MSE News: Are you an Erudio student loan holder? We want your feedback

daswalkerdas wrote: »

Unwittingly earlier this year I fully filled out Erudios form and was able to defer for another year, this after they stole a months loan repayments from me (and then paid them back)

Since that I have cancelled the DD with them with my bank.

I do hope in doing so I have not changed or unknowingly agreed to change the terms of the original SLC loan.

Me too! Although only two of my 3 loans were sold to Erudio. I never received any information from SLC or Erudio to tell me this.


My first knowledge of Erudio having bought 2 of my loans was when they took 2 payments from me and I received a letter admitting to having taken one (lucky I noticed the shortfall in my bank account for a second month). They only refunded the one payment after promising both, so I had to get the bank to do a Direct Debit Indemnity claimback to get the second refunded. I too have cancelled my direct debit, which stood for years unmolested by the SLC. Erudio also sent me a statement saying they'd charged the wrong interest several times with some unintelligible explanation as to why - Can I now hold them in default? Guess not....


I now have the same concerns as you Daswalkerdas

fermi wrote: »

All correct as far as I can tell.

Erudio's claim that is is a legal and contractual requirement to keep a direct debt in place in deferment seems to be entirely false, and a deliberate attempt by them to misrepresent the legal position on this.

I would also add that Thesis Servicing have never insisted on having a DD in place. Nor SLC for that matter.

Only Erudio seem to be peddling this porky pie.

And the fact that when people complain they back down, is very telling.

My wife applied to Erudio for deferment of her student loan. She declared the following monthly incomes:

£1,856.05 - income from her full time employment
£68.10 - her 50% portion of Child Benefit
£131.83 - Profit from rental income for the financial year to 5th April, 2014 (profit for the year of £1,582 divided by 12 months)

Total - £2,055.98 per month, which is below the deferment threshold of £2,227.25 per month.

As evidence, we provided a copy of her accounts for self employment, and a bank statement showing the Child Benefit payments. However, we have had a response saying that she does not qualify for deferment. We have responded, by outlining the above, and asking for a copy of their reasoning and calculations which brings the amount over the deferment threshold.

I can only assume that they have taken the gross rental income of £375 month in determining the monthly income figure, but from that a commission is paid to the managing agent, interest payments on the mortgage, insurance and other general expenses.

If erudio are taking the top line to be income, rather than bottom line, then a lot of self employed folk are going to be liable to pay back their loans, even though the physical cash may not be there.

Take my example - I am a business partner in a small business with a turnover of about £200,000. Once all the running costs are paid, the profit (which tax is payable on) is about £50,000, £25,000 between the two of us, which, for me is below the deferment threshold. If they apply the same logic as they have done with my wife's self employment income, they will take £100,000 as my income..........

Please correct me if I have got the wrong end of the stick, but I am not looking forward to my fight with them once deferment time comes up!

As an aside, we wrote to them on 3rd November, 2014, and again on 11th November with a 14 day warning, and still have not had a reply, so it will be formal complaint to them tomorrow night.

So is anything happening with the feedback from this thread?

gardenia101 wrote: »

I wonder if Erudio have "lost" all the feedback from MSE :rotfl:

Hahahaha :rotfl:

I love how we can see the humour in this mess. Keep it up everyone x