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.

Ok, just out of court. The bad news is that I didn't win....the good news is that neither did they! In short the judge decided that it was far too complex a case for her to decide in a 30 minute hearing and has adjourned it and directed the claimant to submit skeleton arguments in advance of the rescheduled hearing which will be allocated 90 minutes. I'll type up a longer and more detailed version of events once I've had a cup of tea!

They've told me they are going to tell the judge to ignore my witness statement as they didn't receive it in time. Urgent help please.

Case is today. Please send me love and support. I'll be honest I'm so incredibly anxious about this. I *think* I've put together a good argument about why they shouldn't have Summary judgement and why the debt is unenforceable but I'm still worried about how it might go. Will update after the hearing. Anything I should know about court procedure apart from not to discuss my defence with their lawyer? Huge thanks for all the help so far though - particularly to Andyorch and Dx100uk. Fingers crossed!

I shall be making the points you have mentioned verbally in court DX. I'm currently working on the full transcript of what I intend to say and will post it up here once I've completed it. I will also be citing some of the findings in Doyle v PRA which I believe show that both that case and BMW v Hart are not relevant in this case.

Redacted copy of the Witness statement attached. Interestingly I have also found that when Erudio Student Loans replied to my CCA request they only sent the first page of each agreement. On each it refers to "as the terms and conditions of the Agreement as set out on this page and overleaf". They never sent me the "overleaf" part, I think that this constitutes a breach of CCA 77.1 and I'm going to push that as such CCA 77.4 would apply. I've emailed the docs to both the court and their solicitor asking for them to be taken into account even though they don't appear in my witness statement. I am currently working on all the points that I intend to bring up in court on Friday and shall post them on here before I do. Redacted Copy of Defense.pdf

Just to clarify where I'm at, I've taken further advice and now submitted everything to the court. I have put down numerous reasons why they should not be given summary judgement. I really don't feel that any one should be solely relying on "statute barred" in cases like this, although we'll find out in a week's time.

I believe the hearing is scheduled for an hour, although I can't be 100% sure of that. What I want to do is make sure that not only do they not get summary judgement but that I am able to show that their application has not merit. Ideally, at the end of the session, the judge will rule that there is no debt and I'll never have to worry about it again. Given this, is my proposed opposition above the right thing to submit along with the evidence that casts more than reasonable doubt on their assertion that they sent an NOA (which they never did?). I feel I'm capable in standing up in court and making my points but do I have to have written them down before hand? Is my statement above enough to make sure they don't get summary judgement, as long as I can argue my points or do I need to write them all down? Your advice is not just appreciated, it's loved. Without your help I'd be in no position to argue this, so thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Hearing is next Friday, so with Bank holidays etc I really want to get this posted to them tomorrow. I shall drop the docs to the court by hand tomorrow too.

Ok, but what exactly do I put on the wording and does it need a statement of truth etc?

Looking at this thread it seems that they won exactly because there was no Notice of Assignment - or am I misreading? Whether or not the govt sold debts, this was a debt sold between two limited companies SLC Ltd and Erudio Ltd, I believe issuing a NOA to the debtor is a statutory obligation is it not? Without a NoA there is no contract/agreement between myself and Erudio. Having seen other cases lost on SB and with the absence of case law to back that argument up, I am just not going to rely solely on that defence, although it is my initial standpoint.

Having read and re-read the other posts here's my revised defence. I still want to put in the absence of the NOA as I do feel this is important. As evidence I propose to submit the letters where they show that they have failed in the past to send documents and their reply to the CCA request where they did not send the NOA. Summary Judgement defence revised 2.docx

I had read that, and I believe that PRA v Doyle doesn't hold water, BUT why should I not have a fall back position in case the judge disagrees? You agree that without an NOA then there is no obligation? Given that they have to prove that an NOA was issued then why shouldn't I have that as a secondary argument in case of "judge lottery"?

They are attempting to disprove that SB applies by quoting BMW and PRA. I can't just turn up in court and say, "These don't apply" without any case law. They've got case law in both BMW and PRA, and as we've seen before a judge might take that view. Surely by having a secondary line of defence, even if the judge decides that BMW and PRA are reasonable basis for their claim then the absence of a Notice of Assignment would give me a reasonable fall back argument?

I can't find any case law to disprove the relevance of BMW v Hart or PRA v Doyle. I've been looking which is why it's taken me so long to respond to my previous post. If there is any then please point me in the right direction, all I can find is where Drydens have ceased cases before they've gone to court. I can't stand up in court and say "BMW isn't relevant" unless I can show the judge case law that proves it isn't, same with PRA v Doyle. I can find law to show that the burden is on them to prove that they sent the Notice of Assignment. Whilst our courts are no longer subject to European Court rules, a judge is still going to take that into account no? Why is having a two pronged defence detrimental? I also don't understand what NS means?

Ok, how about this as my defence statement: Summary Judgement defence revised 1.pdf "IN THE ******* county court Claim No. *********** BETWEEN: Claimant Drydens Ltd AND Defendant ************ WITNESS STATEMENT OF Mr ********** I Mr ******, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in objection and to oppose the claimant application for Strike Out/Summary Judgment and any costs order being awarded against the defendant. 1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date). 2 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 cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant. 3. The Claimant claims that there was a Transfer of Ownership letter sent by the Student Loans Company and that Erudio Student Loans sent a Notice of Assignment on 19th March 2014. No Transfer of Ownership letter was ever sent by the Student Loans Company nor was any Notice of Assignment letter ever sent by Erudio Student Loans. . Erudio have had a history of not administering this account properly, attached is a letter dated 1st March 2019 in which Erudio state that they have identified that I haven’t been given certain post-contractual documents. I also enclose a letter dated 8th June 2021 where Erudio Student Loans where they have said “We are enclosing statutory documentation which should have been sent to you earlier. In certain circumstances (for example if we do not hold your most up to date address) you may not receive documents when intended. The statutory documentation that was enclosed with this letter was originally from January 2020. I had not changed addresses between January 2020 and June 2021 and Erudio Student Loans had held my correct address during this period. I also attach a letter from Drydens Limited in response to a CPR Information Request made to Drydens Ltd on 27th January 2020 in which I requested 1: The Agreement, 2: The Notice of Assignment and 3: The Default Notice. As you can see, in their response they have sent me 1: The Agreement and 3: The Default Notice. They did not send me any copy of The Notice of Assignment. I believe that this is further evidence that no Notice of Assignment was ever sent by Erudio Student Loans. As you will be aware ,it is a statutory obligation for a Notice of Assignment to be sent if there is a Transfer of Ownership. In the case of CA Consumer Finance v Bakkhaus the Advocate General, with whom the European Court agreed said, “The fact remains that it follows quite logically from the objective of consumer protection pursued by Directive 2008/48 that the burden of proving fulfilment of the pre-contractual obligations to provide information and to conduct checks must, in principle be borne by the professional creditor. ……….. The creditor may be required to provide the court with proof that those pre-contractual obligations have been duly fulfilled, which, as the French Government have indicated, requires the creditor to exercise a degree of diligence in the collection and retention of the evidence of its fulfilment of the obligations to provide information and explanations.” I do not believe that Drydens Ltd or Erudio Student Loans are able to provide this proof. 4 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £XXXX or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

So, prior to putting together my defence statement I had looked for both BMW v Hart and PRA v Doyle. First thing I found was this thread - Where the judge gave the summary judgement against the defendant. I've read lots of arguments saying that this judge made a mistake but I'm yet to see any case law that I can quote. I'm not being lazy, I've just not seen any successful defences where the claimant has taken it in front of a judge. It's seeing this summary judgement be given that makes me want to have the "No notice of assignment" as a fall back position.

Ok, but they are arguing that both BMW v Hart and Doyle v PRA are relevant. What case law is there to prove that neither are relevant? I would like to counter any chance of the court finding in their favour on these cases by showing that they never sent any Notice of Assignment...or is that not worth pursuing? You did ask me to answer all their arguments point by point, which I've had a go at. I did look at previous cases and did my best to put something together.

I've had a go at putting together a defence. There's lots of stuff that I don't know whether I should contest, and lots of things that I need help contesting. You'll see that I've put stuff I'm most confused about in italics but it's all worth having a look at. You'll also see I've paraphrased quite a bit of their points, but I hope that this is ok. If needed I can always write their points out in full. I've added this draft as a pdf (as per the guidance) but I have it as a word doc that I can upload if needed. All of your help on this is so hugely appreciated, so thank you in advance. Summary Judgement defence layout.pdf

Hearing is in April so I've got a bit of time to file my statement, but what do I put on it? I see they're relying on BMW and Doyle, I assume that my statement should refute their assertion that these cases relate to mine and provide evidence where this has already been proven.