Erudio - no CAA no default - discount offer - now PAP Letter

[brassnecked]

UB is correct regarding savings etc and benefits, if you are on benefits the DWP might consider paying a debt that is not  mission critical like rent or council tax or a magistrates fine as "Deprivation of Income" and could stop pasyments of benefit.

[fletch70]

Pencil

 

With all due respect you did mention a PAP. You said this was how when they complied with your CCA Request- after you had sent a PAP response.

 

You want to know the way forward and UB has made some good points about making a Full and Final Offer but be careful about the wording of any letter.

 

I asked you about the details of the DN, the reason I asked is that a DN should be compliant  in order for a claimant to rely on in court although some judges may view a nn compliant notice as not relevant (different to no notice at al). If it were non compliant it may give you a little more bargaining power as they will know it is bad.

 

DX says send the SB letter because they believe it will see them off for good and you will not have to make any payments at all.

 

By the way, if you are not working and IF they did issue a claim you could in most likelihood get a Tomlin order at a very small monthly amount which would mean no CCJ although would leave you paying for a long time. I have heard of a £1 a month on a large debt that was going to to take several lifetimes to repay.

 

It is hard to give advice as to what your next step should be as every case is different.

[dx100uk]

Send the pap reply form back with our sb letter

its not admittance of anything.

anything else is

[pencil]

Can anyone verify my complaint please before I send it off to the FOS .

 

My student loan was sold by the Student Loans Company to Erudio in 2014.

Erudio sent me a welcome pack, and I also asked for the credit agreements for the loans for my records.

I sent my request to Erudio by post with a £1 postal order.  

 

I wrote to Erudio six months later, on the 4th November, and again on the 24th November reminding them of my request for the credit agreements. Erudio did not provide the credit agreements until February 2019 this year.

 

My complaint is that since my request for the credit agreements in 2014, Erudio has continued recovery of what was an account in dispute.

 

Erudio defaulted my account, passed my account to a debt collector, and issued a Letter before action, which were in breach of Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

 

Erudio in their final response to my complaints, state they never received a £1 fee and request for the agreements, and therefore are unable to accept they breached Section 77.

 

I did send the request in 2014 and I have in my possession the Post Office receipts for both the letter and the postal order, which I have uploaded along with this complaint. 
 

 

 

[dx100uk]

threads merged.

why have you sent endless pointless letter tennis..?

 

erudio are a debt collector ...they just used capquest/cabot another trading name to chase you.

don't think we ever suggested complaining...

nothing to complain about..

 

the days of breaches of CCA return long went out the window years ago

if they don't reply

which they are not obliged too

is not a breach

 

the debt is statute barred anyway.

pointless to send a reply its worthless bog paper to them now.

[pencil]

What a ridiculous response. I would rather this whole thread which includes my personal information was taken down from this website. Are you going to do it as a goodwill gesture or shall I send in a GDPR right to erasure request?

Edited July 1, 2019 by pencil

[dx100uk]

you cant

again as your ridiculous response to erudio shows

you haven't a clue what you are talking about most of the time

 

you signed the slc agreements, that gave permission for the processing of your data by anyone slc chose to sell the debt too.

nothing to complain about

id be thankful the debt is statute barred 

you are very lucky compared to most slc posters here.

 

no need nor can you kick any pram wheels.

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

p's..

hope you replied to that pap letter using our reply form and attached our SB letter?

 

[unclebulgaria67]

What I don't understand is reluctance to use statute barred defence.

 

Any reasons for this ?

[fletch70]

52 minutes ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

What I don't understand is reluctance to use statute barred defence.

 

Any reasons for this ?

Possibly because pencil is taking note of what you said in post 60 and if it wasn’t SB , reminding them of that is not a good idea. 

 

Mind you, if a claim form arrives surely that can be part of the defence. 

 

Pencil

Non compliance with a S77 request only makes a debt unenforceable until they do comply. Being UE doesn’t stop them asking for payment. 

Also technically issuing a claim is not enforcement and certainly issuing a Letter of claim is not enforcement.

 

I think you are flogging a dead horse with your complaint, indeed you are keeping the account high on their agenda. 

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

The SB point is arguable, but unlikely it would get to making defence argument in a court.

 

I can see people being fearful of being in court room, but before it gets that far, Erudio would need to provide reasons why think it is not SB.

[pencil]

Erudio do have the agreements, and they send a PAP a year before statute bar. If they were stupid they wouldn't be in business. They do take settlement offers, or set up a payment plan. 

[dx100uk]

2 hours ago, pencil said:

Erudio do have the agreements, and they send a PAP a year before statute bar. If they were stupid they wouldn't be in business. They do take settlement offers, or set up a payment plan. 

 

which you should never ever do.

 

hows your situation going?

 

dx