Thanks dx

Thank you for this dx, I will lodge an N245. Is it worth reporting DF to the FCA or FOB, or any legal body about this matter? DF deliberately withheld documents that I requested, that would have strengthened my defence. - In May of this year, I requested full disclosure, they did not give full disclosure and sent only some docs. - In May I asked in layman's terms for proof of the transaction of the debt from SLC to Erudio, DF's response was "I don't know what you mean?' I was asking for 'legal assignment' but did not know the correct legal term - I requested my original deferment forms, these were not provided. - I emailed the court on the morning of the hearing explaining that I had asked for original deferment forms and they were not sent, I cc'd in DF to the email, within 3 minutes they sent over the deferment forms, the last one being to SLC in 2012. I believe this proves the SB theory as CCJ was entered in to court in Dec 2020, an eight year gap. It may not have any impact but I believe this proves that DF entered the CCJ at court, with the knowing that these loans were SB'd. - In court the barrister for DF mentioned that 'legal assignment' was a sensitive government doc that involved a portfolio of loans, therefore it was not possible to bring to court, she stated that notice of assignment was sufficient. - Re Statute barred - Barrister for DF said that I had sufficient time in which to pay these government backed loans (19 yrs) She stated that a default notice proved that loans were not SB'd. This DCA seems to make up its own rules.

Hello Just an update re Dryden Fairfax issue. I approached a solicitor to re appeal the case but the legal fees were almost the cost of the debt. I was worried that if I lost then I would double the amount of debt. If one judge discarded the statute barred and legal assignment defence, then it was a possible a second judge could do the same. I would like to get advice on how to arrange a payment plan with Dryden Fairfax please. After the claimant won the court case, is the loan now enforceable with bailiffs etc? Will this debt now go on my credit file? Student Loans did not feature on the file before. The student loans were £5200 plus court costs of £1000, total now owed to Dryden £6200. They have asked to make payment in full or arrange a payment plan. What is the minimum I can offer per month? They have asked for me to fill out an income and expenditure form? They have already looked in to my finances by way of credit check when they applied the CCJ. Am i legally obliged to fill out an income and expenditure form? Or can I just state how much I can afford? Any advice would on how to deal with this DCA would be most appreciated. Should I start a new thread on payment plans? Thank you

Update: The judge awarded claimant the cost of the loans plus court fees. (5200 loans +1600 fees, Dryden had asked for 3k in fees) Judge stated that there was sufficient evidence shown by the claimant to prove it was not SB'ed, which means that the default notice sent four years prior to ccj being issued was enough. He was not interested in that there is not evidence of the legal assignment of the debt. Barrister for claimant states that they cannot and will not show legal assignment of the debt, as it involves confidential government data that involves a portfolio of loans. This means notice of assignment in this case was enough for claimant to prove that point. Hope this helps other people.

Yes re DN, that is what they keep reiterating. Thanks again.

Hi there Just an update on this one, the judge has stated that I must attend in person on Thursday. They are still adamant that it is not SB'd due to the DN. I have requested any written confirmation between myself and Erudio in the six years before the court order took place in Dec 20. I have not had a response yet. They may have something but I do not remember signing anything with Erudio. My memory has not been great regarding this matter. Any tips for Thursday's hearing are welcome. Tx in advance

Thanks dx & Andy. I did ask for a copy of the alleged phone call transcript and the last deferment documents, and did not get a response. It is a fast track hearing, what is the deadline for submitting docs to court pls?

I asked the judge whether a telephone hearing would be possible, but I received an email stating that I must attend in person. I just got an email from Dryden stating that they will be adding court costs to the debt. I have attached their cost breakdown. Statement of Costs.1.pdf

You are I was not keen on the cc idea admittedly, and would have preferred to make that a separate issue as I feel that this level of harassment has been unethical and disgraceful. I did receive legal advice before I came to CAG, which has confused me somewhat admittedly, so I apologise. I appreciate your time and effort.

Apologies dx, but I did mention #5 that I am in a different jurisdiction. It is costly to fly/hotel etc to England so I will request a phone hearing, but am concerned they will be there in person, as they are local. Re Counter claim - I only decided to do this on Monday, I did mention it to Andy who was not keen. Like Badger girl I find the SB dates confusing. I thought it starts at DN, which I did not receive. I still do not have a letter from them showing when I did last defer with SLC. I will speculate it was around 2013. I know I had one phone call with them, when they first took over the loan and provided them a change of address, I still have not had confirmation of the exact date of this phone call. I did not phone them in May 2020, as I had not even heard of this company before Nov 21. I genuinely did not get their letters due to name change and address change.

I did, its above the claim fee cost.

To counter claim for over 5K, one must pay £455. I paid a fee of £205.00 for a counter claim of £5000.00.

I attached a N9D form, which I believe makes up part of a counter claim. I wrote that I am not claiming for all the 6 month losses, just suggesting that they make a donation. The CCJ was on file for almost a year and a half, in total. I discovered the CCJ after it had been on file for a year. I wrote to them with new and address sent recorded delivery, they then did not respond, and left the CCJ on file for another 6 months.

I have posted the previous documents on the thread between myself and Dryden, here are the latest documents for this week, which include defence, ws, counterclaim form sent two days to court and Dryden. These are then followed by a new WS and counterclaim response from Dryden. Court Docs 07.11.22.pdf

Sorry I was rushing. I will post all the recent docs from this week asap.

Apologies, i decided to add this on Monday 9th Nov.

Yes I did, the reason was because I wrote to them in Nov 21 (sent recorded delivery and was signed for) They left ccj for another 6 months so I could not purchase mobile phone, obtain wifi to the flat, which stopped me from getting a job working remotely. I have not asked for all the schedule of losses, I have asked that they make a donation to a not for profit charity.

I am not sure why they are still pursuing this in court if they think it is not SB'd, and the judge has not struck it out either. What do you think of their latest document? It's a hassle to go to court as I am overseas.

Hello again Re Court next week - the case is going ahead and has not been struck out unfortunately. I filed a second defence on Monday, and have just had a response from Dryden. They state that they do have the legal right to the loan, and it is not statute barred. The part that concerns me is that they say I phoned their office in March of 2020, this is a complete fabrication. I have never phoned Dryden's office and did genuinely only discover the CCJ on my file in Nov 21, when it had already been there for almost a year. To say I feel harassed by these people is an understatement. Have any of you read about a similar situation to this one? Any advice moving forward would be greatly appreciated. I have attached the letter from Dryden. This is the SARS request I was going to ask of SLC, Erudio and Dryden, are there any points that I should add or is this comprehensive enough? Dear Data Protection Officer Re: Subject Access Request – S.7 Data Protection Act 1998. Under the Data Protection Act 1998 I request that you supply me with all data in your possession that relates to me and am entitled to under Section 7(1) of the Act. If you store older records on microfiche, the Information Commissioner clearly states that you must send me this in fully legible and comprehensible form. I hereby request the following information; a) A true copy of the signed credit note (credit agreement) b) The Deed of Assignment c) Novation Agreement d) Statements of Accounts e) Duplicate statements or print out of all transactions f) Copies of any stored telephone calls g) All internal/external emails sent by you h) All internal/external letters sent by you i) All computer logs, notes, transcripts and memos stored on your computer j) Details in any format of ALL information disclosed to a third party by you and to who and why k) A true copy of the terms and conditions when the account was opened l) A true copy of any subsequent amendments to those terms and conditions m) True copies of any Notice of Assignment n) True copies of any default notices, court orders or pending legal action o) Information related to any charges such as returned payments etc, please include your breakdown of the actual costs and your liquidated damages p) All information that is stored by you, by any means of storage. q) All handwritten notes, memos and letters sent by you r) All information held by you and any of your other companies, including all of the above requests for each company If you are unable to comply with any of the above listed requests, you must inform me of such and give your reason why you can not comply. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner's Office can assist you and can be contacted on 0303 123 1113 or at http://www.ico.org.uk Yours sincerely" Witness Statement - Nov22.1.pdf

This is the paragraph that is causing the confusion, it was the same for Badger Girl. Please can you assist to fill in the blanks The Default Notice was issued 11.11.16 and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X __months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.

Hello I just have a couple more questions before submitting today. I read through the thread about Badger Girls situation, and we are both confused about the same default notice statement and how dates should be presented. Please can you assist as it is rather baffling? The Default Notice was issued 11.11.16 and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X __months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run. These are the dates alleged by Dryden - Last deferment - Sep 2014 (In Dryden WS) - Default Notice sent 11.11.16 (did not receive) - Change from Erudio to Dryden 14.02.20 (did not receive mail) - Pre Action Protocol - 21.02.20 (did not receive mail) - Court Claim issued 14.12.20 (did not receive mail) - CCJ added to file 11.01.21 (did not receive mail) - I did make contact 23.11.21 (found about ccj via court and credit check) - CCJ removed May 22 (after phone hearing) I understand that Dryden did not pursue badger girl in court in the end. Do you know if this was due to her defence & WS, or due to the tragic circumstances that happened around that time? Tx in advance

I will do, thanks again dx. I imagine you on a windswept rock in the Shetlands

They did send a refund via a cheque. The concerning thing about the dates is that it is speculative as I am referring to the dates Dryden are claiming on the form, which is September 2014. I know I spoke to Erudio when I first asked to defer, and I was refused. I only once had that initial contact with them, which is also when I gave them a new address. Unfortunately I had not seen the Martin Lewis coverage of the SLC loans at this stage. I am not sure when that conversation was exactly, so I think that it could be around 2014. I wonder if the reason that they are pursuing this so fervently ,is that they may have submitted the court order within the correct time frame. I did ask Dryden for full disclosure as this would have enabled me to establish the exact dates. They deliberately did not provide all of the info I needed. I have run out of time to ask SLC or Erudio for SAR as I have to submit to court by 4pm Monday.

Hello I have prepared a witness statement, let me know what you think. I was unsure if I should add the parts about strict proof/right to lay a claim etc as before, and that I had also requested full disclosure from Dryden and this was not honoured. Many Thanks Letter to Court Draft2.pdf

@dx100uk Should I present the points used for defence previously ( which were from CAG, thank you) and add the points about SB, or just use the facts about the loans being SB'd?