ERUDIO student loans help

eroneo · 23 January 2015 at 11:49PM

@Plu

Under the DPA, clause 16 is not specific enough to justify disclosure to CRAs to be fair under the first principle.

It might not be unreasonable for 'the business' to prefer a standard form to be completed if the form was reasonable and suitable, because dealing with applications in many formats might not be practicle with the calibre of staff they might hire. However their DAF is unreasonable and is in breach of the third principle of the DPA. It also makes deferment conditional on agreeing to detrimental changes to the contract.

I am angry to see you have been fobbed off in every way possible. 'Ombudsmen' exist to give (the impression of) a right to redress but in this case they seem to have ignored anything with a slither of argument on 'the businesses' side.

They simply woundn't get away with not deferring someone on a low income so that's why you got that concession but nothing much else.

Apart from a derisory £75, I fail to see any aspect of this result that leaves you better off than if you had just used Erudios DAF and signed your life away.

Did you complain to the ICO? What happened? Is there anyone higher to appeal to than the FOS?

anna2007 · 24 January 2015 at 12:56AM

@ Pluthero Thanks for posting the FOS decision. Have to say if there was an award going for biggest cowardly/pointless/waste of !!!!ing time/!!!! for brains outfit, then FOS have to be the main contender.

"Had this been done at outset, I am persuaded that a DAF could have been submitted and the deferment could have been processed without any delays".

This comment pretty much sums it up - they don't get it.

"With regard to the issue of the business reporting information about your deferred loan to credit reference agencies, I would advise that Student Loans Company Limited (SLC) did not report regular information about the loans to credit reference agencies, however, the terms and conditions of loans taken out between 1990 and 1997, as in your case, did effectively permit the SLC (and subsequently Erudio Student Loans) to report information about loans, including whether they are in deferment, up to date, in arrears or in default – it simply elected not to do so".

I can't understand why FOS/ICO don't see this as a significant change to the use of our data? Even if they initially had proper, informed consent (which they don't), they would need agreement to any significant changes in use of the data.

"Borrowers with these loans [post-98] are being offered the option to consent for their up to date accounts to be reported. If consent is withheld, these loans will not be reported to credit reference agencies unless they are in default or in arrears. As I have stated, however, this only relates to loans taken out from 1998".

Further proof that FOS really don't get it!

"Regarding your concerns as to the completion of the DAF, I would advise that if the completion of this is required by the business in order to defer the loan, then you will need to do so. We are unable to enforce the business to defer the loan without the completion of the DAF".

What a crock of !!!!!!. If an ombudsman exists as an alternative to legal action, why would they not consider the legal aspect? Any business can try to impose whatever policies and procedures they like, but if we're not legally obliged to adhere to them, why would we agree to do something, outside of the contract, if it's to our own detriment? We're ultimately paying for these ombudsmen services and it looks like FOS is failing big time.

"The business should also ensure that no adverse information is recorded on your credit file".

So they agree your deferred loans shouldn't be reported!

"Lastly, you have been caused trouble and upset and in recognition of this, it is my view that you should be compensated. In the circumstances of your complaint, I consider the sum of £75 to be appropriate".
£75... seriously? You should tell them you don't get out of bed for less than £200, and if they want you to be

it'll cost them extra

"Having put my recommendations to the business, I am pleased to advise that once you have completed, signed and submitted the business’ DAF, it has agreed to write off the arrears and subsequently back-date your deferment date to ensure a continuation of your deferment".

Do they think they're doing you a favour here? Why would FOS be pleased about telling you your deferment/cancellation of arrears is conditional on completing the DAF? I thought the adjudicator was supposed to be impartial.

"You now need to consider this offer".
Why bother?!

ericctheking · 24 January 2015 at 1:39AM

anna2007 wrote: »

@ Pluthero Thanks for posting the FOS decision. Have to say if there was an award going for biggest cowardly/pointless/waste of !!!!ing time/!!!! for brains outfit, then FOS have to be the main contender.

Well Zach Lewy of Arrow global aka. Erudio student loans met with a senior ombudsman.

There was a Collection Debt Sale and Purchase Conference in Manchester on November 11th

http://www.cdspconference.co.uk/agenda
Juliana Francis, senior ombudsman from the Financial Ombudsman Service will be speaking at this Collection Debt Sale and Purchase Conference 2014 at 15:25, alongside some real vultures and at this debt collection industry organised and funded event. Here is her section:
Panel: Ensuring legal compliance and best practice due diligence in collections and debt sale

Using the consequence of enforcement action as:
- A negotiating tool
- An alternative to incurring legal expense
Taking advantage of County Court proceedings:
- Benefiting from the paperless Claims Production Centre (CPC) systems
FCA standpoint & legal position on white labelling in collections and recoveries
Legal trends in debt sale and purchase
How to protect yourself from price compression in the current market
Data quality considerations from a compliance perspective
What is the impact of the continuing fallout of PPI mis-selling for debt buyers?
Forward flow arrangements.

They may have had a nice little conversation about how best to screw ex-students.

fermi · 24 January 2015 at 9:15AM

Adjudicator's or actual ombudsman's decision? If just an adjudicator you can reject it and insist it is reconsidered by an ombudsman.

Ombudsman unlike the adjudicators usually have some some legal background and/or training, and are very slightly more inclined to engage their brain when making a decision rather than just repeating what they are told by the company.

Brooker_Dave · 24 January 2015 at 9:29AM

This is the UK, we have light touch regulation that is only there to protect the banks/finance industry, and to give the impression that consumers have backup.

If you want genuine redress, you need to use the courts.

fermi · 24 January 2015 at 9:43AM

Sadly even that is a bit of a "judge lottery", especially at county court level. I've seen some truly bizarre and biased decisions were it was clear that the judge was determined to find for the creditor come hell or high water, no matter what facts or arguments they were presented with. Then on any case with some consumer impact, even if you win, you are likely or could well get a never ending, possibly very expensive, round of appeals up through the court levels.

Even if Erudio lost at county court level, which is by no means certain, I can't imagine them letting it lie and rolling over. They have given in on some smaller obvious things, but on ones that would torpedo their whole collection strategy such as the DAF, threat of CRAs they can hold over people, perhaps the DD issue, I can't see them just accepting an adverse court decision.

Of course, if you lose, then again subject to appeal you have shot yourself in the foot and given Erudio extra weapon of a court decision to hold over people's heads.

Not saying it's not a good idea to do it, but it can have huge pitfalls of it's own.

Forever · 24 January 2015 at 10:40AM

Pluthero wrote: »

My FOS complaint has been upheld. Yet it still feels like I lost:(

Here is the outcome:
....
With regard to the issue of the business reporting information about your deferred loan to credit reference agencies, I would advise that Student Loans Company Limited (SLC) did not report regular information about the loans to credit reference agencies, however, the terms and conditions of loans taken out between 1990 and 1997, as in your case, did effectively permit the SLC (and subsequently Erudio Student Loans) to report information about loans, including whether they are in deferment, up to date, in arrears or in default – it simply elected not to do so.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Therefore, in reporting information about loans to credit reference agencies, the business is not acting outside the terms and conditions and these have not changed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] With regard to loans taken out from 1998, disclosure will only occur if the account is in arrears or default. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Borrowers with these loans are being offered the option to consent for their up to date accounts to be reported. If consent is withheld, these loans will not be reported to credit reference agencies unless they are in default or in arrears. As I have stated, however, this only relates to loans taken out from 1998.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] I understand your sentiments regarding this, however, this office is satisfied that the permitted level of reporting is not unreasonable provided the information is an accurate reflection of the account.[/FONT]
...
[FONT=&quot] The business has advised that deferments are going to be reported with the credit reference agencies as payment holidays and I understand your concerns in respect of this. According to Experian, however, provided these are reported as a ‘u’ in the monthly status report, it should not have a negative impact on credit scores. I hope this mitigates any concerns that you may have in respect of this.[/FONT] (The use of the word SHOULD really does not fill me with much confidence.):mad:
...
The business should also ensure that no adverse information is recorded on your credit file.
...

Apart from Erudio being entirely inept, my main gripe is with reporting our details to CRAs. Like you, I am worried it says the words 'should not' and not 'will not' effect our credit scores.

Considering a black mark on our credit files effects phone contracts, mortgages, opening bank accounts, etc, etc, this is a really serious issue.

And it is not fair that people who are still with SLC or Thesis are not facing this serious situation. They are also not facing these types of threats - and the stress of having these types of threats.

Also, it is not fair that people's contracts were updated in 1998 to protect them from the horrendous clause 16!

I have to ask: will the FOS compensate us if we end up with a black mark on our credit files?

Anyway, I had a similar decision made regarding the CRAs by an adjudicator from the FOS, but I have now asked to take this up with the ombudsman instead. Could you do the same?

On a different note, winning a court case is another way forward. However, the downside is that there are no guarantees. However, at least we have a shot with AReeves. Fingers crossed!

Maybe we could also take this issue up with BIS and the FCA? The more bodies we can get involved with this, hopefully, the more we can persuade people to see things from our point of view.

Cook1e · 24 January 2015 at 10:54AM

Pluthero wrote: »

My FOS complaint has been upheld. Yet it still feels like I lost:(

Here is the outcome:

Had this been done at outset, I am persuaded that a DAF could have been submitted and the deferment could have been processed without any delays.

[FONT=&quot] You now need to consider this offer. [/FONT]

Sounds like the FOS do not have clue what's going on. I filled in a DAF like so many and deferment got delayed due Erudio losing paperwork, emails, creating unexplained arrears added due to their incompetence and poor communication. A measly £75!

anna2007 · 24 January 2015 at 12:54PM

fermi wrote: »

Sadly even that is a bit of a "judge lottery", especially at county court level. I've seen some truly bizarre and biased decisions were it was clear that the judge was determined to find for the creditor come hell or high water, no matter what facts or arguments they were presented with. Then on any case with some consumer impact, even if you win, you are likely or could well get a never ending, possibly very expensive, round of appeals up through the court levels.

Even if Erudio lost at county court level, which is by no means certain, I can't imagine them letting it lie and rolling over. They have given in on some smaller obvious things, but on ones that would torpedo their whole collection strategy such as the DAF, threat of CRAs they can hold over people, perhaps the DD issue, I can't see them just accepting an adverse court decision.

Of course, if you lose, then again subject to appeal you have shot yourself in the foot and given Erudio extra weapon of a court decision to hold over people's heads.

Not saying it's not a good idea to do it, but it can have huge pitfalls of it's own.

But if we lost at court, surely we're in no worse a position than we are currently?

Erudio stand to lose far more if a court decision goes against them. That's good enough reason for me.

And if Erudio wanted to appeal a court decision, wouldn't they have to bear the costs of that? The more it costs Erudio to defend a court claim, the better, as it kind of knackers their DCA business model.

datlex · 24 January 2015 at 12:56PM

I am having a nightmare getting my deferment accepted. They wouldn't accept 3months evidence as proof earn below threshold. These have gross to date for financial year as well as total for the specific week.

I then sent the whole financial year's pay slips up to end Dec (this was when sent these to them) as well as last years p60 again not good enough. Again showing my pay to date. Even put it in a spread sheet format which breaks down normal hours, over time hours, holiday pay and gives total for each week, total over the calendar month, average monthly pay to date and total pay to date as well as expected pay to end of financial year. I now have confirmation of my pay being as stated for weeks 40 to 42 inclusive.

I rang them this am and explained once again I fell below the threshold. Eventually got the guy to agree to relook at all my figures and reassess my deferment application. He seemed to think it would be accepted. However, I am not hold my breath.

Does anyone know if you keep sending additional proof that your income is as stated below the threshold with a reapplication for deferment and they keep rejecting it if a court will accepted that you fall below the income threshold.

Also do they count your gross income as your income for the actual year to date ie 12months from when your deferment is due or the expected financial income for the financial year. Mine are both under but one is under by more than the other.

ERUDIO student loans help

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free