ERUDIO student loans help

ericctheking

NEWS FLASH!

Heard that erudio's remedy of accounts letters that are removing interest added are adding interest for the year that the RPI was negative!!!!
In effect that year when the interest was negative so people had negative interest rates and the balance was reducing, the SLC didn't send out statements as is there statutory duty so they have decided now that people lose that bonus of the negative RPI through the SLC's own fault!
Surely that can't be right.

erudioed

where did you see this?

anna2007

ericctheking wrote: »

NEWS FLASH!

Heard that erudio's remedy of accounts letters that are removing interest added are adding interest for the year that the RPI was negative!!!!
In effect that year when the interest was negative so people had negative interest rates and the balance was reducing, the SLC didn't send out statements as is there statutory duty so they have decided now that people lose that bonus of the negative RPI through the SLC's own fault!
Surely that can't be right.

Complete chancers! Had a quick look at the regulations, which give a definition of RPI Rate as the percentage "increase"... , i.e. not 'decrease' or 'change', so Erudio could be manipulating that? Yet, just below the definition, it states:


"The interest rate for the period between 1st September and the following 31st August will be the daily rate which results in an APR equal to the RPI rate. The lender will tell the borrower what the new rate is each year".


So if the RPI rate's negative, then the APR should be too, and balances should have been reduced accordingly. Completely unfair and seems a blatant breach of the regulations - definitely worth a complaint!

anna2007

@ LuckyEskimo4 - I agree that we have the right to choose whether our loans are disclosed, the fact that the clause was changed in 1998 to comply with the more strict provisions of the revised DPA, does not mean that those provisions don't apply to earlier agreements with the SLC. From what I can see, a fair number of the DP principles have been broken, which means that the principles of the EU Data Protection Directive 94/46/EC, which the UK DP legislation is based on, have also been broken:

Notice - the lender has to give notice, usually done via a privacy notice or FPN, of what personal data will be collected, what it will be used for, who it will be disclosed to, etc. Section 16 of the loan agreement doesn't mention any of this, so isn't enough on its own to comply with the DPA provisions. As the SLC didn't give proper notice, they were in breach of the DP legislation all along - the fact that they revised the clause in 1998 to make it DPA compliant supports this. Erudio have said section 16 gives them the right to disclose our data, but they're well aware that without agreement to a notice/FPN which covers all of the above, they're not complying with the DPA = FAIL

Purpose - data collected should only be used for stated purpose(s) and for no other purposes - the SLC never told us the purpose of collecting our data = FAIL

Consent - personal data should not be disclosed or shared with third parties without consent from its subject(s). The ONLY thing I agreed to when I signed my loan agreements was that the lender MAY disclose my data, SUBJECT TO the Data Protection provisions. This is not the same as giving DPA consent = FAIL

Security: once collected, personal data should be kept safe and secure from potential abuse, theft, or loss. If Erudio passes our data to CRA's, who can then sell that information on to direct marketing companies, they are not keeping our data safe and secure from potential abuse (and is also a breach of section 16 of the loan agreement and the Student Loans Act, which both prohibit info being disclosed if it can be used to solicit custom for goods and services = FAIL

Disclosure: subjects whose personal data is being collected should be informed as to the party or parties collecting such data. Section 16 only refers to disclosure to "any person", no mention of specific parties, such as CRA's = FAIL

My complaints to the FOS and ICO are just about ready to go, and I'm more convinced than ever that Erudio do not have a contractual right to disclose my data, without ensuring they have complied fully with the DPA provisions first... and they (and the SLC before them) clearly haven't!!

In relation to credit searches, I saw this on the Experian website last night -

"Can anyone search my report?
No, searches can only be made with your consent. This is usually given at the time you apply to a lender"

Strangely, I can't access the FAQ's section today, but took a screenshot of the Q&A. The FAQ's are on the right, under 'Help and Advice':

http://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/credit-education/what-is-a-credit-report.html?ictd[master]=vid~228311b7-5c23-4544-aa91-9448a8c5bebe&ictd[il469]=land~2_3156_seo_b457df4176acdb8edb84bf7f2c7095ed~rlt~1406550249

I've had a look through the loan agreement and the student loans legislation, and can't find any reference to the lender being entitled to carry out searches on our credit files? If this is the case, then Erudio aren't entitled to either, unless they get our consent. I've been checking my credit file on Noddle regularly, and Erudio haven't done a search, but I remember others saying on the forums that Erudio had done a credit search. I know the FPN mentions undertaking credit searches to verify our details/information for the deferment application, but I removed the FPN completely from my form, and signed a statement that I didn't agree to the FPN, or to my data being passed to CRA's. If someone left the FPN attached, but only scored through the parts relating to disclosing to CRA's, Erudio might be taking that as sufficient consent to do the credit search? Of course, there might be no rhyme or reason to it, but thought I should mention in case it's significant.

As for recording our loans with the CRA's as "payment holidays", everything I've read on it so far says these are for mortgages, i.e. if the mortgage terms allow for it, a borrower can take a break from payments, and it will be recorded as that on their credit file - and it WILL most likely have a negative affect on a person's credit rating.

We're not taking a break from payments, we're legally not obligated to make any repayments when income's below the threshold. There is nothing in the loan agreement about taking a "payment holiday", so if Erudio try to record my loans with the CRA's in that way (or at all, for that matter), I'll fight them all the way.

anna2007

Someone on the Mumsnet thread mentioned a while back that if the loan agreements weren't signed by the lender, then they're unenforceable. My understanding of that is the agreement can still be enforced if the lender obtains a court order, i.e. can prove to the court that the borrower owes the debt? Then I read this at section 2 of the loan agreement last night:

"This agreement shall be deemed to be made on the date it is signed on our behalf (following signature by you) and will not be binding till then".

Any ideas on whether this changes things, especially with the SLC having sold the loans on? Would it be worth a complaint to the FOS, or even a challenge in the courts? I only ask as I got a copy of my 3 loan agreements along with Erudio's response to my complaint, and 2 of the 3 aren't signed. I'd be willing to raise a separate complaint on this if it had any mileage? Was thinking of including it with a mis-selling complaint against the SLC.

ericctheking

erudioed wrote: »

where did you see this?

It is from the remedy of accounts letters sent to people with the late notice of arrears.
It seems that because the SLC didn't send balance statements out interest can not be charged in that period hence the reduction in the balance for many people.

However with the period where the RPI was a negative and therefore the APR was negative (a few years ago) what has happened is they have cancelled this negative intersest and in a way said during this period interest is void too even if it is negative interest.
Surely this is wrong as people are being penalised for something that isn't there fault during this period as the debt is effectivly growing in real terms?

rizla_king

anna2007 wrote: »

Any ideas on whether this changes things, especially with the SLC having sold the loans on?

I would think not.

To check you could ask somewhere like http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/ as some people and especially the admin there have a lot of experience challenging the enforceability of credit agreements and their terms.

anna2007

neilmck wrote: »

Well I think I've potentially landed myself in the mire, and would really appreciate any advice. My deferment period ended at the end of April. I didn't have three consecutive payslips at the time (couldn't find one of them) so had to wait until June to send off my three slips. I'd spoken to Erudio in the interim, and they told me that they would be able to cancel three month's worth of payments when my deferment was accepted. To ensure all my payments for this year could be cancelled they needed by deferment by yesterday (27th July). Beyond this date they could still remove three months worth of arrears but I would need to meet any additional amount.

Stupidly (very stupidly) I sent off original copies of my payslips (as SLC always insisted on) without a record of posting. I haven't heard anything back from Erudio, so I can only assume my deferment form (and payslips) are sitting in Erudio's mail room or have disappeared into the ether.

Is my only option to wait another couple of months until I again have three consecutive payslips? Could I ask my employer for a letter confirming my salary instead maybe? I know SLC accepted this as proof of earnings in the past. I do have three consecutive payslips from the start of the year - maybe these would work?

On top of that, I received a "remedy of account" letter from Erudio a couple of days ago about recalculation of my arrears. This appears to be a good thing and has resulted in a decent reduction in the total amount I need to repay. I'm wondering if this could also impact on my current predicament - the arrears that Erudio are currently persuing me for (three months because I haven't deferred yet this year) are based on an incorrect total loan value. From what I've read(on MSE) Erudio were aware of this miscalculation when they bought the loans, so they have essentially been asking me to make payments which they knew would be in excess of what I actually owe.

Apologies for the long winded message, and thanks in advance for any advice!

Firstly, Erudio say not to send original documents, as these won't be returned - their guidance on completing the form also state copy wage slips should be sent.

I'm curious to know if Erudio advised you to wait until you had 3 consecutive months' worth of payslips? Your employer should be able to provide copy payslips, and could have done this for the one you were missing back in February (?), when you received your deferment pack. If the reason you waited was because Erudio advised you to, I'd suggest you make a formal complaint to them, because you're now in the position where you'll most likely have to make repayments between the 3 month grace period for backdating, which for you has ended, and however long it takes Erudio to process your deferment. A formal complaint also means that any collection activity must be put on hold while they investigate it.

Try emailing customerservice@erudiostudentloans.co.uk first (you'll have to quote your Erudio customer reference number, but also add your address and D.O.B., as they've refused to reply to people in the past unless they give details to confirm identity), see if you can get confirmation that they have your payslips. If that doesn't work and you can't get copy payslips, a letter from your employer should be ok under the circumstances, this is also mentioned in the guidance.

Re: the 'remedy of account' letter - not sure as I haven't seen one - but I thought the corrections to affected accounts were all done by the SLC before the loans transferred, so the balance at that time should be correct? Did you receive similar from the SLC while they still had your loans? Call me suspicious, but Erudio issuing these arrears letters just sounds like another tactic to scare or confuse customers.

For anyone at the stage of receiving their deferment pack, it's important to get it back to Erudio as quickly as possible - with all of their delaying tactics, you'll likely need those 8 weeks, plus some of the grace period, to get deferment sorted.

Pluthero

anna2007 wrote: »

Someone on the Mumsnet thread mentioned a while back that if the loan agreements weren't signed by the lender, then they're unenforceable. My understanding of that is the agreement can still be enforced if the lender obtains a court order, i.e. can prove to the court that the borrower owes the debt? Then I read this at section 2 of the loan agreement last night:

"This agreement shall be deemed to be made on the date it is signed on our behalf (following signature by you) and will not be binding till then".

Any ideas on whether this changes things, especially with the SLC having sold the loans on? Would it be worth a complaint to the FOS, or even a challenge in the courts? I only ask as I got a copy of my 3 loan agreements along with Erudio's response to my complaint, and 2 of the 3 aren't signed. I'd be willing to raise a separate complaint on this if it had any mileage? Was thinking of including it with a mis-selling complaint against the SLC.

Don't think you would get much joy out of this approach but would love a legal mind's professional opinion. Only 2 of my 3 loans are signed so here's hoping.

In light of Erudios tactics/deferral form antics and general DCA shenanigans I feel that the loans have been mis-sold as we were told at the time they were 'risk free' if we were earning below the threshold and would not affect our credit rating in later life or give poor students a debt burden. Would love it if someone could unearth the literature used at the time.

It nearly 8 weeks from my first complaint to Erudio and no reply about their tardiness in deferring my loan. My FOS complaint is ready to go on the deferment issue. As yet I don't think anyone has been deferred without using Erudio's form?

I am wondering can you also complain to FOS about mis-selling and CRA issues? Is this within their remit?

Many thanks and keep fighting.

ericctheking

anna2007 wrote: »

Re: the 'remedy of account' letter - not sure as I haven't seen one - but I thought the corrections to affected accounts were all done by the SLC before the loans transferred, so the balance at that time should be correct? Did you receive similar from the SLC while they still had your loans? Call me suspicious, but Erudio issuing these arrears letters just sounds like another tactic to scare or confuse customers.

When the loans here transferred a figure was just given then along with the notice of assignment
This is all of it broken down and the stuff that should have been sent at the time.
Even if it is the SLC who did the adjustments I don't see how they can add to the balance for the year of negative APR?