ERUDIO student loans help

abababababab wrote: »

Also, I have just realised that foolishly I had not realised I have now passed the date stated for deferment (9th Jan) I had been waiting to do this until I had completed my tax return. Does anybody know if I have shot myself in the foot or whether I can still defer? I am self employed and made a loss last year. I do not know whether it is advisable to send Erudio the final summary page of my tax return as evidence? Furthemore, re my last and most recent post, re criteria for loans being 'written off' could my missing the deferment deadline, jeopardise my right to having my loan 'written off'

From my personal experience, and from what I have seen online from others, Erudio don't play very nicely.

Hence, I would get something sent in straight away - either with a signed DAF (you can cross out the bits you don't agree to), or don't send Erudio's DAF at all. You can send everything they ask for in email form.

Please note that Erudio will not process your application if you don't send in their signed DAF (unless you have the written legal expertise to get past their customer services team - someone correct me if this has now changed though).

If you have a tax return for 2014, I would send a copy of that instead of 2015. If you don't have one for 2014, I would recommend sending in proof of income as per their rules. From my experience, it will take them weeks to sort out your 'evidence of income', by which time, you would have done your tax return for 2015 anyway. You can then send a copy of that, and they will then defer you (that's my experience anyway).

They will try to take money out of your bank account without any prior warning. So I would recommend keeping an eye on your account, and to ring your bank to reverse any incorrect debits.

I don't know what the rules are about putting in a late DAF. You will need to check their rules as to how they handle it.

I hope the above is correct, someone please correct me on anything that has changed/is incorrect above.

As for when the loans are written off, it remains the same as when they were still held with SLC. Hence, it's so many years after the original loan was taken, or if you reach a certain age (mine is 50). I am sure someone will be along soon who have more specific details in response to this.

AReeves wrote: »

The issue seems to be whether clause 16 gives the right to pass data to CRA’s. The pre 1998 agreement was before the Data Protection Act 1998 came into force. The DPA came into effect in 2000. Certain data continued to be exempt from full compliance until 24 October 2007. The exemption given to eligible data covered the first data protection principle.

However, the exemptions in the the transitional provisions have now ended and all data being processed must comply with the principles contained in the 1998 Act.

The first data protection principle says:

“Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless—

(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and

(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.”

The conditions in Schedule 2 are

1.The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

2. The processing is necessary—

(a)for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b)for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3. The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

4.The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.

5.The processing is necessary—

(a)for the administration of justice,

6(1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied.


So are any of the conditions in Schedule 2 met? In my opinion they are not.

The one which is banded about is that Clause 16 gave consent. However, what does consent mean? The place to start is the Directive which the 1998 Act implemented. The Directive is, “DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 24 October 1995", on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. If you look at the definitions in Article 2, it states, “(h) “the data subject's consent” shall mean any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed.”

I have underline the words “specific” and “informed” as I think this is the key.

The wording of Clause 16 says:

“The Loans Act prohibits us from disclosing information about you to anyone else for use for soliciting custom for goods or services. The Data Protection Act 1984 also contains protections in relation to the disclosure of automatically processed information about you. Subject to these prohibitions and protections, and and any other relevant statutory provisions, we may however, if we judge appropriate, disclose to any person any information concerning or relating to this agreement.”

I submit that the last sentence emphasized in bold is hardly “specific” and as it does not indicate to whom the data may be given, it is hardly “informed” consent. The fact that the Post 1998 agreement at clause 12 states when confidential information may be passed, in my view acknowledges the requirements of the 1998 Act to be more specific.

So, I have argued that it would not satisfy condition 1. What about the other conditions? I don’t think they can argue that it is necessary for data to be passed to CRA’s to perform the contract (ie consider a deferment) because a credit file will not provided income information. The third condition is not fulfilled, ie there is no legal obligation to pass data to CRA’s. As to Condition 4, I fail to see what “vital interests” require the passing of information to CRA’s. Condition 6(1) would not apply because it would prejudice the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject (the borrower).

So in summary, in my opinion I would argue that the passing of data to CRA’s would not be a fair and lawful processing of data because non of the conditions in Schedule 2 are met.
I am not an expert in the field of data protection law, but this is the conclusion I have come to from looking at the legislation.

Anthony Reeves

Thank you very much for taking the time to address this issue from a legal viewpoint. That really does make sense.

I will certainly get in contact with the adjudicator at the FOS with your legal arguments, and ask this person if they could reassess their decision.

I will let everyone know how I get on, of course.

And I can't thank you enough for your kind help AReeves

They are trying to falsely rely on the 3 month rule in the agreement terms in part 6 here

http://www.slc.co.uk/media/758487/post_98_ms_credit_agreement.pdf



Obviously if your deferment has taken longer than that due to Erudio's fault, then then they cannot rely on that clause.

Moved from my own post....
Hi everyone, just wanted to share my experiences of my upheld Erudio complaint.

I applied to defer as normal last year and sent my payslips and form back as required. I received a letter stating I would begin repaying and the terms and amounts. I contacted them and they claimed not to have received my info so I sent it again via email. I then received another email saying they couldn't read the dates on one of my payslips so I again, sent this as an electronic copy.

I then received another email asking for my security details but I didn't reply as I assumed after all the correspondence they would know who I was.

Fast forward to October and I get a letter stating my deferment has been approved but I am 3 months in arrears! I call the number and the service agent tried to get me to pay the whole amount. I try to speak to a supervisor and got nowhere then he says my deferment might not be safe if I don't pay something, I was worried as I just can't afford to pay my loan back yet so stupidly I paid a months arrears with my debit card and agreed 2 more payments.

After coming on here and reading through the forums I was so angry, I complained to Erudio and to the Financial Ombudsman. I recieved to letters from Erudio stating the arrears again and asking me to pay what I had agreed.

Erudio aknowledged my complaint before christmas and I have also had a further 2 letters to say they are still investigating but I will have a decision before the 8 weeks expires for the Financial Ombudsman.

Today I recieved a letter and they have uphold my complaint - all arrears, even the ones I didn't know about that have since been discovered (another 3 months worth) have been scrapped and I am getting my debit card payment refunded.

Just wanted to share this as I know how many peolpe are in dispute! I 've never had any issues with the SLC, dreading next April already incase I have to go through all the hassle again!

Good luck to everyone.

x