy