Hi, Erudio have sent me four separate letters (one for each loan agreement) stating they are a ‘notice of sums in arrears’ given to me in compliance with a.86B of the CCA 1974 as I am ‘behind in payments’. Three of the sums allegedly owed look similar to that already demanded, the first loan seems to have have £1000 added on to it! I assume I just write to them and refer to the outcome from court? What persistent b*ggers!

My apologies. I wrote this on Tues night but didn't press post. I wondered why no one had responded. Here goes: Arrived at court and notified the usher at reception. She saw it was against a Student Loan company and told me she hoped I win, which gave me a bit of a boost. Legal rep introduced himself. He was super young. Childishly I snubbed his handshake and he acknowledged that it was clear I did not want to talk. We were invited into the court room late. The Judge advised that there had been chaos, with too many hearings booked and everyone turning up so it seemed he was already a little harassed and impatient. He took time to tell me about how things were going to happen. He was annoyed that there was no witness for the Claimant. He did not find it fair that their evidence could not be tested and that he and I would have no opportunity to ask questions of the witness, although he had to accept this as they had advised of this on their directions questionnaire. The rep claimed he could answer the questions, but Judge pointed out this was a poor point. He advised that this was less than satisfactory and that as a result he would have to give less weight to their witness statements. The rep started with his submissions. He asked for my Directions Questionnaire and WS to be disallowed as I had submitted these late. He asked me why this had happened and I explained genuine confusion/oversight which was corrected as soon as I realised. I asked for relief from sanctions and pointed out that the Claimant had not been disadvantaged as they had been in a position to send in a further supplementary WS. While he reminded me that sending these late was a significant breach of the Court directions (and he told me I had to be held to the same standard of professionals) he was granting relief from sanctions and allowed my WS to be considered. The rep also mentioned that me failing to sign my WS to them was a breach but I explained I had signed the copy to court, and he did not find this a significant breach. Judge said it was difficult to see what the prejudice could be. The rep made a submission about me not having reasonable grounds to defend, as I had offered nothing new but the Judge stated that I had a perfectly valid defence, even if merit remained to be seen. The Judge was pretty cross with the legal rep that no bundle had been supplied, and he was left searching through the various WS that the Claimant had submitted. This was unacceptable, he said. The legal rep then did quite a shocking job of going through points to counter my witness statement. At one point the rep admitted, "I'm pretty muddled" and the Judge muttered back "What you said". The Judge asked the rep about the threshold for paying back the loans, stating he needed to be satisfied that the trigger point has been met. How would he otherwise know. The rep couldn't answer this and asked to take further instruction. Looking at the clock, the Judge said no. He should have already been instructed. Judge stated this was a basic prior point. The rep directed the Judge to the blank copies of the agreements and the terms stated in these. The Judge acknowledged that I had been sent two slightly different copies, reflecting the original agreements. He seemed satisfied with these blank copies. I was asked some questions; about the agreements (which I had to recognise had all of my details on), about my previous dealings with SLC and Erudio, and previous deferment). I suggested that the agreements provided do not evidence that they were legible at the time of signing and he told me that I was coming across as being disingenuous and that use of S.61 was "not a good point". I spoke about not receiving correspondence, not having an opportunity to defer, that I had no reason to ignore communication, that I would have deferred, and that I would have been open to mediation - had the Claimant only provided me with the info I was entitled to under S.77 (referring to a clear statement of account). When I mentioned mediation, the Judge said this was a separate point, a costs point. The rep argued that the Annual Statement counts as a statement of account. I denied receiving any of these thus far, but admitted they may have been sent during years I was deferring. I drew the Judges attention to the fact that they had added small sums of payments, and included balance adjustments which were not explained. The legal rep later offered that these sums matched the court costs which infuriated the Judge. He said they do not belong on an Annual Statement and also highlighted that the Claimant had lost the application for summary judgement and these were not costs for me to bear. Notably the Judge did consider that the Annual Statement (without the discrepancies) would have met the criteria under S.77. The Judge picked up on the matter of the change of Erudio's communication method and said that this might be "your best point". I explained the FOS decision contained as an exhibit in my first WS. He then went back to the blank agreement copies which state that the debtor will be invited to refer and will be told of the deferment threshold. The Judge said that I had diligently deferred previously. He acknowledged the array of communication sent by Erudio to me in a short space of time and found it did "not make sense" and found that on the balance of probability the letters were not ever sent to me. The rep raised the letter Erudio sent around setting up a direct debit for £206, and the subsequent letter about Erudio being told that I had instructed my bank to cancel the DD. I denied all, asked where the evidence of the direct debit mandate was, evidence from my bank, and rather cheekily pointed out the figures did not match (one letter saying they want £206, the next my DD for £103 per month was cancelled). They obviously could not refer to the phone call I had all those years back in fact there was no suggestion the legal rep had any knowledge of this. The Judge then concluded that they seem to have mixed up my paperwork with someone else. He did question my current earnings - which I gave rather reluctantly. He then realised that none of us in the room knew the current threshold for deferment, and confirmed with the legal rep that reinstating the loan was not an option available. The Judge stated he found me to be thoughtful and frank, and added that I was clearly an intelligent and articulate woman. He accepted that I had no interest in ignoring correspondence and noted how quickly that they moved to legal action. He accepted my evidence that I had not received correspondence throughout 2020. He found the Claimant to be in "serious breach of clause 6" of my agreements, staying it is crucial for the defendant and many others to be given proper opportunity to defer. It is particularly important and incumbent on the Claimant to provide a defendant with "every opportunity to defer". He was satisfied that I was not given an opportunity to defer in 2020 or thereafter. The Judge raised the "small but inexplicable credits" on the most recent annual statement (Sept 2023) sent to me, and mentioned that I had expressly stated my £1 was not to be used for these purposes. He said that the court costs had "no business" being on the Statement of account. He said that I was denied an opportunity to defer for further years ("deprived of the right to defer" - he went over and over this!) and that as a result they had "substantially prejudiced the defendant". On the "finding of fact" he said that the Claimant had committed a "repudiatory breach" as from a financial perspective I had been "entirely deprived". Claim dismissed. The legal rep left and I caught the eye of the Judge to thank him. I felt like he was rooting for me from the start. The questioning was challenging and at one point I did think I would be walking away with a CCJ. I certainly think I benefitted from there being a very inexperienced legal rep. On the way out I bumped into the usher, told her that I had won and thanked her for her earlier comment to me. One final question... DX knows I'm a bit worst case scenario.. Is this really over? Is it really behind me? The legal rep did not ask to appeal in court after the case was dismissed, and cannot see that they could come back from that? Fingers crossed that I don't get struck down for the white lies I told in court today. Huge thanks to all on here - for the advice and encouragement to see it through. I really hope that my experience can in some way, help others.

Hi I won. Crying tears of relief. Will decompress and return later to explain what happened. Thank you so much.

Thanks dx and Andyorch. This does give me a bit of a boost. Not entirely sure I’m ready but can no longer mange the stress of anticipation so in some strange way I just want to get on with it. I will update after the hearing.

I had to google what that meant! So nothing additional for me to be concerned about. I shall spend time tomorrow prepping, thinking about my responses to anticipated questions and making some notes to go in with. Is there anything else I need to be doing/thinking about to prepare for the trial?

Sorry. Am making so many silly mistakes at the moment. Hopefully this will work. Claimants 2nd SWS.pdf

Here is the supplementary WS I have received today. In addition to my quick notes above, I notice they claim to have sent me their first WS on 7th Nov - the same day that they claimed to have sent theirs to court, within the 14 days required by court. This is not true. I received it on the 14th Nov. The exact same day that they would have received mine. Supplementary WS Claimant Nov 2023.pdf

Will do, thank you. I am desperately trying to hold my nerve but it’s not easy at all. It certainly all feels a bit precarious which means I am sick to my stomach constantly.

No earlier. 10am rather than 2pm, which makes me hope it was an honest error.

Drydens have sent a further supplementary witness statement addressing the points in my supplementary witness statement. They talk about me not submitting my supplementary WS on time, yet surely this is what they are doing but sending something as late as two working days before the hearing. They also state that I have not paid anything back which contradicts the annual statement which I have included as an exhibit showing the £1 taken as payment across all loans. They say that they are open to mediation but have not received any order or notification that it is to take place. I learned from the Mediation service that it is the claimant and defendants responsibility to request this directly from the Mediation Service. I did at least make the call to the Mediation Service, when they did not. I’ll copy, anonymise and scan their additional WS for you to see late this afternoon. I am hoping this shows their desperation to intimidate me and not that they have any more damming arguments against me. I note they have also, on their cover letter, changed the time of the hearing. I have heard nothing from court about this. I assume an error rather than an attempt to fluster me further.

@HaroldLloyd Thank you for your moral support. It certainly is welcome. You are right that I am so scared to be in this position but I am so grateful for DX100UK and AndyOrch's advice here. I would have caved ages ages to the pressure from Erudio without this and I would not have stopped the Summary Judgement application without their help. I am so close to the trial date that I am keen to keep the focus on this thread to that alone. DX100UK - does the information about the posted deferment form change your view at all about my position?

Yes, it will have prompted my phone contact with Erudio. After the default, they gave no further opportunity to defer, no further deferment forms were sent to me. I truly apologise if I didn’t make this clear, no intention to mislead.

Thanks for your reply DX100uk My apologies. I do appreciate your frustration that I am becoming more panicked as the trial date nears. I am really so anxious about going back into the court room and of the implications of losing this case. I don't meant to have misrepresented the Judges comments. I picked up on what things I thought were important relating to the strengths and weaknesses of my defence. I do tend to consider worst case scenarios, it's part of my job role. In respect of the docs P.19 - 22, I likely did receive these but their existence is mentioned for the first time in the Claimants Supplementary WS. I have a copy of the doc on p.19. I knew I needed to defer, called Erudio at the end of May time (2020) to explain my circumstances (then, part time increase in hours taking me over the threshold), they lied about deferment pushing back age related maturity, I felt pressured into making an agreement for half payments (my husband had lost his job), set up the direct debit with them. I then sought advice on here, and cancelled my direct debit. The first payment was due out at the end of June 2023, when my deferment had ended. I was then immediatley in arrears - although their plan to allow me to make half payments for 4 months was always going to leave me in arrears. My big mistake was then not paying attention to Termination Notice etc. and coming back to seek advice at that point. So my white lie - about not receiving docs, has grown into quite a big white lie, which I am not proud of, but here I am.

Sorry, yes, a statement of costs. I will upload their supplementary WS and documents this afternoon as I am at work at the moment. This is the first time that they have provided as evidence a copy of the posted deferment form and evidence that I cancelled my direct debit to them. (I was about to start repaying but had not paid anything). Will share the docs as soon as I am able. Please see the Claimant's supplementary Witness Statement - (with several pages of How to Pay forms, Income and Expenditure Forms removed). They have not provided any evidence of the agreement I was forced into on the phone to pay half payments for 4 months, but they have then provided a letter (dated 1/7/23) about me cancelling a direct debit. I note that this "Payment Review" letter refers to half payments (£103.26) when their letter dated 26/6/23 refers to the original payment amount of £206.52, I assume I could ask them to explain this inconsistency - I remember you saying that they cannot raise my phone call with them if they have not referred to it in their WS. Very aware I have 3 days in which to make an agreement if I have a high likelihood of losing in court. Am I right to still try to defend this? I'd be grateful for your advice. WS Claimant Nov 2023.pdf

Update - Today I received a bundle of papers from Drydens, including a new witness statement from them, and a claim form to the tune of £1627. I note that it is dated 7th Nov so wonder if they submitted to court on this date. I've attached their new WS. They raise - for the first time (paragraph 26) - that I cancelled my direct debit to them. (I set this up when they advised I would have to start paying but agreed to half payments for 4 months - they have not mentioned this - but I cancelled when I realised I could not afford to pay and started seeking advice here). They counter my argument about the agreements not being legible, but don't address the statement of account which the Judge raised. The Judge questioned that the notice of default met this criteria, and read out the legislation about how they have arrived at sums owed. The legal rep asked for an adjournment to provide this info, but the judge refused this, indicating it would not be right for them to be given an opportunity to create this. All I have had since from Erudio is the annual statement which includes "balance adjustments" and the £1 CCA fee split between the loans. Can you please look at their defence to see what you think? I am really struggling to hold my nerve. If I am on very shaky ground, I would rather know. All I could do is try to settle with a small borrowed sum, although to be honest, given their fees, I can't imagine it would now be accepted. Erudio SWS Nov 2023.pdf

Thank you Andyorch. The statement has gone off to the court and Dryden’s today.

Hello Apologies to ask, but is anyone able to cast their eyes over my latest attempt? I will have to get it in the post tomorrow, as it will already be a week late. Are you able to give a guess at my prospects of avoiding a CCJ with this? Looking at it, would it be worth making a very token offer direct to Erudio? I'd welcome thought and advice. R710

Thank you. Your comments and advice are so welcome. A renewed attempt is below I have amended paragraph one, and added in a paragraph about why mediation hasn't taken place. I re-read over the notes I made at court to look for anything else I could focus on, but slim pickings. The DJ did point out errors in the Claimants Witness statement, where they stated that the Default Notice and Termination Notice had been sent by the original creditor. The legal rep responded that these were typos. I can't see that this adds to my defence. I had made a note that the DJ queried whether a Claimant could rely on a Default Notice in reliance of S.77 - providing total paid, total become payable, and various amounts comprised of that sum when each became due. The legislation states it must be signed by the Claimant. Erudio Student Loans is printed on it. In the county court at XXXXX 21 November at 2pm. Erudio Student Loans Limited V XXXXXX Claim No: XXXXXX Witness Statement 1.I ******, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; Further to the hearing dated 24/08/23 in regards to the claimants application for Summary Judgment /strike out of my defence, which the court dismissed, I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence dated 24/11/22 and in response to the claimants claim dated 25/04/23 which was submitted through County Court Bulk Centre I will respond to the same numbered paragraphs as the claimant’s statement as follows: 2. The claimants witness statement opening paragraph confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the draft’s person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding that they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act and also be in attendance at hearing to give evidence in support of the claimant’s witness statement. Background 3. On receipt of the claim form, dated 26/10/22, I sought clarity from the claimant’s solicitor via a CPR 31.14 request, letter dated 31/10/22 and sent by Royal Mail, requesting a copy of the original agreement, a copy of the terms and conditions as applicable at the start of each agreement, a copy of any default notice or termination notice, and a copy of the legal notice of assignment showing their right to take action. 4. Neither the Claimant nor their solicitors had replied to my requests by the time my defence was filed on 24/11/22. 5. On or about 25/11/22 I received a letter from the claimants solicitor stating documentation was available via an online portal. I could not make the portal link operate. Given I had used the appropriate legal framework to request the documents, the onus was on the Claimant to provide the documentation in the prescribed manner. 6. The Claimant failed to further communicate with the court, or the defendant, and following the standard time limit after my defence filing their claim became autostayed. 7. On or about the 25/03/2023 I received a letter from the claimant’s solicitor enclosing some documentation and a request for income details should I wish to enter into any payment agreement via a Tomlin order, at cost to me to, avoid further court action. 9. On 25/04/2023 the claimant raised an N244 request to lift the 4 months stay on proceedings seeking to strike out my defence and attain a summary judgement as they now had attained all the information I had requested. 10. On 24/08/23, before District Judge XXXX, the claimant failed to evidence and justify its application to dispose of this claim without a trial where a claim or issue or a defence to a claim or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial (CPR 24.2). Defendants Response to Claimants Application 11. In reference to the claimants Witness Statement paragraph 6, the defendant did not admit in their defence nor has at any time admitted entering into these particular loan agreements with the original creditors. 12. In response to paragraphs 8 and 34, the agreements referred to at pages 1 - 8 are illegible due to age, as per the Claimant’s own admittance and therefore are unenforceable pursuant to S.61/65 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;- S. 61 Signing of agreement. (1)A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless— (a)a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and (b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and (c) the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible. S.65 Consequences of improper execution. (1)An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only. And therefore pursuant to sec 127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). 13. In reference to paragraph 42 in which the Claimant refers to the “full balance” becoming due, it is unclear what sum is being claimed. The Claimant has not provided a Statement of Account signed by, or on behalf of the creditor, as per the Claimants duty in response to my S.77 CCA request. S.77 (4) - If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1) (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; 14. At no point has any payment been made towards this alleged debt by the Defendant, however an Annual Statement dated 8/09/23 (Exhibit X) evidences that the Claimant has used the payment fee for a S.77 CCA request towards the alleged debt, against the Defendant’s expressed written instruction. This Annual Statement also includes various “Balance Adjustment” fees. It is not explained how these form part of the original debt, given they are listed against “Loan Number 1”. 15. Since the Claimants application for Summary Judgement, which failed at a hearing on 24/8/23, I have completed and returned to both the court and the Claimant a Directions Questionnaire, indicating that I agree to the case being referred to the Mediation Service, in the hope that the matter can be resolved in order to negate the need for a trial. The Claimant has, via their solicitors, twice sent letters (Exhibit X and X) requesting that that I make a financial proposal, which they will consider formalising by way of a Tomlin agreement. Finding the Claimant wholly untrustworthy, I have contacted the Mediation Service to request support, however I am advised that this is not available to me because it requires both party’s consent, and the Claimant has not made contact with the Mediation Service to request this themselves. Conclusion 15. In view of the information set out above I respectfully submit to the court that the Claimant’s application be denied. The claim remains stayed until such time the claimant can comply with section 77 of the CCA 1974 or in the absence of that compliance strike out the claimant claim and dismiss the claim in its entirety. Statement of truth I, XXXXX , Defendant, believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed: Print Name: Dated:

Here is my attempt at a WS. I have been trying to hold in mind the DJ's comments and focus in the previous hearing - specifically highlighting that Erudio has not provided a signed statement of account. He told me my defence around deferment was weak and raised the discrepancy that I have been deferring, yet now claim I know nothing about the debts. I have not addressed the mediation issue. I wonder if I should raise this, and question that without a clear Statement of Account, the ability to mediate is compromised? See what you think. As always, your advice and expertise is so welcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the county court at XXXXX 21 November at 2pm. Erudio Student Loans Limited V XXXXXX Claim No: XXXXXX Witness Statement 1.I, XXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application dated 25/04/23 to Strike Out Defence/Summary Judgment pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a & b in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated 24/11/22. This claim issued through Northampton County Court Business Centre on 26/10/22 remained Stayed until 24/08/23 when the Claimants Application for Summary Judgement was denied, but the Stay was lifted. I will respond to the same numbered paragraphs as the claimant’s statement as follows: 2. The claimants witness statement opening paragraph confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the draft’s person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding that they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act and also be in attendance at hearing to give evidence in support of the claimant’s witness statement. Background 3. On receipt of the claim form, dated 26/10/22, I sought clarity from the claimant’s solicitor via a CPR 31.14 request, letter dated 31/10/22 and sent by Royal Mail, requesting a copy of the original agreement, a copy of the terms and conditions as applicable at the start of each agreement, a copy of any default notice or termination notice, and a copy of the legal notice of assignment showing their right to take action. 4. Neither the Claimant nor their solicitors had replied to my requests by the time my defence was filed on 24/11/22. 5. On or about 25/11/22 I received a letter from the claimants solicitor stating documentation was available via an online portal. I could not make the portal link operate. Given I had used the appropriate legal framework to request the documents, the onus was on the Claimant to provide the documentation in the prescribed manner. 6. The Claimant failed to further communicate with the court, or the defendant, and following the standard time limit after my defence filing their claim became autostayed. 7. On or about the 25/03/2023 I received a letter from the claimant’s solicitor enclosing some documentation and a request for income details should I wish to enter into any payment agreement via a Tomlin order, at cost to me to, avoid further court action. 9. On 25/04/2023 the claimant raised an N244 request to lift the 4 months stay on proceedings seeking to strike out my defence and attain a summary judgement as they now had attained all the information I had requested. 10. On 24/08/23, before District Judge XXXX, the claimant failed to evidence and justify its application to dispose of this claim without a trial where a claim or issue or a defence to a claim or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial (CPR 24.2). Defendants Response to Claimants Application 10. In reference to the claimants Witness Statement paragraph 6, the defendant did not admit in their defence nor has at any time admitted entering into these particular loan agreements with the original creditors. 11. In response to paragraphs 8 and 34, the agreements referred to at pages 1 - 8 are illegible due to age, as per the Claimant’s own admittance and therefore are unenforceable pursuant to S.61/65 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;- S. 61 Signing of agreement. (1)A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless— (a)a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and (b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and (c) the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible. S.65 Consequences of improper execution. (1)An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only. And therefore pursuant to sec 127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). 12. In reference to paragraph 42 in which the Claimant refers to the “full balance” becoming due, it is unclear what sum is being claimed. The Claimant has not provided a Statement of Account signed by, or on behalf of the creditor, as per the Claimants duty in response to my S.77 CCA request. S.77 (4) - If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1) (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; 13. At no point has any payment been made towards this alleged debt by the Defendant, however an Annual Statement dated 8/09/23 (Exhibit X), evidences that the Claimant has used the payment fee for a S.77 CCA request towards the alleged debt, against the Defendant expressed written instruction. This Annual Statement also includes various “Balance Adjustment” fees. It is not explained how these form part of the original debt, given they are listed against “Loan Number 1”. Conclusion 14. In view of the information set out above I respectfully submit to the court that the Claimant’s application be denied. The claim remains stayed until such time the claimant can comply with section 77 of the CCA 1974 or in the absence of that compliance strike out the claimant claim and dismiss the claim in its entirety. Statement of truth I, XXXXX , Defendant, believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed: Print Name: Dated: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will do. I've started drafting tonight and will try to take some time off work tomorrow to properly pull something together. Hope to share for checking/advice tomorrow eve. Thank you

So my lack of understanding/checking means that I am out of date with providing my statement/exhibits. Notably, so must Erudio be, as I have received no further statement/paperwork from them. What tactic might they be taking? I have called the Mediation Service today to ask why I haven't yet heard from them. I told them that both I, and the Claimant had submitted a directions questionnaire both indicating we are open to mediation via their service. I was advised that the Directions Questionnaire doesn't trigger anything with them and it is for both I and the claimant to contact them to request this service. They have not heard from the Claimant, and therefore this would not have been an option open to me anyway, and it is too near to trial for them to get involved. They recorded that I had called to ask about it. So I guess I need to get on with a Witness statement sharpish and submit it in the hope that the court will allow it. I assume it will be very similar to the one I previously submitted, but I am unsure whether to include the bit about Erudio's change in contact method. The DJ said my defence was very weak. (Although I did fail to mention that it was COVID and there was significant disruption to postal services). I presume I should include in my WS that I have not yet been provided with a clear financial statement, being clear about how Erudio have arrived at the figure they have, and I could include as an Exhibit the latest statement account with the random "adjustments" featuring. The DJ seemed to give this quite a bit of weight in the SJ Application hearing. Would I mention that I have contacted the Mediation Service to ask for their service, but the Claimant has not in my WS? Now the Mediation Service is not an option, should I contact Erudio to ask them to explain the financial statement - as surely this would be the starting point for any negotiations? How am I meant to settle if the owing figure is not explained. @dx100uk @Andyorch Do you have any advice in light of my update?

@dx100uk @Andyorch The trial is two weeks today, on 21st Nov. Can I just double check that I do not need to submit a new Witness Statement for the trial? The Notice from the court talks about documents on which you rely needing to be submitted, but the form appears generic and makes no reference to the previous SJ Application, and the court already has my witness statement from the SJ Application hearing. I have not received any new documents from Drydens. I still have not heard from the Mediation Service. Would you recommend I contact them this week? As I have said, my options to mediate are limited but I do fear telling the court that I made no effort to mediate, following the DJ's advice. That said, the DJ was clear that I should be given clear information about how they have arrived at the sums they claim I owe, and the latest statement evidences why I might consider them untrustworthy and only want to negotiate via the Mediation Service. I will spend some time at the weekend starting to prepare again and get back into the right head space to attend court once again. Is there anything else you recommend I be doing in these last two weeks to prepare? Have I any chance of walking out of there without a CCJ? RC710

I just need to be patient and wait to be contacted by the Mediation Service, something we both agreed we would be open to? It's absolutely true that I am panicking. The stress and uncertainty is having quite an impact on my mental health. Just of note, at the last hearing the Judge put a lot of weight on the fact that there was an absence of how the figure I owed was arrived at - this was meant to be something provided to me. In the paperwork encouraging me to settle, is an "Annual Statement 1/9/22 - 31/8/23", to cover all four "Fixed Sum Credit Agreements". The annual rate is interest is shown as 9% for all but from the copies of the agreements, I am able to make out that the percentage rates were 2.1% and 2.6%. Alongside the £1 split payment from my postal order, the first loan is showing "Balance Adjustments", "debit" of £100 and £587.64 sums in Nov 2022 and another "balance adjustment debit" of £275 in Aug 2023. I assume to query these will be my starting point with the Medication Service. Please let me know if there is anything else I should be doing in the meantime. RC710

Hi, Can I please run a couple of things by you @dx100uk @Andyorch, in terms of negotiating a settlement with Erudio? I have had no contact from the Small Claims Mediation Service, and only a repeat letter from Drydens encouraging me to settle and stating they will use this Erudio claim the outstanding balance is £12714.53. The only "payment" made was my £1 postal order split four ways. Back in Aug 2019, I was sent a settlement offer of just under £3.5k - which I took little notice of because at that time I earned under the threshold and did not expect my salary to go above this. I have few options and am not in a strong position to negotiate. I have seen I may be able to get a loan for £3k and manage the repayments by halving my pension contribution. My preferred option would to perhaps do this, finally end the contact as Erudio are so untrustworthy. (The Settlement Offer letter actually contains the lie that every time you defer, your age related maturity date is delayed by a year). My other option is to offer £100 per month (my pension contribution) - but I would really want this only to be until the loans reached age-related maturity, which would have been Sept 2025, had I not defaulted. This way I would only be paying back £2400, although they could say I have to pay off the lot, and this would take over 10 years! I can't ask them to reinstate the loans, as I should have been paying £206 since July 2020. I would have no way to pay the arrears and future payments. Do you think it's worth offering a £3k settlement first? Would they entertain this? I am being asked to complete their Income and Expenditure form. I note that on deferment forms, I never had to provide my spouse's income, but on this, they ask for it. I would need them to know that his income is not available to pay my debts - he has plenty of his own to pay. The only benefit from supplying this that they will see we truly have nothing left over, and are significantly in debt (the result of my husband losing his job at the start of COVID and now earning less than he did pre-COVID). I'd appreciate your thoughts. RC710

Update - On 13/10/24 I sent a completed Directions Questionnaire indicating I was open to the Small Claims Mediation Service. Sent 1st Class recorded to both Solicitors and court. I have heard nothing from the mediation service. On 19/10/24 I received a further letter from Drydens, saying they have not had a response from me, referencing the judges suggestion that we settle, providing a income/expenditure form for me to complete or suggesting I make a suggestion of a monthly figure that they will consider. If acceptable they will consider formalising the offer by way of a Tomlin order. Today I have confirmed with the county court that Erudio has paid the fee to go ahead with the trial. I do not think I have the strength to face another court hearing, particularly if the odds are not in my favour, so will have to think about how I can possibly think about making an offer. I might be too late to start with the Small Claims mediation service now, as otherwise the trial will be upon us. This info - that they are proceeding to trial in these circumstances - might be useful for others. I’ll update as I go. thanks.