Erudio CCJ set aside hearing - Dydens 'Tomlin Order' gambit pre hearing

HenriDune

Hello, 
 

Erudio/Drydens CCJ removal application pre-hearing settlement offer dilemma 

In  Q4 2023 I had discovered inadvertently that a CCJ head appeared on my credit file due to an undefended hearing in SEP 22 CCJ following claim by Erudio SL company. I had a new family and identified a house on which I sought to get a mortgage. This newly appeared dent on my otherwise sound credit rating made this impossible - so i was devastated this had appeared seemingly out of the blue. Erudio had not bothered to find my current address, even via the most cursory credit check. I had not lived at the previous address since 2015, so had not received any correspondence from them, and was unaware my loan had been transferred from SLC. This is evidenced by the fact I had attemtped to make payments to the SLC via a new employer in OCT 2022, which in fact appeared on a P60 statement. Only later after 6 months these repayments were refunded to my account. I was not aware of the reason at that time. 

I had several Old Student loans - pre 1998 student loans taken out ( 5 in total) and I had made repayments between 2003-2009. Following this period my income was irregular, and i moved addresses several times. I had not filed for deferment on each of the years subsequently though, so was negligent in that respect though the loans were held mainly by SLC for that period i think. I am not sure of the exact date the loan was transferred to Erudio - but to my knowledge there is not any formal agreement in place between myself and Erudio.  Since the hearing notification had been sent to an old address I had not resided at since 2015 a solicitor i consulted thought I had a good case to set the judgement aside, based on this and evidence that I had attemtped to make repayments to the SLC. 

Following my application a hearing date to set aside the CCJ was set for April 11 2024. Solicitor advised I do not complete any income and expenditure form with Dydens/Eurudio before the hearing as it may compromise my case.  On March 20th I received a letter from Drydens 'Solicitors' with an income and expenditure form attached with reference to the £4.8k debt outstanding on belhald of Erudio SL. 'Failure to provide us with details of your income and expenditure by 19th April may result in the continued action to recover the outstanding balance' On March 25th i received an additional email with a letter attached dated March 19th ( i did not receive the physical post) stating posted and emailed. 

This letter was a without prejudice invitation for me to complete an I&E form with a view to making pre-settlement offer (potentially via Tomlin order) on the basis the CCJ is removed. Keen as I am to get the CCJ removed - I now face a decision. 

1) If I enter into a new (Tomlin) agreement - would this reset the terms and start date of any outstanding loans, meaning that the old student loans would not be expired (statute debarred) . I believe they are soon to reach the 25 yr mat date. Given that i had not deferred annually they may not all come into effect. 
2) I emailed Drydens ahead of court hearing to say I will consider repayment agreement under original loan T&Cs on the basis the CCJ judgement against my name is removed. 
3) They respond to say 'I assume the wording that has confused you is the part highlighted. To clarify we are saying, once an agreement has been reached by way of Tomlin Order it will not be necessary for us to continue with further legal action as long as you meet the terms of the Tomlin Order.' 
'You unfortunately will not be able to continue the T & Cs of the original agreement as the original agreement is void. The debt no longer is with Student Loans Company, who the original agreement was with, but has been assigned to our client and the Claimant, Erudio Student Loans Limited.'  

Any advise appreciated ...

badmemory

There is a very long thread on here called ERUDIO student loans help which gives some interesting insights into their interesting way of working.  It is quite possible they had your correct address all along but chose to use an old one because it is in their interests to do so.

HenriDune

Agree - but now I am in the situation they wished to put me in. Erudio bought all pre 1998 loans for approx 18% of total loan value from Student Loans Company in 2013. Knowing many of those loans they purchased will come to marturity, or expire at the 25 year mark, effectively now in 2023/24. Realising this they have deployed various unscrupulous techniques to recover. One of these is to drop a 'back door' CCJ last minute, ie giving little opportunity for the defendent to respond, effectively forcing the defendent to settle in full close to the mark regardless of their circumstance. This thrust has maximum adverse impact on credit worthiness of the defendent - pressuring them to settle up in full to avoid a situation where they will not be able to obtain a mortgage or any other credit.  

Killmark

Given the complexities involved, it's essential to proceed thoughtfully.

1. Entering into a new agreement, such as a Tomlin order, may indeed reset the terms and start date of any outstanding loans, potentially impacting their expiration. It's crucial to carefully review the terms of any proposed agreement and consider seeking legal advice to fully understand the ramifications.

2. Your approach of considering a repayment agreement under the original loan terms, contingent upon the removal of the CCJ judgment, is reasonable. However, it's essential to ensure that any agreement reached aligns with your long-term financial goals and provides sufficient protection.

3. The response from Drydens underscores the need for clarity regarding the implications of any proposed agreement. Seeking clarification on specific terms and potential consequences can help inform your decision-making process.