ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

Heres a petition to sign saying no to the retrospective freezing of student loan repayment threshold thats for a good cause, even though those it will help are probably oblivious about it or the ramifications. It hasnt got much help, so probably a few of us could help bump it up if so inclined, it only takes a minute: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110143

patanne

Signed - thank you erudioed. Can't believe how few have signed. Too many 'I'm all right Jacks' in the world I think.

BorderReiver14

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Letter Before Action sent to Erudio and received by them today.

Unless they remove the alleged arrears & place my account in deferment, until the summer of 2016 as it should have been, within a fortnight, then I will instigate legal proceedings against them without haste.

Best of luck. They will back down at the last moment. They'll just push you as far as possible to see if you will blink first. They certainly won't risk court in the end though because they can't have a judgement throwing a spanner in their bullying tactics.

Tommygunn

Signed.

Tom.

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

Heres a petition to sign saying no to the retrospective freezing of student loan repayment threshold thats for a good cause, even though those it will help are probably oblivious about it or the ramifications. It hasnt got much help, so probably a few of us could help bump it up if so inclined, it only takes a minute: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110143

Signature no. 50, which is rubbish.

I'm sure MSE's Martin would support this petition and give it some publicity, we all should contact him.

Even better, Martin should start the petition, it would be guaranteed to gain momentum.

Lungboy

51. People hate students.

erudioed

i dont think anyone knows about it. if that totally useless head of the students union, Megan Dunn, for example, posted something i am sure it would increase awareness...but she seems so uninterested i am amazed she got the post. There seems to be an overall lack of willing by anybody representing students to raise their heads about anything slightly political, or at a level critical enough to get some kind of movement going.

erudioed

anna2007 wrote: »

Signature no. 50, which is rubbish.

I'm sure MSE's Martin would support this petition and give it some publicity, we all should contact him.

Even better, Martin should start the petition, it would be guaranteed to gain momentum.

i think he may have started it...i know he is aware of it, as is A. Mcgettigan.

AReeves

I should state that I did not authorise this to be posted in an open forum nor did I authorise its distribution to others.
If people are taking legal action then they should draft particulars of claim that are specific to their dispute [although the issues are similar] and that are correct at the current time.

Anyway, good luck to those taking court action.

Anthony

fermi wrote: »

What was allegedly used by Anthony Reeves last year?

GinOClock

There are sample particulars of claim concerning claims of unfairness in terms of s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) that have been produced and shared publicly by the Govan Law Centre, albeit for the purposes of reclaiming bank charges.

GLC in 2010 commenced legal proceedings in Glasgow Sheriff Court in Sharp -v- Bank of Scotland plc claiming, inter alia, Bank of Scotland's own current account terms and conditions with respect to overdraft charges created an unfair relationship between the Bank and consumer in terms of s.140A of the CCA 1974. I gather the case was settled extra-judically without proceeding to proof/trial.

There is a link on this page 'Amended statement of claim' for downloading a copy as a Word document.

http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/p/bank-charges.html

One should bear in mind the disclaimers that have been published on the GLC website regarding its use, and that, of course, I myself am not a lawyer and this is certainly not legal advice.

That being said, you may wish to modify paragraph 6 of the pleadings for use with an unfair relationship claim with Erudio as the GLC particulars, importantly, make it clear that the burden of proof rests entirely with the creditor to prove the relationship is fair. So you could have, for instance:

...In particular, and without prejudice to the burden of proof which rests on the Defender to prove that the circumstances of its relationship with the Pursuer are fair (pursuant to s.140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974), the relationship between the Pursuer and the Defender is unfair in the following respects:

Of course, a court would expect you to at least suggest some aspects of unfairness of your own, and you would then go on to list them (e.g. Erudio refusing to consider a request for deferment unless you give consent for periodic searches of your credit file with CRAs on the DAF etc.)

As it is a Scottish claim in the Sheriff Court, you need to remember that the "Pursuer" is the Claimant, and the "Defender" is the Defendant if you live outside Scotland.

Anthony is right, you will need to adjust your own particulars of claim to your own circumstances, as is also indicated in the guidance from GLC. However, I hope it might be useful/interesting to see a separate s.140 claim if you are considering the court option against Erudio - particularly if you are considering raising an action in Scotland.