noomill v Student Loan Company ***WON***

[noomill060]

Now to start building a case of harrassment against these creeps.

 

And, of course a nice BIG Wasted Costs Order.

 

I'll get that £1.94 back, by Jupiter!

 

 

 

**The gods of Imperial Rome remain unavailable for comment at this time, thank you for holding**

[emmaf01]

I had a great conversation with the SLC today- they tried to say that I needed to pay them money, even though the account is in dispute. I had the joy of telling them that I would not be paying them anything until the court action was concluded.

 

"What court action?" That stumped them.

 

They try to browbeat me now, and the conversation gets so funny, my husband has to run into the kitchen so they can't hear him laughing.

[noomill060]

Same thing happened with me. It takes a while before your notice of claim gets delivered.

 

They last rang me on the same day the Court papers were delivered.

 

Then-

 

 

Silence.

[emmaf01]

Where's the fun in that?

[emmaf01]

As my claim seems to be going down to the wire, I've been re-reading this for tips!

 

Still no phonecalls from them, though.

[littlebea]

wow i am well impressed with this thread! SLC figure in my debt management plan with the CCCS, howver they continue to send me arrears letters which they charge me £20 for, once my court thing with barclays is out the way tomorrow i fully intend to get my SLC stuff together and take them out too!

[noomill060]

Glad to hear it littlebea.

 

It wouldnt hurt to start the ball rolling now with a SAR.

[emmaf01]

Yes- its great fun. I've won but arguments over correct account numbers mean I still haven't been paid!

 

It just shows how useless the SLC can be when they try to argue that I've supplied the wrong account numbers, when in fact they have!

[noomill060]

Do you have a date for Court yet, emma?

[maybelline]

Well, well, well- this morning I recieved this letter from Harper Macleod, solicitors acting on behalf of the SLC:

 

 

"Dear noomill060,

 

noomill060 v SLC

 

Claim number 07/36092

 

We act on behalf of SLC and write in reference to the claim initiated by you in Craigavon Court against our clients.

 

We have been instructed by our clients to make an offer of settlement on the following terms:

 

1. that the £200 of charges due on your account and currently in dispute be removed from your account numbered 92xxxWRONGACCOUNTNUMBERxxx

 

2. that the remaining £80 of charges due on your account and not detailed in your claim be removed from your account numbered (92xxxWRONGACCOUNTNUMBERxxx)

 

3. that the charge of £12 applied to your loan account numbered 92xxxWRONGACCOUNTNUMBERxxx on 23 May 2002 paid by you on 24 Feb 2005 and currently in dispute be refunded to you by cheque

 

4. that your Court fee of £36 be refunded to you by cheque and

 

5. that the interest of £43.07 claimed be refunded to you by cheque.

 

Please note the the decision to resolve this matter has been taken for commercial reasons and that our clients do not accept liability for you claims. As is clear from the defence lodged on behalf of SLC, SLC's position is that the charges applied to your account have been applied in accordance with the terms of your loan agreement with SLC.

 

This letter is written entirely without predudice - bla bla bla..."

 

 

So looks like another victory for noomill060 and CAG.

 

The mighty Student Loans Company is just as terrified as all the other financial institutions, of having to explain themselves and their unlawful penalty charges in front of a judge.

 

I will email the person who signed this letter and ask them to clarify the account number and (assuming this was a simple mistake) accept their offer.

 

Nice of them to find another £80 of charges which are no where mentioned in my statements, eh?

 

**The gods of Imperial Rome remain unavailable for comment at this time**

 

**The Bishop of Wakefield is on an ecumenical fact finding tour of Scarborough and is not expected to be back at his desk until later in the year**

WELL DONE NOOMILL! had I been awake I should have read this!

[noomill060]

Yes, SLC were a bit of a pushover. Theyre all bluster and no b@lls.

[sezchwarn]

Hey, just wanted to say, righteous, noomill. Fight the power!

[sezchwarn]

and yes, righteous is a word.lol.

[noomill060]

[noomill060]

After SLC removed the charges I paid off the remaining balance of arrears

 

In connection with a SAR non compliance case against NCO (SLC's debt collectors), NCO have let it slip that after this case was complete they were told to cease collection on the grounds that "the debtor has been unable to satisfy repayment"

 

Hmmm...

 

I think another letter to SLC is in order. This time for processing inaccurate data. Lies in other words.

[noomill060]

Letter to SLC to be sent timeously, of course.

[noomill060]

Section 10 notice sent to SLC.

[ChopsWillis]

Hi Noomill, I am new to this site, but I have been reading your posts and saw that you took on SLC and won. Congratulations by the way, they can be intimidating (or try to be)

SLC are chasing me at the min. I am not letting them stress me out for now (luckily they don't have my phone number!) So when they send a letter I just write back to them after a week or two and ask then to verify / explain why they think I owe them that amount, asking for statements / calculations etc which of course never materialise.

Every now and again, the process starts over and gets as far as them threatening me with court.

My question here is, what is so bad about "calling their bluff" so to speak? If they are as desperate as we believe that they do not want to go before a judge then surely we can all just sit back and wait for them to actually pick a court date themselves, which will never happen?

Has the SLC ever taken anyone to court and won?

I don't know much about the legal ins and outs but common sense seems to point towards SLC not being able to organise the proverbial in a brewery so why would anyone worry that they could actually make it to a court with any valid case even if their case WAS valid?!

I am thinking about saving myself 30 mins per month and just ignoring them from now on. Or would you not advise that?

Basically they overpaid me some grant money which I would have been happy to pay back straight away had it not been for their very rude and spiteful woman in cust serv. PLUS they tried demanding £176 more than it should have been so on a matter of principle I am not letting them have the original amount until they change their attitude, admit their error and apologise for being incompetent.

[noomill060]

If they have added any of their fake £20 fees for letters sent to you, you can start action to force them to remove them, but if I were you in this situation, I would simply repay the amount that you know you have been overpaid.

 

You wont get them to apologise or change their attitude, though!

[noomill060]

No response to section 10 notice within the statutory 21 days.

 

Here we go again...

[noomill060]

recieved a letter from SLC cant say what it says, but very interesting.

[Hippy-chick]

recieved a letter from SLC cant say what it says, but very interesting.

 

Grrrr!

 

You tease!

[Rosalee]

Fantastic work noomill! I'm very new to this site and am in the process of stamping my CCA request to be sent by recorded delivery(!) today to SLC.

 

I and my partner have experienced the aggressive and intimidating tactics of Mackenzie Hall (a whole new thread in itself!) acting on behalf of the SLC, and this intimidation has had a profound effect on our daily lives, with phone calls being received both at weekends and in the very late evening from obnoxious call centre operatives.

 

The saddest part of the case (which has been going on now since 1997) is that this entire debt would have been deferred and the massive charges they have since levied on the account not plonked onto the account, had SLC fulfulled their original obligation to send out a deferrment form to my partner in 1997 when he requested it on three separate occasions.

 

He undertook a degree in good faith and with the knowledge that he would be able to pay what he owes as and when his means allowed. Their treatment of consumers is shocking and shameful especially in the light of the fact that it involves many who have worked extremely hard in order to succeed in the dream of a degree, in order to try and add more knowledge and ethusiasm to the world. I'm sorry if I seem a little emotional here, but I have just stayed up all night reading all the posts about the CCA requests and all the posts regarding the SLC as we are still so worried that we will have bailiffs trying to knock down our door.

 

This debt has been a powerful burden on us and has reached the stage that MH are threatening bailiffs should he not be able to pay the whole loan off in full (which is completely impossible as we are both on a very low income) and it has been a real lifeline to find this site and some fellow support against the underhand actions of both the SLC and Mackenzie Hall.

 

Without you guys we wouldn't have had the courage to take this further, and had no idea we could defend ourselves against their constantly threatening letters and phone calls.

 

So a big big thank you to you all and I await the latest installment of your case noomill and thanks for having the courage to stand up to them!

 

I will let you all know the outcome of the CCA request and llok forward to hearing about other cases...Together we can fight these bullies...Thanks!

[noomill060]

You need to send them a SAR to get hold of all your statements, rosalee.

 

(A CCA request is for a copy of your original agreement.)

[noomill060]

MH can only threaten bailiffs if they have had a County Court Judgement against you.

 

Have you had any notice that you are being taken to court yet?