Erudio/Drydens claimform - old SLC Loans . ***Claim Dismissed***

[RC710]

Could it be that HMRC have, and that's why they are pursuing my case?

Yes, my hours increased in 2020 - was meant to be temporary but I then got the job full time. So have earned £34/35k plus since this time.  More now.  Embarrassed at this is a good salary but as I said the impact of COVID, extortionately high rent etc, other debt, means things are still incredibly tight. 

The payments they wanted back in 2020 were £206 per month.

I would try to find a way to prioritise Erudio if it meant this was all done by Sept 2025 - 25 years after the last loan was agreed  - but then I do recall they wrote to me in 2020 to tell me that each year of deferment delays the age related maturity by a year. Lying b*ggers. 

[dx100uk]

AFAIK yes the remainder will be written off when you reach the write off date, regardless to what the scammers claim (and always on the phone - how funny...NOT!!!) they ALWAYS LIE!!

if you could convince erudio to accept backdated deferment forms, which would wipe the arrears (in a way) and close the claim by consent and accept a smaller monthly sum till your reach write off this could be a winner, atleast they will get 'something ' out of you and you'll get the rest written off with payments going fwd.

the thing is they can be obstructive at the best of times. though you are only a tadpole in a pond with much larger fish to catch.

Arrears (or paying them off) of one sort or another might now be your stumbling block.

say it happens, they accept, the 'old ' arrears would be written off as you now have deferred, but now you'll have monthly arrears dating back to the start of the deferment (1st whole year you first earned over the payment threshold.) partial years do not count. to pay off too.

keep musing...

dx

 

 

[AndyOrch]

Well done, I dont think you realise how rare it is for a claimant to lose a SJ application and how difficult it is for a LIP to stop it in its tracks.

Usually a failed SJ application does not bode well for a claimant and its even  rarer for the claimant to proceed to trial after losing.

The following is hilarious for a District Judge to state:-

5 hours ago, RC710 said:

He laboured around my claim about the copies of agreements being illegible. He agreed they could not be read in entirety but concluded that dates/signatures/sums were visible. He looked up S.77 and determined that it said nothing about legibility

Thats possibly because section 77 does not refer to Legibility its section 65 as per your WS above. 

If you refer back to my amendment in the conclusion of your statement you will now see why its imperative to conclude and prompt the court to test if the claimant can show and prove it has the means and evidence to pass the threshold to be awarded Summary Judgment.

 

Well done.

[AndyOrch]

For reference CPR 24.2 which you refer to in your summary.

Grounds for summary judgment

24.2 The court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if –

(a) it considers that –

(i) that claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue; or

(ii) that defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue; and

(b) there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.

(Rule 3.4 makes provision for the court to strike out^(GL) a statement of case or part of a statement of case if it appears that it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending a claim)

Which is basically what I added to your conclusion 

 

[RC710]

Thanks @dx100uk and @Andyorch

This gives me some hope then. 

I guess I will see what Erudio's next step is. 

Taking a week away from thinking about it - it has become all consuming. 

Really grateful for your help.

[AndyOrch]

Yes take a break and come back when (if) you receive further directions from the court

[dx100uk]

got it 

 

Erudio - stopped sending email deferments won at FOS DRN-4141462.pdf

[RC710]

Hi,

So yesterday finally I received a letter from court - a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims track. 
The hearing date has been set for 21st Nov, for a duration of 2 hrs. 
The notice states that unless the claimant pays the trial fee of £346 by 24 Oct the claim will be struck out. 
The notice encourages the parties to settle. It then goes on to say each party must submit documents on which they will rely and witness statements no later than 14 days before the hearing. 
 

Today I received an “annual statement for the period 1/9/22 to 31/9/23” which on the reverse shows each loan, with opening balance, payment received (this is the 27p odd that they have used my postal order for) and closing balances. I assume they think this may suffice to address the judges criticism that they have not provided a clear breakdown of how they arrived at the alleged outstanding sums.   This letter does not refer to any interest added and oddly, just for the first loan, they have added a ‘balance adjustment’ for sums of £100 and £587.64.  I genuinely have no idea what this relates to. 
 

I have also today received a letter from Drydens including a Claimants Directions questionnaire, which indicates that they wish to be referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service, but also going on to indicate that the claim is suitable for determination without a hearing. 
 

Drydens refer to the judges comment that we attempt to resolve the matter and they say they are willing to consider a settlement, and ask me to complete a financial statement and supply a settlement offer/monthly repayment for their client to consider. 
 

They go on to warn that they will seek instruction as to whether the agreement needs to be formalised by way of a Tomlin order. If I don’t contact them, they will go ahead with the hearing. 

So after an initial emotional response - collapse/fear of not being able to have the strength to get through another hearing,  I am feeling slightly more settled. 
 

They still have not addressed the issue of the illegible copies (and I am confident that the blank they sent is not a copy of the original as the deferment section is removed), they have still not provided the breakdown of figures that was necessary, and they have evidenced dishonesty by using the postal order towards the debt, expressly against my written wishes.  
I am tending to conclude that they are bluffing, and are simply desperate to scare me to get something from me.  Please correct me if you think otherwise? 
 

Do I just wait to see if they pay the fee?  This would give me a 2 week window to sort my witness statement if needed. Should I write to them to explain they have not provided the information needed - so as to counteract any claim that I am not open to mediation (I’m actually not, and I think you are likely to say no). 

I’d appreciate your thoughts on this next step. 

Thank you
 

[dx100uk]

22 minutes ago, RC710 said:

I have also today received a letter from Drydens including a Claimants Directions questionnaire, which indicates that they wish to be referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service, but also going on to indicate that the claim is suitable for determination without a hearing.

nothing to do with drydens-  read it properly, its drydens return of a courts mediation service form DQ N180 , of which you should have had one like before?

i would not be waiting for anything and i hark you back to my comments earlier.  

On 24/08/2023 at 18:45, dx100uk said:

pers i would be in favour of directly approaching erudio and stating that all this would not have happened had they sent out the deferment form at the correct time and despite the hearing dated xxx and their documents, it has not become apparent why erudio did not do this in the first place

you go with the judges sentiment to resolve the issue save to costs and if erudio were to allow backdated and current deferments now, the situation would be mutually resolved back to a status quo. 

 

you could use the mediation service for the above whereby you'd not direct talk with drydens, that's if you sent an N180 yourself i wonder? @Andyorch is that correct we've not seen a rare SJ win/referral like this.

as for the rest of the letter its all std for them . more intimidation and lies

 

[AndyOrch]

The fact that they are signaling a possible agreement by way of a Tomlin Order could indicate that they are not confident after losing their application for SJ as I have previously stated its rare for this application to fail and even rarer for the claimant to procced or complete the directions.

Submit your DQ and lets wait until we have the proposed directions in the meantime feel free to consider mediation /Tomlin order but you have time and their direction in the claim may change.

[dx100uk]

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5088148

3 copies

yes to mediation 

1 wit you

Suitability for determination without a hearing? no (that the issues are so complex they need to be argued orally')

the rest is obv

1 to the court

1 to their sols (omit phone/sig/email) if no sols send to claimant

1 for your file

 

dx

[RC710]

I have royally messed up.   

In my panic I have not read things correctly. I have not submitted a Directions Questionnaire. The original "General Form of Judgement" is dated 26th Sept, I received it 27th Sept, and on the form it says "completed directions questionnaires to be filed and served by 4pm on 28th Sept. (This would have given 24 hrs to complete and serve it). 

I received another letter from the court also dated 26th Sept, which says at the hearing on 24th August the Judge considered the statements of the case and directions questionnaires filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track.   - I think I read this to be that I had already supplied a Directions Questionnaire. 

I honestly can't then understand why I did not read your responses properly. I didn't see dx100's last post until tonight when I looked.   You were really clear and I just can't explain my oversight.  

I have completely neglected this matter in terms of taking action - I have however been wrestling daily with how I will mediate with a reasonable income but none of it spare.  I have been working 14 days straight, prioritising other people's problems and this is a stark reminder of the dangers of doing so. 

Is there anyway I can resolve this? 

I'm sorry. You have tried to help and I've mucked up. 

 

 

[dx100uk]

put in the n180.

there been no movement, so...

 

[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. 

 

 

 

[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

[dx100uk]

pers id stop panicking about getting silly letters from drydens trying to pressure you into doing what they want you too, when they are obviously on the backfoot here because they think they'll lose next time around. re>>

On 28/09/2023 at 23:22, Andyorch said:

The fact that they are signalling a possible agreement by way of a Tomlin Order could indicate that they are not confident after losing their application for SJ as I have previously stated its rare for this application to fail and even rarer for the claimant to procced or complete the directions.

Submit your DQ and lets wait until we have the proposed directions in the meantime feel free to consider mediation /Tomlin order but you have time and their direction in the claim may change.

if you've put in the N180 then yours is not the next move?

dx

 

[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

[dx100uk]

unless the agreements say the int rate is variable with say the fluctuation in the Bank of england rates then they cant change from the stated rate.

as for the 'added extras' these debits, i will guess these are the court fees for the org claim when it was raised and this later set aside, that they LOST! so cheeky beggars there if the figures match the claim total on the claimform and the date just after their N244 appication which funnily enough..gues what..costs £275!!! ruddy "%£%^%^&*^* er's

 

[RC710]

@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

 

[jk2054]

Hi,

 

You can call mediation they answer in 1-2min normally.

 

If DJ said mediation then he should have referred the case back to mediation and they should contact you. I’d chase this and as SCM if they got referral or not.

 

[AndyOrch]

You must comply with the directions by date in your Notice of Allocation......the SJ application /hearing was a separate entity and not connected to the normal process. Your case is now back on track.

[RC710]

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]

get working on it it can be fine tuned later.

 

[RC710]

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

[RC710]

 

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:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------