Pre 98 student loan / Capquest - advise needed

mcat123

Hello, I’m new to this forum and hoping to get some advice. I was contacted a couple of months ago by Capquest relating to a student loan debt dating back to 1997 for around £2000. Their letter was threatening to send out a company called resolva to my home address if I didn’t get in touch. 

Bit of background on the student loan. It is an old style loan from 1997. The last correspondence I remember having with the student loan company to defer the loan was 2003/2004 timeframe (best guess). I moved address around 2005 and had no further correspondence from around 2004.

Erudio student loans sent letters a few years ago which I ignored as I didn’t recognise the name and thought it was junk mail, they have now passed this over to Capquest. 

I sent Capquest a statute barred letter and they have responded saying they can confirm I’ve not acknowledged or made payment towards the debt in the last 6 years but it is not statute barred as Erudio defaulted the account in 2017 which they are claiming is when the limitation period started.

I’ve not received any evidence from Capquest other than they are refusing to accept the debt is statute barred.

Has anyone had a similar experience or could advise on how to respond? 

Many thanks in advance 

MalMonroe

Hello, and welcome.

My daughter has a student loan from 1997 and has to defer every year because she doesn't earn enough to start repaying anything. It's very important to defer every single year. That's probably what the letters from Erudio were trying to tell you. 

If I were you I'd get in touch with Erudio and try to sort this out with them because Capquest won't have all the facts, they're just trying to claw back the money. 

Hopefully you can get this cleared up with Erudio and carry on deferring each year. I guess this kind of thing must happen a lot, especially when people move around. Go to the source to solve the problem, though.

Erudio. https://www.erudiostudentloans.co.uk/en/contact-us.html

mcat123

Thanks @MalMonroe for your reply. Apparently Erudio defaulted the account back in 2017.

Capquest are claiming this default in 2017 (which doesn’t appear on my credit report) is the cause of action and start of the limitation clock. So that would be 13 years + on from the last time the debt was acknowledged/ any contact.

fatbelly

My understanding of the law here is that:

• Pre-1998 student loans can be statute barred.

• The cause of action is when you first miss a payment following the conclusion of your course.

• The 6-year period can be extended by acknowledgement

• Deferring can count as acknowledgement

So according my me and my reading of this factsheet

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/fact-sheet-library/statute-barred-debts-ew/

it became statute barred in 2010

This is not a consumer credit act debt so the default thing is a red herring.

Now, having said that, it ultimately would be up to a court to rule on this, not me. So if they are confident in their position they should now start a court claim, and you should defend it.

National Debtline may be able to help if it came to that (I doubt that it will).

mcat123

Thanks @fatbelly, appreciate the info. Do you think it’s worth responding to them pointing out that I dispute their claim for those reasons then wait to see whether they want to take it further or do nothing?

fatbelly

It's not a bad thing to let them know that you've taken advice from National Debtline and disagree with their interpretation of the Limitation Act 1980.


It lets them know that if they start a claim, you'll be defending it.

fatbelly

mcat123 said:

Thanks for your reply. Apparently Erudio defaulted the account back in 2017.

Capquest are claiming this default in 2017 (which doesn’t appear on my credit report) is the cause of action and start of the limitation clock. So that would be 13 years + on from the last time the debt was acknowledged/ any contact.

In County Court matters there is the letter of the law and also what the individual judge views as 'reasonable'

So even if they were technically correct that the cause of action is the 2017 default, a judge would have to decide whether it was 'reasonable' to delay a default until 13 years had passed.

Their next move will tell you how confident they are because it will require them to pay money up front on this.

mcat123

Thanks @fatbelly, I’ve sent a letter to them today, I’ll post an update when I hear back.