Having some difficulties scanning the paperwork referred to above - I will hopefully have access to a scanner tomorrow. In the meantime, here is an edited copy of the email conversation I had with the Shoosmiths rep, and a copy of the amended writ. emailspdf.pdf

Thanks for your reply dx. I did read a lot of Erudio-related threads, but I guess I should have read more of them... and yes I should have kept you updated. I don't really think that the courts are somehow in collusion with Erudio etc to fleece people like me out of fees and I'm sorry I said what I said in post 38. I think what I was trying to say is that it seems wrong to me that someone like Erudio is able to issue *speculative* claims, as you called them, and as a result are able to benefit from the perceived authority of the court in their attempts to intimidate their targets. It just seems to me that it's too easy for them to do that. Hope that makes sense. Thanks again for all your help, I know I didn't achieve the best possible outcome, but thanks to you and this forum I avoided what I saw as the worst possible outcome, and I'm grateful for that.

Yes I felt the same way about the process, there's something unsettling to me about how easily Erudio/Shoosmiths can seemingly get the court to issue a writ, which immediately puts someone like you or me in the position of having to either admit liability or stump up the fees for a challenge. I mean if you look at the writ they sent me, it's clear that Erudio/Shoosmiths didn't provide any evidence of the alleged debt at the time they raised the matter the court - it's all "we'll provide evidence to back up our claims later. IF someone asks for it". It's bizarre to me that the court is happy to go along with something like that. Once again, good luck, I'll watch out for your new thread.

I'm sure you're right... I just found the whole situation so stressful when I was offered a seemingly simple way to resolve it I took the chance. I hope Baldyspec does better than I did, like I said before I'll post up some more material in the near future which may be helpful.

Hi I've been meaning to post an update and will try to upload some relevant docs when I have time. In the end I agreed a settlement with Erudio that was arranged via the case handler at Shoosmiths. The settlement was for less than the amount Erudio claimed I owed (but not *much* less). My case has been sisted (sp?) until the agreed repayment has been made (I'm paying in installments). Part of me wishes I'd carried on and gone to court, but I just didn't feel I could take the risk of losing. I'm glad I defended the case; the way I'm looking at is that I've got away with not having to pay back all the loans (it was likely that I would have had to start paying them back soon in any case) and I've avoided the damage to my credit record that conceding the case would have caused. Some things that happened after my last post: * Erudio (eventually) responded to my CCA request with copies of the original credit agreements (they used the £1 I sent them with the request to go towards the loans! They told me that they don't charge for CCA requests so I hadn't needed to send the £1). * Erudio responded to the complaint I lodged with them. The response completely ignored the reason I'd given for having missed deferment, which I thought was pretty shocking. They pointed to part of the original loan t&cs which they said gave them the right to cancel the original agreement and demand immediate repayment. I'll try to post up their response when I can. * An options hearing was scheduled for a date last week. By that point the settlement had been agreed so Shoosmiths sent someone along to the hearing to get the case sisted * I tried to negotiate a lower settlement figure with Erudio (through Shoosmiths), but they refused to budge at all after giving me an initial figure * I had to provide income and expenditure details to Erudio before they'd agree to settle * Shoosmiths lodged an adjusted writ with the court that contained responses to my defences. I'll post the adjusted writ when I have a chance If you have any more questions I'll do my best to answer them, and will look out for your new topic if you open one as dx suggested. Good luck!!!

Got my defences in to the court this morning and intimated to Shoos. Court clerk had a look at my docs and thought they looked OK. One thing that came up was the fact that I'd attached my CCA letter to the defences, the clerk said that supporting documents like that are usually submitted as depositions separate to the defences, but they said the letter could remain as an attachment to the defences if I wanted (I agreed). Next step is the scheduling of an options hearing. Feeling happy that I've defended the case, thanks to dx and others on this forum for your support.

OK, thanks dx

Thanks for your reply dx, I've really been stressing about this. I guess when all's said and done I have nothing to lose other than the potential extra legal costs - if I admit the debt or lose the case, either way it's a court decree against me... so might as well have a go. And your confidence in the defence is certainly reassuring! So I should change 2 back to : 2. Not known and not admitted that any agreement for the sum claimed ever existed between Student Loans Company subsequentually sold to the Pursuers. But everything else is fine? I need to sign and date the defences and write the intimation on the back. Yes, I'll be going in person to the clerk's office. Would it be acceptable to post the defences to Shoos tomorrow do you think? If not I can deliver in person I guess (they're not that far from the court).

thanks very much for your reply dx. I've had another bash at the defences, incorporating your feedback. Here's the latest version: 1. Admitted. 2. Not known and not admitted that the said agreement for the sum claimed between Student Loans Company and the Pursuers exists. 3. Not known and not admitted that the said contract between Student Loans Company and the defender for the sum claimed exists. The defender made a request to the Pursuers under s77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to clarify the matter, to which no response has to date been received. Copy of letter attached as PROD01. 4. Not known and not admitted that the Defender owes said sum. The Defender has in the past had dealings with the Student Loans Company but his income has never exceeded the published threshold required to begin repayment of his student loans, nor has he ever received any notification to the contrary. Pleas In Law 1. The Defender craves that the court uses its powers under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Student Loan regulations to declare the claim null and void. 2. Accordingly, given the Pursuers’ averments are irrelevant and lacking in specification, the action should be dismissed. The Defender denies the sums being claimed as due and the resting owing decree should not be granted as craved. Must admit I'm starting to worry whether I'm doing the right thing now that the deadline for responding to the writ is approaching (it's tomorrow). What if Erudio produce evidence of their agreement with SLC, and the total debit balance of all loans, according to that agreement, is as stated in the writ? What if they can produce the original credit agreements? Will I be in a worse place than if I'd decided to apply for time to pay? Sorry if I'm being a little negative, just nervous Thanks again.

Here are my defences, hopefully in the correct format for handing in to the court. So as I understand it I need to hand this in along with Form O7 and a copy of my CCA letter (marked 'PROD01'). Probably a dumb question but, in the guidance thread kindly linked above, there is the statement 'you should mark ‘INTIMATED’ on the backing of the defences' - does this mean that I have to write the word 'INTIMATED' on the back of each sheet of paper I submit? Thanks in advance! Court Ref No. XXX-XXXX-XX DEFENCES in causa Erudio Student Loans Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at c/o Wilmington Trust SP Services (London) Limited, Third Floor, 1 King’s Arms Yard, London EC2 7AF PURSUERS against [Me] [My Address] DEFENDER The pursuers crave the Court to grant decree against the defender for payment to the pursuers of the sum of [SUM] [£SUM] together with expenses. CONDESCENDENCE 1. Admitted. 2. Not known and not admitted that the said agreement between Student Loans Company and the Pursuers exists. 3. Not known and not admitted that the said contract between Student Loans Company and the Defender exists. The Defender made a request to the Pursuers under s77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to which no response has been received. Copy of letter attached as PROD01. 4. Not known and not admitted that said sums are due. Not admitted that this action is necessary as the Pursuer has to date failed to prove that said sums are due. PLEAS IN LAW 1. The Defender craves that the court uses its powers under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the documentation supplied by the Pursuers as unenforceable. 2. Accordingly, given the Pursuers’ averments are irrelevant et separatism lacking in specification, the action should be dismissed. The Defender denies the sums being claimed as due and the resting owing decree should not be granted as craved. Also... (possibly another dumb question!) am I supposed to sign and date the defences? Thanks again!

I sent off my CCA request to Erudio yesterday. I used their 16 digit reference number as the reference on the letter rather than the Student Loan numbers (hope this was the right thing to do). Here's my first attempt at my defences, which need to be lodged by Tuesday. Any and all feedback gratefully received, thanks in advance. I've copied in the condescendence from the initial writ, and added my replies in red. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to address every single point made in the writ, in this initial attempt I've kept my answers short. The Pleas in Law are copied straight from dx's example. 1. The parties are as designated in the instance. The defender resides at [address]. The defender has been so resident for more than three months immediately preceding the raising of this action. The defender is domiciled there. The Court accordingly has jurisdiction. There are no proceedings pending before any other Court involving the present cause of action and between the parties hereto. No agreement exists prorogating jurisdiction to another Court 1. Admitted. 2, The pursuers are a finance company which inter alia operates the business of debt purchasing. By virtue of a debt purchase agreement ['the Agreement'] the pursuers acquired the right to payment in respect of all debts and other monetary claims of any nature due or owing by the defender which were in existence as at the date the said Agreement was entered into and arose by virtue of the defender's contract with Student Loans Company as hereinafter condescended upon. A copy of the Agreement will be produced in any defended process to follow hereon. 2. Not known and not admitted that the said agreement between Student Loans Company and the pursuers exists. 3. The said contract between Student Loans Company and the defender is a credit agreement in terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('the Contract'). The total debit balance which has accrued under and in terms of the Contract amounts to [£amount] conform to copy statement of account which will be produced in any defended process to follow hereon. In terms of the Agreement the right to payment of the sums due in terms of the said statement of account was assigned to the pursuers. Said sum constitutes the sum sued for. The said assignation was intimated to the defender by way of a written notice. 3. Not known and not admitted that the said contract between Student Loans Company and the defender exists. The defender made a request to the pursuers under s77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to which no response has been received. Copy of letter attached as PROD01. 4. The defender has failed to make payment of the sums due in terms of the said statement of account. He refuses to or at least delays in doing so. This action is accordingly necessary. 4. Not known and not admitted that said sums are due. Not admitted that this action is necessary as the pursuer has to date failed to prove that said sums are due. PLEAS IN LAW The Defender craves that the court uses its powers under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the documentation supplied by the Pursuers as unenforceable. Accordingly, given the Pursuer’s averments are irrelevant et separatism lacking in specification, the action should be dismissed. The Defender denies the sums being claimed as due and the resting owing decree should not be granted as craved Form O7 Form07.pdf For the sake of completeness, Form O5 and the writ itself... writ-compressed.pdf

Hi dx, yes the figure is the combined amount for all loans.

Under defender they have written a figure - I left it out and replaced it with 'amount' in my post - apologies for the confusion. There is no agreement number on the writ

Thanks for your reply dx, and thanks for being on top of the deadlines! Re the process that needs to be followed here, as I understand it I need to return Form O7 by the 6th (and copy it to Shoos). This form is a notice of intention to defend. I believe I then have a further 14 days to lodge my defence. Just going by the rules stated here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/sheriff-court/ordinary-cause-rules/chapter-9---standard-procedure-in-defended-causes-(2).doc?sfvrsn=8 Form O7 references Rule 9.1 (1) - Subject to rules 33.34 (notice of intention to defend and defences in family action), 33A.34 (notice of intention to defend and defences in civil partnership action) and 35.8 (lodging of notice of appearance in action of multiplepoinding), where the defender intends to- (a) challenge the jurisdiction of the court, (b) state a defence, or (c) make a counterclaim, he shall, before the expiry of the period of notice, lodge with the sheriff clerk a notice of intention to defend in Form O7 and, at the same time, send a copy to the pursuer. Further on in that same document is Defences Rule 9.6, which includes - (1) Where a notice of intention to defend has been lodged, the defender shall (subject to paragraph (3)) lodge defences within 14 days after the expiry of the period of notice. (2) Subject to rule 19.1(3) (form of defences where counterclaim included), defences shall be in the form of answers in numbered paragraphs corresponding to the articles of the condescendence and shall have appended a note of the pleas-in-law of the defender. I see that the second part corresponds to your notes elsewhere about the format the defence should take. Between those two rules there's an explanation of how the sheriff will schedule an Options Hearing once form O7 has been submitted. Do you know if it's likely/unlikely that such a hearing will actually take place if I do defend the action? I guess it would be a good idea to submit the defences at the same time as Form O7 if that's going to make it less likely that the hearing will take place? Re the defence itself, there's no loan number quoted on the actual writ I received, it just states that Erudio purchased the debts accrued "by virtue of [my] contract with SLC". The "termination letter" Erudio sent me back in January did contain all my loan account numbers. Does this affect your view on the potential 'agreement number' defence? I haven't submitted a CCA request to Erudio (sorry if I missed that this was something I should do in my reading of the other threads), if I submit one tomorrow can I still use the fact they haven't responded to it in my defence? Sorry about all the questions, thanks again for your help, I really am grateful

Didn't receive my credit report from Experian, so got a statutory credit report from Equifax instead. There's no reference to the student loans on there