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

[dx100uk]

brrr...working...brrr..

dx

[dx100uk]

sorry this is the best i can do for you.

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

 In the XXXXXXX County Court 

Claim No. *********** 

BETWEEN: Claimant Erudio 

AND Defendant ************ 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF ********** 

I ******, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; 

I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence filed 24/11/2022 in response to the claimants claim dated 26/10/2022 which was submitted through County Court Bulk Centre and remained stayed for 16 weeks as the claimant failed to further respond to the court and in response to the claimants witness statement dated 25/04/2023. I will respond and refer to each paragraph as numbered including any exhibits. 

1. The claimants witness statement opening paragraph confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts 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 claimants witness statement. 

2.It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct, disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed ...10p to 15p in the £1 and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. The claimant then issues on mass claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit. 

3. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 

Background
_________

4. Upon receipt of the claim form I could not recall the precise details of any agreements or any outstanding debt and sought clarity from the claimants solicitor via a CPR 31.14  request by Royal Mail signed for on 01/11/2022-  namely that I requested:

A copy of all the original agreement 
A copy of the terms and conditions as applicable at the time of each agreement (if different)
A copy of any Default Notice or termination notice 
A copy of the legal notice of assignment showing your right to take action 

At that stage the claim was trackless and not allocated,  the claimant solicitors were required to comply to validate and assist in verifying their clients claim. Although it is a civil request, the court expects parties to communicate to try to narrow any differences. The Claimant's solicitor did not respond to my request. 

By Royal Mail signed for post on 01/11/2022 i sent the Claimant a CCA request subject to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 requesting copies of all agreements concerning their claim.

Neither the Claimant nor their solicitors had replied to my requests by the time my defence was filed on 24/11/2022. 

5. copy of defence filed to the original Particulars of claim:

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.  Paragraph 2 is noted. I have had financial dealings with The Student Loans company in the past.  I do not recall the precise details or agreements, nor does it appear the claimant having failed to list the accounts numbers within its particulars. I have therefore sought verification from the claimant with regards to the account and have yet to comply with my requests for further information.
 
2.  Paragraph 3 is denied as The Defendant maintains that default notices were never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof that default notices were issued to and received by the Defendant.

3. Paragraphs1 & 4 are denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly provided by the Claimant pursuant to the LoP Act 1925.

4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreements/assignments/balances/breaches requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my Section 77 CCA Request,

therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

(a)   Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement(s)

(b)  Show how the Defendant is in breach of agreement(s)

(c)   Show why the Claimant has terminated agreement(s) show the nature of breach and service of Default Notices and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act

(d)  Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and

(e)   Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under 
statute or equity to issue a claim.  

5. On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 01/11/2022 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and section 77 CCA's from the Claimant for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply to my section 77 request and their solicitors, Drydens Limited, have failed to comply with my CPR 31.14 request. 

6. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 

7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief 
Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that a contractual relationship did once exist between myself and (original Creditor). 

.......................End Of Defence

6. On or about 25/11/22 i received a letter from the claimants solicitor stating documention was available via an online portal. i could not make the portal link operate.

7. The Claimant failed to further communicate with the court nor the defendant and following the std time limit after my defence filing their claim became autostayed. I can only assume the claim was raised  to prevent my impending natural age-related cancellation clause under the Gov't SLC Loan scheme T&C's at time of Sign up or in hope of an undefended default judgment or a knee jerk admittance and payment.

8. on or about the 25/03/2023 i received a letter from the claimants solicitor enclosing documentation and a request for income details should i wish to enter into any payment agreement via a tomlim order at cost to me to avoid further court action.

N244 issuance
------------------

8. 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 requested.

9. in ref claimants WS para 6 -  The defendant did not admit in their defence nor has at any time admitted entering into any agreements with the original creditors. 

10. in ref claimants WS paragraphs 8 + 34 - the claimant claims to have sent original copies of all agreements with the original creditor but agrees they are mostly unintelligible, even including additional 'blank agreement' pages of which the nature of their source is not clear and questioned. Where have these pages originated from. They state these have been sent for 'ease of reference'  but fail to indicate their source - be that from the original creditor 'SLC' or from the claimants own internal sources, of which does not comply to the consumer credit act request criteria.

11. at para 16 ref is made to the issuance of their default notice issued 29/09/2020 due to a failure to pay some £826.79 arrears. 

Since the 2013 assignment via the Gov't of these old SLC Loans to Erudio, Erudio have always written every year including their deferment forms to fill out and return. In 2017 their reminders changed to Email only referencing a log-in to an online portal. 
i deferred via this portal each years when a reminder email was sent. 

i did not receive any reminder in 2020 to defer, this resulted in the arrears and the subsequent default notice. 

i make ref to the FOS website and their relevant decisions about this period of change by Erudio in exhibits xx - xx attached, whereby numerous people suffered this issue around the same period and the rulings by the FOS that erudio should rollback arrears and accept post deferment.

i have never earned over the payment threshold and have always deferred when asked too.

i believe the claimants claim to be in error because i never received a 2020 deferment request.
.......................

thats all ive time for 
you'll have to select/find and INCLUDE the relevant FOS decision numbers and attach the PDF files as exhibits to your WS.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions-case-studies/ombudsman-decisions/search?Keyword=erudio&Sort=relevance

[dx100uk]

22 hours ago, dx100uk said:

Since the 2013 assignment via the Gov't of these old SLC Loans to Erudio, Erudio have always written every year including their deferment forms to fill out and return. In 2017 their reminders changed to Email only referencing a log-in to an online portal. 
i deferred via this portal each years when a reminder email was sent. 

i did not receive any reminder in 2020 to defer, this resulted in the arrears and the subsequent default notice. 

i make ref to the FOS website and their relevant decisions about this period of change by Erudio in exhibits xx - xx attached, whereby numerous people suffered this issue around the same period and the rulings by the FOS that erudio should rollback arrears and accept post deferment.

i have never earned over the payment threshold and have always deferred when asked too.

i believe the claimants claim to be in error because i never received a 2020 deferment request.

 

On 15/08/2023 at 18:37, dx100uk said:

pers i think any arguments about not supplying stuff are now worthless as they have supplied them. so each of your points regarding non compliance are now somewhat worthless.

IMHO you really need to include the above . arguments about if/not the CCA return is compliant are not your main point. the fact Erudio did not send deferment reminders via email/post are a proven winner.

its just the correct format of your reply from mine that needs adapting to the example @Andyorch gave

[dx100uk]

On 19/08/2023 at 14:06, RC710 said:

12. In addition I make reference to the Financial Ombudsman Service website and their relevant decisions about this period of change by Erudio in exhibits xx – x,  attached, whereby numerous people suffered this issue around the same period and the rulings by the Financial Ombudsman Service that Erudio should rollback arrears and accept post deferment. I have always deferred due my earnings being under the financial threshold.   I believe the claimants claim to be in error because I did not receive an invitation to defer in 2020.

you need to make ref to the red part earlier in your statement, not refer to exhibited FOS decisions about a switch to email only from 2020, and mention why as the last part of that para.??

im not sure why you keep leaving the out??

Since the 2013 assignment via the Gov't of these old SLC Loans to Erudio, Erudio have always written every year including their deferment forms to fill out and return. In 2017 their reminders changed to Email only referencing a log-in to an online portal. 
i deferred via this portal each years when a reminder email was sent. 

i did not receive any reminder in 2020 to defer, this resulted in the arrears and the subsequent default notice. 

i make ref to the FOS website and their relevant decisions about this period of change by Erudio in exhibits xx - xx attached, whereby numerous people suffered this issue around the same period and the rulings by the FOS that erudio should rollback arrears and accept post deferment.

i have never earned over the payment threshold and have always deferred when asked too.

i believe the claimants claim to be in error because i never received a 2020 deferment request.

 

 

But I also accept Mr D made a reasonable assumption that he would be contacted by email as he had in previous years......

the fact that he had moved ins immaterial to the above

 

DRN-3629000.pdf

[dx100uk]

please let @Andyorch check it over 1st...i'm sometimes none too confident on the format required with some of these more complex matters/hearing submissions

dx

[dx100uk]

@ already does that. dont panic, 

[dx100uk]

don't worry about the costs sheet simply sent to unnerve you.

1 hour ago, RC710 said:

BUT I am extremely anxious that I will be given an utter grilling about the fact that I am saying not to have received any communication from Drydens until the Claim given I have not moved address.

contempt of court no. going too far there!. stop your mind from wondering to the worst that can't happen. 

and in a way you haven't, as in their original claim they mention complying to the pre action protocol, which you didn't rebuff in your defence so thats given as you did receive it and later found the letter of claim. as for the rest you didnt get it, who can prove otherwise...no-one

take it the otherway, and i'll have a wild guess theres a reason why they've made no ref to your earlier phonecalls explaining you can pay and if you deferred quickly they would wipe out the arrears... but they then never sent the forms...ummmmm...so it's tit for tat there really

just be aware somehow drydens WILL (IF they turn up) or a locum (whom will have ZERO background knowledge other than to try spoof the judge) pull some kind of stunt, this or that has not arrived or we don't have, which is done again to unsettle you and make you panic thinking your whole case will fail...when it's just a dirty trick, stick to your defence, your WS and what you sent and when.

good luck!

dx

 

[dx100uk]

how'd ya do...

dx

[dx100uk]

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. 

 

[dx100uk]

its strange that HMRC have not informed them then as they usually do.

so for the complete years not deferred you are def over threshold for the whole year via say your p60 too?

 

[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

 

 

[dx100uk]

got it 

 

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

[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

 

[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

[dx100uk]

put in the n180.

there been no movement, so...

 

[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

 

[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

 

[dx100uk]

get working on it it can be fine tuned later.

 

[dx100uk]

just thought id let you know

you dont have to flag us in each post you make by @

anyone that has posted to your thread automatically gets notified when anyone else inc you posts here.

now unless you mis described to us what the judge stated .....

your 1. the 1st bit you have slightly mis described why you are filing a new witness statement, its not to oppose their SJ nor their strike out of your defence, they lost. it's in response to the judge allowing the stay on the original claim to be lifted. 

the rest seems just a copy of your original WS which you dont need to repeat at all.

simply refer to it as a complete doc in your 2

now if you've nothing new to say bar the above

you dont need to file a new ws?

thats the way i read it. repeating your old one is pointless confusion.?

@andyorch am i right?

 

 

[dx100uk]

18 hours ago, RC710 said:

a claim form to the tune of £1627.

i think you mean costs list?.

they are trying to tie you in knots and distract the judge away from important points 

18 hours ago, RC710 said:

Can you please look at their defence to see what you think?

its not a defence its a supplementary witness statement, only the defendant submits a defence and you did that oct last year.

we will need all their exhibits esp these: 

Quote

The Defendant claims that she was applying for Deferment and did not receive any reminder in 2020 to defer. However this does not appear to be the case. Exhibited at pages [31 to 45] of 'LON2' are letters that the Claimant sent to the Defendant dated 14 April 2020, 29 April 2020, 27 May 2020, 13 June 2020, and 26 June 2020 enclosing Deferment Application Forms for her to complete.

we need to see these and all the exhibits attached to this new SWS , unless we already have them?
looking back at the start of your thread , theres no mention other than a discount letter of just pay 25% and its done to you (post 17?)

[dx100uk]

yes as i said before anything said/done on the phone can be discounted totally non admissible.

it gets a bit frustrating when every time you get a letter from anyone you think its game over ...i cant win now, i wanna give in and think you have to go crawling to them for this 'arrangement'

its also worthy to note that some of the statements you have made about what was said by the judge at the last hearing don't appear to match up with what drydens state she said. you appear to be continually always painting the bad worst case scenario picture.

you are not time limited to come to an arrangement , thats their time limit not yours. however you wont be doing that!

i dont think you realise what a strong position you are actually in regarding :

  

On 24/08/2023 at 23:36, Andyorch said:

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:-

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.

i would be including to include again the following and make the point clearer  - as the judge seems to think you want them to re-instate the falsely terminated agreement. nope you want him to pay attention to the fact that erudio were very well know for not sending out deferment forms at that time and has this actually happened, we would not be here at all... from your WS...In these circumstances the Financial Ombudsman Service made decisions that Erudio must rollback arrears and accept post deferment forms due to their error. 

i would also note in the court has said regarding the next hearing..Court Bundles must be lodged not less than 2 working days before the hearing.

are you saying that the docs relating to pages 19-24? regarding deferment you never received?

it appears from your previous very early posts when you came here ....  you did not. or did not mention them.

it also appears that in their letter dated 20/04/2020 inviting you to use an online deferment site they also say  Please note: .your deferment application form will still be issued as normal if you choose not to defer online.

then on 29th april they say in a letter here they are? did you ever get them? 

you did nothing then till june 22nd when deferment was due 24th ..when you rang them..so you knew you had to defer?

i am not trying to catch you out here im trying to workout how/why you did not get these letters/form and what prompted you to ring them 2 days before the due date.

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

24 minutes ago, RC710 said:

I have a copy of the doc on p.19. 

what? from when? already in your possession before eruido ever 1st recently contacted you that resulted in the  claimform? 

[dx100uk]

no you get a notice of sums in arrears , not a default notice.

 

 

[dx100uk]

not for this thread, not what its here for helps the op zero.

dx

[dx100uk]

thats exactly the same pdf as you uploaded 2 days ago

dx