ERUDIO student loans help

fermi · 2 February 2015 at 7:47PM

May also have been some conditions regarding that in the loan sale agreement between them and BIS.

Jonez · 2 February 2015 at 9:25PM

"I assume going bull at a gate at people with arrears would make the BIS look bad so they'll hold off for a while?"

"May also have been some conditions regarding that in the loan sale agreement between them and BIS."

I think it's neither - I think that the whole thing is being run on such a chaotic basis that they (Erudio) have simply given Capita an outline of what they think they are entitled to do and simply left them to cobble together a set of rules as they go along. What other explanation is there for a poster on here being told that they cannot defer in the final 2 years of the 25 year period and will have to arrange a re-payment schedule?

Pluthero · 2 February 2015 at 9:44PM

anna2007 wrote: »

My understanding of the Regs is that Erudio can demand payment in full immediately, at any time when there are arrears on the account, wording from the Regs:

"15. If the borrower does not make a repayment under the agreement when it is due, the lender may ask him to repay the loan in full immediately. The lender may do this even if the borrower’s obligation to make other repayments is currently deferred".

I'm surprised they haven't tried it already, even where the arrears have been invented by Erudio. Maybe there's something in the sale and purchase agreement preventing them from doing it until closer to the loan write off?

Going by Erudio's form it is very strange they have not tried to ask for the full amount for all those in arrears! I am technically in arrears of over £1000 and they have sent many lovely letters telling me to pay up, installments if I like! Yet they do have the power to call in the full amount but have not done so?

I think to do that they would have to PROVE I have not met the loan terms with my bespoke letter and evidence and not using their DAF. Opens up a legal argument I am sure they would not win:) Nothing would surprise me with these DCA SCUM though.

Cheeky F*cks answered my 'credit search' complaint saying they are looking at it but BTW you know you are in arrears and please call us to arrange payment! And this is after they told me they are waiting on the outcome of the my FOS complaints over the DAF! One hand does not know what the other is doing....

I will be using the old SLC form and cover letter on my next deferment. Erudio/Arrow Global have no more rights than the original creditor and so are legally bound to accept the same deferment evidence. And they can send as many threatening letters as they please!

Don't stop fighting these SCUM. And question everything they tell you!!!

(Just seen Anthonys post re court case: Looks like the stars are aligned.)

erudioed · 2 February 2015 at 9:50PM

They said: "we will no longer require customers to provide additional consent for listing with credit reference agencies."

To me that again owns this middle ground many of their statements seem to take pride in holding. But think about it a little more and it is pretty opaque. Does it mean they wont report loans to CRAs, or does it mean, as i suspect they do until they clarify, that they think they can report the loans in deferment to CRAs and get away with it, so basically dont need to ask for consent.

Sounds good Anthony and moving forward on it, it seems Erudio dont want to go to court.

Pluthero · 2 February 2015 at 9:56PM

AReeves wrote: »

They have granted deferment in the case where there is a court hearing set for 6 March 2015. They have invited my client to discontinue but we will not do so. The reasons:

1. They need to present their proposed new DAF so that we can be sure it will not continue the unfair relationship, otherwise we could be in the same position next time.
2. They need to pay my client's costs

There has talk on their website of presenting a new DAF which supposedly will not require consent to the passing of information to CRA's and will not require the completion of DD details. I will invite them to produce the the new form ahead of the hearing on 6 March. If that form goes beyond what is required under the Regulations, then I will ask for a declaration from the court that there is still an unfair relationship.

Hopefully, this provides us with an opportunity to view the form and if they have not made the necessary changes then we can ask the court to rule.

Anthony Reeves
Lawyer

Great news Anthony. Thanks again for all your sterling efforts in tackling these cowboys.

Just a question on the CRA consent. I am confused by the proposed wording on the new DAF ?

Are Erudio dropping asking for consent because they THINK they already have it under the original loan terms?

Or is it being dropped because it is an attempt to ADD/AMEND the original loan terms and so is UNFAIR under the CCA?

Or are they dropping the CRA reporting threat altogether as it opens up a legal miss selling argument/is not in line with the original loan terms?

Lungboy · 3 February 2015 at 8:51AM

I don't think anyone knows the answer to that yet.

zombi · 3 February 2015 at 9:56AM

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

No help and no real interest in dealing with the actual problem.

Well, after waiting for an hour past the allotted time - no phonecall. *sigh* :wall:

BorderReiver14 · 3 February 2015 at 10:03AM

erudioed wrote: »

They said: "we will no longer require customers to provide additional consent for listing with credit reference agencies."

To me that again owns this middle ground many of their statements seem to take pride in holding. But think about it a little more and it is pretty opaque. Does it mean they wont report loans to CRAs, or does it mean, as i suspect they do until they clarify, that they think they can report the loans in deferment to CRAs and get away with it, so basically dont need to ask for consent.

I suspect that the recent spate in FOS rulings may have given them some confidence in that they can report pre98 loans and will handle with care those who have post 98 loans. Although Anthony has argued that the clauses in the agreements for the pre98 are still vague I think ESL feel confident they can go ahead in the future when the dust settles.

What is interesting is that they say 'we will no longer require additional consent' so it should clearly show to impartial observers that know very little about this saga that they are owning up to pushing boundaries and testing limits which must have caught out many 1000's of borrowers.

Keep up the fight!

Pluthero · 3 February 2015 at 10:23AM

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

I suspect that the recent spate in FOS rulings may have given them some confidence in that they can report pre98 loans and will handle with care those who have post 98 loans. Although Anthony has argued that the clauses in the agreements for the pre98 are still vague I think ESL feel confident they can go ahead in the future when the dust settles.

What is interesting is that they say 'we will no longer require additional consent' so it should clearly show to impartial observers that know very little about this saga that they are owning up to pushing boundaries and testing limits which must have caught out many 1000's of borrowers.

Keep up the fight!

If you used the DAF to defer have you signed up to any extra terms that were not in the original loan agreement?

And if there are new terms can you then claim you were coerced into agreeing to them because erudio point blank refused deferment unless you used their DAF?

Only asking because erudio were very keen to get people to sign even if they did not fill in any details bar their name and address?

BorderReiver14 · 3 February 2015 at 10:54AM

Pluthero wrote: »

If you used the DAF to defer have you signed up to any extra terms that were not in the original loan agreement?

And if there are new terms can you then claim you were coerced into agreeing to them because erudio point blank refused deferment unless you used their DAF?

Only asking because erudio were very keen to get people to sign even if they did not fill in any details bar their name and address?

I suspect that is 100% the case. We know that we are the few who are alert to Erudio but there must be 90% plus of borrowers who just filled in the form as they would have done in the past not thinking that just by submitting a DAF they were giving their consent. Lets face it, we have seen on here many people who have got in to a right state over ESL bullying tactics and there must be countless others we are not aware of. Would ESL be hoping that if it went to court (where a person had used a DAF) the judge would argue that the borrower should have read the whole DAF before agreeing to use it?
For me personally, my whole point (and it was pointed out by others long ago) is that there is nothing in the legislation or loan agreements to say we have to use a DAF to get a deferment. My original complaint included a request from ESL (and FOS) to explain the legislation that says I must use a form. I have not heard back on that score despite saying I would not move forward with this until they do because their letters just say that until I sign and date a DAF they will not grant deferment despite me pointing out that I have met the conditions by supplying my wage slips etc.
It may take alot more time before this explodes and we bring Erudio down but I would like to think that those who used a DAF and then take court action, will get a ruling in their favour that they were given little choice because they were fearful of the threats of arrears.

ERUDIO student loans help

Comments

Categories

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