ERUDIO student loans help

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

This describes a large increase (fivefold in value over one year) in loans 'deferred with arrears', and thus not eligible for the cancellation indemnity, where the govt pays out to the loan note holders the full amount of deferred loans still outstanding after 25 years.

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

So when they bought the loans at a fraction of their actual value, the government underwrote the value of all the ones that will time expire?

Yes, will time expire, rather than should time expire, by Arrow Global creating arrears that don't exist on borrowers' accounts! It would explain Arrow Global's ridiculous demands on deferment and the remediation programme - let's invent arrears on deferred accounts, make life !!!!!! for all of those borrowers until the 25 years are up, then collect on the Government warranties. The SPA warranties and info on the remediation programme are the redacted parts we hope to see via the tribunal appeal - what's the point in continuing to withhold that, when it's now so obvious the borrower's been shafted?

The remaining deferred accounts belong to the borrowers who stuck to the t&c's, this is the thanks we get for being daft enough to abide by the Government's rules over 20+ years.

I received a reply from Erudio today, took them twelve days.

Anyway, to recap I sent them the following as my most recent correspondence:

Dear Sir/Madam,

You state that you received my completed forms on the 19/10/2015. However, my email records show, that you were sent the documents prior to that date, the actual dates being the 1st October at 12.10pm (UK time) and repeated on the 14th October at 12.49pm (UK time). I sent you no further documents after this last date so to have deferred me, which you did, you must have acted on, at the very least, those sent on the 14th October.


That being the case, and if we take 8:00pm as the end of your office hours, as stated on your website for these days, then I submitted my completed documents to you within the three month deadline.

I elaborate below:

14/7/15 = original deferment deadline

15/7/15 to 14/8/15 = 1st month

15/8/15 to 14/9/15 = 2nd month

15/9/15 to 14/10/15 = 3rd month

This then begs the question of why your chasing me for the amount of £82.92 when I have not skipped on any month and, therefore, everything should be annulled.

Just to cap this off, I have actually found an email from yourselves dated the 15th October, 2015 at 13:21(UK time) that states you have passed my documents to the deferment team.

This means I have fulfilled my obligation to yourselves in the time limit allowed!

I would very much like to hear what you have to say about my interpretation of the situation.

Your sincerely,

So, as mentioned, I received this reply a short time ago:

Thank you for your recent email regarding your Erudio Student Loans.

We have reviewed your account and we can confirm we processed your completed Deferment Application Form on 19/10/2015. As your scheduled payment date is the 15th of each month, Octobers payment was missed and therefore added to your balance as arrears, along with the unpaid months from July, August and September. When your deferment application was accepted on 19/10/2015, due to our roll back policy, your deferment was rolled back 3 months, and the arrears that accrued within the 3 months following the end of your deferment period on 14 July 2015 were subsequently removed. This left a 1 month gap in your deferment history from your deferment ending on 14/07/2015 and your new deferment commencing on 15/08/2015.

However given the handling time from your email received, and our completing the process on 19 October 2015, we are prepared to remove the accrued arrears from October 2015, which will bring your account up to date.

We would advise that the 3 month rollback process is not an extension of the 12 month deferment period and is a grace period to allow applicants to collate and return all the required evidence in applications that may require communications between third parties such as HRMC, in the cases of self employed applicants, or Benefits Agencies, who supply the appropriate benefit letters.

We would suggest that any future applications are submitted prior to the end of your deferment period to avoid any arrears accruing on your account in the future and any subsequent action which may follow.

If you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards.

I can only presume that where I have highlighted in red and they say, 'which will bring your account up to date', they mean that everything is now annulled, zero, back to square one?

A victory but I have a good mind to write back and give them a piece of my mind since it was all their fault this got stretched out and the implication being that it was my fault.

Tom.

Write to them to tell that you're please a new company has taken over your loans, as erudio were a bunch of criminals who ignored your *right* to defer without hoop jumping.

Ask that all communication is done via letters and that you'd like them to send you the appropriate forms so that you can exercise your legal and contractual right to defer.

If you are having trouble understanding your arrears with Erudio, and in the likely event they are unable to help, the FOS seem willing to lend a helping hand:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=130917

In this case they awarded Ms B £350 compensation, and asked that they provide a proper breakdown of how they are calculated their arrears. There was also a separate row between FOS and Erudio, with Erudio claiming they accepted the previous adjudicators decision. But Erudio were unable to produce any evidence that they did.

I don't like the FOS publishing decisions such as this where a lot of detail seems to be missing (factual background, adjudicators decision etc) as the final report directs the reader to the provisional decision for such information. I've sent the FOS an email about this.

It certainly does seems that the FOS are standing behind the borrower as of late.

Here is another decision. The FOS have made clear that Erudio cannot dictate what evidence is needed in terms of deferment. It goes back to the 1998 Regulations where nothing was specified other than for the borrower to 'show' that their income was below their threshold.

Erudio claiming the evidence they demanded for deferment was part of the terms and conditions the borrower agreed to is clearly false.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=133588