Hi folks, got a new hearing date of 30th October. Have there been any new Doyle/Hart developments in the last few months? I have searched the forum but couldn't see anything relevant.

Hi Pelligrino, Is there anything else you can do in advance of the court date? I'd say there is. Did you originally send an CCA S.77 request? If so, what did they send you? When I sent my S.77 request they have only sent me the first page of my agreement. I would contend that because they've not sent the 2nd page that it means that Erudio are in breach of the CCA 1974 act. Which would also mean that until they fulfill the terms then the debt is unenforceable. DX may confirm, or disabuse me of this notion. I too am going through the process of fighting the Doyle/Hart argument submitted by Erudio so I will follow your case with great interest. My hearing is a week after yours.

I still haven't received anything from the court.

I've had an email from the court telling me it's inappropriate for the judge to speak to me out of court so that clears nothing up at all. I'm wondering if I can fit "Vigilantibus non dormientibus seccurit lex" into any argument to repudiate any skeleton argument that they may put forward? In particular with regard to Maritius Shipping v Employment Relations Tribunal where I believe that the court ruled that whilst within time, the application had not been made sufficiently promptly? I've still not amended my defence, although now I finally have the right forms. Do I need to put in the exact details if I amend my defence or can I just say something like "Due to not adhering to the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act this debt is unrecoverable"? I'll be honest, this is affecting me hugely. I'm full of anxiety, I'm losing sleep about it and having this hanging over me is really affecting my life.

I have dropped an email to the judge just to clarify if the next hearing is purely about their application for summary judgement or whether it will be a ruling on the whole case.

"to me it looks like once the amend their skeleton is done you can simply if you wish to respond to the judge with your new defence, no need to pay anything and same outcome" The lawyers I spoke to agreed, however they also said that the Judge had only stopped an inch away from directing me to amend my defence. They said that should I get the same judge (entirely possible) and the judge found that I hadn't applied to amend my defence, then at the very least the judge would be "cross" (they used another word I won't repeat) and that they might rule that my response constituted a new defence and as such disregard it. They thought the judge would be wrong to do so, but that rather than take that risk it would be sensible to mitigate this risk by applying to amend the defence. As yet the official court order hasn't been issued so, no haven't had any new hearing date or skeleton defence.

Ok, the overwhelming advice that I have now received from qualified lawyers is to apply to amend my defence, particularly given the comments made by the judge at the last hearing. I am going to go to the court and get an N244 Form this afternoon and intend to submit it on Monday so all help with filling this in would be appreciated. I know that you may not agree that this is necessary but I feel that it gives my case a better chance of success.

I spoke to a solicitor today about how to amend my defence and they said that IF Dryden's/Erudio consent I can use a Consent Order which will cost £108 or if they don't consent then I'll have to submit an N244 which will cost £275. Given that I will have to pay one or other of these fees, should I also submit a claim against Erudio for costs, and if so do I need to do that through a counterclaim?

The default notice can be seen on Post 132 of this thread on p23/37 of the docs I uploaded

I submitted a CPR request to Drydens on 27th January 2020. They never specifically replied although on 10th March 2021 they sent a letter saying "We refer to the defence you have filed...having now had the opportunity of discussing with our client we have now obtained the following documentation addressing the issues you raised in your Defence. 1) Notice of Default and 2) Account Summary. They attached a Notice of Default allegedly sent 24/5/2016. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ADVISE ME ON HOW I GO ABOUT AMENDING MY DEFENCE? It's all very well discussing the issues surrounding this but the Judge (virtually) told me to amend my defence and to do it urgently, so whether or not you think I should, please tell me how to.

I don't believe they have included this information

Whitelist, whilst I believe you are wrong in what you are saying, I do appreciate you asking the question. Feel free to continue to post on this thread. Old style student loans are regulated under the CCA 1974 and it does clearly state this on the top of the forms I signed when I had hair. Now, how do I apply to amend my defence?

All opinions and information are of interest. There is NO case law specifically regarding Student Loans on this. What I could really do with is help on how to apply to amend my defence. I simply can't find any information on how to do this. Once again I stress the importance that the judge put on this - I think that she was really trying to guide me on this.

So, my next job I guess is to submit an application to amend my defence so that it includes the fact that no NOA was sent, that Erudio have not complied with s.77 of CCA and that Erudio have broken so many terms of the CCA as to make this an unfair contract. The judge seemed very clear (without being able to advise me) that this is what I should do and to do it as a matter of urgency. I shall still keep the statute barred defence in there.

I arrived at court 30 minutes before the hearing. Their representative, Imogen Watkins, a County Court Advocate from LPC Law, came and spoke to me when I arrived. She explained that she was not from Erudio or Drydens but had been taken on to represent their case. She advised me that her client had instructed her to ask the court to disallow my witness statement as it was received later than it should have been. I explained that should the court disallow it I would make an N244 Relief from Sanctions application, I also said that I thought that the court would allow my witness statement as the overriding directive would be to deal with a case justly and proportionately. She then asked me if I was standing by my assertion that the claim was statute barred and I said that I was, and that there were other reasons in addition that this claim should not be allowed. She then presented me with the Claimant's Statement of Costs and said that should she receive judgement in their favour these were the costs I'd be liable for. She thanked me and went over and sat and had a chat with other lawyers about all manner of things apart from my case in the waiting area. I sat, waited, posted my urgent request for help above and fretted for an hour until we were called into court. The judge told the claimant's rep that she didn't have a copy of my initial defence in her bundle, nor did she have my witness statement and evidence that went with it. I explained that I had delivered it by hand to the court and she said that it was common that stuff didn't get attached to the relevant cases. The oppo's rep then provided the judge with copies of both my initial defence and my witness statement. Their advocate then put to the court that these documents hadn't been submitted in time and as such no reliance should be placed on them. I countered by saying that on the Notice of Application the only direction was that "If the applicant is represented by a solicitor, the solicitor must file a hard bundle for use by the court at the hearing 3 working days before the attended hearing." Given that this was the only direction made by the court this must supersede any other time limits. The judge looked at the Notice of Application and said that this was just a standard clause and it didn't supersede any other time limits, however she then went onto say that this may all be irrelevant as she was not convinced that she would be able to make a ruling on this case during this hearing as the case looked too complex to be decided in 30 minutes, as such it would be a moot point if this was her decision. She asked the advocate if there was a skeleton outline of the claimant's argument and the advocate advised her that all she had was the claimant's witness statement. The judge then asked the advocate to make her submissions. The advocate presented the judge with a copy of the ruling in the BMW v Hart case and proceeded to argue that the cause of action was the termination of the agreement. The judge quickly picked up on the fact that this case referred to a Hire Purchase agreement, the advocate said that this was the same sort of contract that I had regarding my student loans. I chimed in here and said, "It absolutely is not." The judge then said that she'd like to hear the advocate's submissions and that then I would be able to counter them. I apologised to the judge and the oppo for not being conversant with court proceedings and the judge was very kind and relaxed about it. The oppo suggested that Student Loans were the same as a Hire Purchase agreement as there was an obligation to pay a set monthly amount over a set term. The judge said she had reservations about whether this would apply to my case as surely there would be different rules and regulations set by different statutes and laws as these were not identical cases. She then asked the advocate if there were any terms in the original contract that would apply directly to govern this. The advocate said that there weren't and that there was no direct case law that had been ruled on about Student Loans regarding this. The judge then asked what protection the debtor would be given under the contract, the advocate said that she didn't feel able to answer that. The advocate also mentioned the notice of assignment as proof that they had the right to litigate in this matter. The judge then went on to ask whether Student Loans should be written off 25 years after the agreements had been made, the oppo argued that this would only apply if the account was not in arrears. The judge then turned to me. I said, The claimant is arguing that this alleged debt is not statute barred. I contend that not only would this alleged debt be statute barred but also, for numerous reasons, that if any debt was outstanding that it would be unrecoverable. As such I ask that not only does this court reject any application for my defence to be struck out, summary judgement and a costs order but that the claimant withdraws any claim, either now or in the future, against me .In point 18.1 of the claimants witness statement the claimant attempts to rely on BMW Financial Services v Hart and in 18.2 of the same statement they assert that Doyle v PRA applies to this case. BMW Financial Services v Hart was a case that centred on a Hire Purchase Agreement between the two parties. A hire purchase agreement is a completely different type of contract to that which I entered into with the Student Loans Company Ltd (not Erudio Student Loans Limited as I have never entered into any agreement with them) and as such has no relevance to this case. In the Doyle v PRA Group case PRA had attempted to rely on the ruling given in BMW Financial Services v Hart. In point 29 of the judgement in Doyle v PRA Group, the presiding judge, Sir Thomas Etherton said about the attempt to rely on BMW Financial Services v Hart, “the facts, and in particular the terms of the contract, in that case were materially different from those in the present case. It is not necessary to place any reliance on it.” Whilst I contend that the case in front of the court is fundamentally different from Doyle v PRA Group, it is clear that BMW Financial Services v Hart is even further divorced from this case, a fact that the claimant must have been aware of. In my opinion not only is any attempt for the claimant to rely on BMW Financial Services v Hart doomed to failure but it is a reckless angle for them to take and is nothing more than an intimidatory tactic by the claimant. The judge considered my point and said that she could see why the claimant had placed reliance on BMW v Hart and that whilst she might not agree that it applied, it was fair for them to use it in their claim and that it was not an intimidatory tactic. She went on to say that it was clear that this case was going to be too complex to rule on. At this point I said that the oppo had mentioned a Notice of Assignment and had submitted it as evidence to the court, I said that I believed it was neither true nor faithful and that I had evidence which would throw severe doubt on its authenticity. The judge then asked if this had been in my initial defence. I said that it hadn't as I was only provided with the NOA when Erudio made the submission for statutory judgement. The judge said that if I wanted to pursue this, or other grounds for defending the claim I would have to make an application to vary my defence to the court. She was very clear that any application to vary a defence should be made as soon as possible and should explain clearly why this hadn't been included in my initial defence. The judge then continued to explain that this case was too complex to be heard by her in this hearing and that she would require the claimant to file and serve a skeleton argument 14 days before a rescheduled hearing which would be sometime after 28 days and that should I wish to respond to their argument I had to file and serve 7 days before hearing. The judge asked me if I was happy with that and I said I'd have been happier had she thrown out their case but it'd do. She asked the oppo lawyer if there was anything else she wanted and the oppo lawyer asked for her costs to be awarded, the judge refused and said that costs would be reserved. The judge then suggested that both parties might be better off making a settlement even though it might not satisfy either party, it could possibly prevent a costly loss for either. We both thanked the judge and that was that...for now.