Erudio Claimform - Old Student Loans - poss Statute Barred.

[dx100uk]

numerous erudio/drydens claimform threads here already - use our search top right.

 

yours appears to be statute barred as you've never heard of erudio so would not have deferred since your last direct deferment to SLC in 2013 .

 

if you wish to bother to even send CCA/CPR that's upto you

but the bottom line is to erudio you've ignored everything to date

you might also ignore a claimform.

 

but ofcourse you do not!!

 

if the above is true

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.
[if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time]
.
 register as an individual
 note the long gateway number given
 then log in
.
 select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
.
 then using the details required from the claimform
.
 defend all
 leave jurisdiction unticked

 

goto the defence filing section 

file the following:

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's claim to be entitled to payment of £[insert figure from their POC]  or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.
..
..ends..

 

dx

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

I have submitted a defence based on this being statute barred.

 

you didn't change the wording did you??

[dx100uk]

had me worried there.

 

as with all these erudio claims, they'll most probably let it get stayed.

none that have filed sb to date have gone anywhere

 

dx

[dx100uk]

oh well

terminated or not they still have to produce the CCA to successfully litigate 

but that's pretty immaterial as the debt is sb'd anyway......doesn't matter what they hold in all effect.

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

10/10

doesn't matter what paperwork they hold..

 

 

[dx100uk]

tidied

are you not going to redact them properly again!

i'll do it

done

those are simply NOSIA letters that they must send by FCA rules because they are a creditor to be allowed to charge default sums.

safe to ignore as the debt is SB'd

dx

 

[dx100uk]

the claim is stayed

the debt is and remains statute barred.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

as it will do - stayed is not a status - it's just an automictic thing that happens and was advised of such in the letter from the court acking your defence filing.

[dx100uk]

eh?

 

the debt was already statute barred before they issued the claim

it's already dead and did not exist anyway.

 

the fact they issued a speculative claim, as they do when someone ignores everything, was hoping for a default judgement

 

the MCOL entry is not hurting you

 

i suggest you re read your thread from post 1.

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

there are no proceedings hanging over you.

should they now wish to do anything they will have to pay a fee of £255 and use an N244 requesting to lift the stay.

 

sadly i will guess? this situation is somewhat of your own doing as you moved without informing the SLC of your new address and they sold it on with that existing address to Eruido, they subsequently issued everything up until the claimform (whereby they used the correct address?) to there.

 

had you received the Pre Action Protocol Letter of claim, you would have informed them of the SB status by sending our SB letter in reply and that would have killed it dead under Conc Rules.

 

As it stands, you could still send it as the debt was already SB'd upon on claim issuance so the usual 'a claimform stops the SB clock' does not apply.

 

if you read the SB you'll see they must abide by Conc rules and cease and desist.

 

 

[dx100uk]

 

utter rubbish

 

the debt was statute barred even before the issuance of any claim.

[dx100uk]

it is utter rubbish and totally irrelevant to this thread -  this debt was statute barred even before the issuance of the court claim.

 

as for NDL to state that people should now after a period of 6yrs contact one of the relevant 3 fleecers and try and defer or even worse give them free money, when the debt is now SB'd through non deferment since their sale by the Gov't is 2013, is typical crass advice and systemic of the debt help industry.

 

don't you for one minute find it rather suspect that Arrows since the Gov't sale in 2013 sat on these loans, failed to follow the pre action protocol, then through various solicitors to hide the level of these speculative claims, issued a total of (censored as not in public domain) claimforms deliberately to old addresses, then rather miraculously find the correct address to inform their victims.......

[dx100uk]

the debts were sold to erudio in 2013

the op has never contacted them........

[dx100uk]

3 hours ago, Will Goodfellow said:

You assumed it was 2013 which would have deferred to 2014 so statute barring from 2014 if that was the case. Claim issued Jan 2020 so within limitation if so.

 

no that is not correct , its's from the date of the deferment letter (the cause of action) not from when deferment ends.

 

................

 

you don't need to contact anyone

simply look online at mcol - the last entry being the status of 'defence filed' and the subsequent letter from the court acking that filing tells you they had 28 days = autostay.

 

as for any speculation of deferment to erudio in 2013 anyway...

the erudio forms of that time were a totally new deferment form dreampt up by Arrows without consultation with the SLC nor the relevant authorities..

 

The 2013 Erudio form demanded details and the changed the T&C's

Erudio were not entitled to these extra details, nor were they entitled to change the T&C's.

The forms were ruled as void

even if people has used and return them

They did not count as a deferment.

 

i believe we currently sit at around 15-20 people here that are in the same boat, having filed the SB defence, no cases have progressed.

 

Elsewhere...i am told three cases where people had filed an SB defence were heard jointly just before covid struck this year, whereby drydens tried to argue that the ruling in the appeal court concerning PRA vs xxxx and default notice=SB date applied to SLC loans.

it was thrown out as only the original creditor could have ever issued a DN, not Erudio, SLC didn't issue DN's on the debts SB status prevailed. drydens lost.

 

 

[dx100uk]

open

dx

[dx100uk]

would be rather embarrassing and costly for them if they do that and take this to court...bring on drydens, my costs await paying.

the judge would eat them for breakfast because regardless to you stating the £1 payment is for the CCA fee, it's written in the consumer credit act why it's required and it can't be used for any debt payment purpose.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

in a way its a std letter drydens send to everyone erudio have previously raised speculative court claims against whereby they think people are mugs and will panic and cough up. plenty of exactly the same letter here in other erudio claimform threads to read.

 

what concerns me about yours is they have blatantly split the CCA £1 fee as payment against the various old SLC loan that were all already statute barred befoe they issued the claimform and have thus as with all the others allowed the claim to get stayed.

 

they are probably hoping you've moved and won't see it so feel safe in issuing a N244, which you will ofcourse get notification of so don't worry..ignore them.

 

how low can these vermin go to fleece people!!!

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

thats weird.. i will guess they used erudio's  'mass' ref number', then split it over the old SLC loand that are obv part of that...but returned it as well.. you could always check with the PO to see if it was cashed?

[dx100uk]

open.

 

 

[dx100uk]

Click upload..one mass pdf only.

 

They've tried hart/doyle before and lost.

Hart doesnt apply as it was for a business car hp if remember rightly and doyle can be argued easily as a 'creditor' cant be allowed to extend the statute of limitations to infinity by issuing a default notice years after last acknowledgement/payment.  They are probably hoping youve moved and will no get anything and win by default.

 

Surprised they are trying this to be honest.

 

Dx

[dx100uk]

almost identical to patterns thread.

 

 

[dx100uk]

Open 

 

Dx

[dx100uk]

On 16/08/2022 at 16:51, Andyorch said:

Afraid so.....the court will inform you of the hearing date and you will be allowed to submit a statement in response to oppose/object with reason to their application.

you filed your defence months and months ago

pers i'd simply send the same again.

On 07/04/2021 at 16:33, Nurselayer said:

I sent Erudio a postal order for £1 on 27th January 2020 in regard to my CCA request.

they used your cca request £1 po to make payments to the accounts.

not on

[dx100uk]

woe slow down 

BMW v Hart is concerning an HP agreement not a LOAN - ignore

 

Doyle v PRA

it is worthy to note that if the creditor took months/years from the actual last payment /use date to issue the dn then they are very open to question, as that gives them the power to control/run the statute of limitations to infinity. .....

 

and in your case the DN was issued many years afterwards 

 

you don't have to submit a defence against an N244, you need to submit a statement.

however in your case the 2 are the same.

 

 

[dx100uk]

the debt is statute barred.

so the SB 'defence' + Default notice bit wording is really all you need to use. 

 

i'm sure @andyorch will pop in

 

dx