ERUDIO student loans help

neilmck

anna2007 wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the reply Anna. You're absolutely right - Erudio say you should only send duplicate wage slips (whereas SLC would only accept original copies I believe) but I must have misread that part.

As for the three consecutive payslips, yes I was told that by Erudio and it also says the same thing on their paperwork. To be honest it hadn't occured to me to ask for a duplicate from my employer, so I'll give that a try.

About the remedy of account letters, these have only been sent since the loans were transferred to Erudio and I didn't receive anything from SLC. Erudio's FAQs confirm that they were aware of the issue at the time they bought the loans and this was factored into the price. Seems strange to me that they issued bills for repayments and arrears despite knowing that the total loan amount, and in turn the repayments due, were quite possibly higher than the should have been. As it stands, I haven't been sent any demand for payment based on the newly calculated correct loan balance. Surely there's an issue there - Erudio were knowingly sending out bills which were higher than they should be, unbeknownst to their customers.

Princess_Jane

Quick update - deferment form sent recorded delivery 16/7 with all the bits I didn't like crossed out, plus three month's payslips, plus a copy of the very helpful letter posted on here by someone.

No reply.

Chased up by email.

Email response asking for address and DOB.

Still no reply.

So much for their promise it would take "three to four working days once my pack is received".

Pluthero

Hello all

Need a bit of guidance. I am doing my FOS complaint as its nearly 8 weeks from my first Erudio complaint (no reply from them yet, I think they are rather busy with complaints and I do not expect them to defer me as I ain't used their form.)

In essence I need to know am I right in saying:

I am not using their application form because they want to change the original agreement and let my loans be registered with CRA's. They will say it will be on 'payment holiday' with CRA's which I understand WILL affect by credit rating adversely. If they continue to refuse deferment my loans will go into default and they will register them with CRA's and adversely affect my credit rating. So I really have no choice and this cannot be right/legal?

I also understand that some people have been deferred by using their application form but blacking out/writing I do no consent over the parts they disagree with. Essentially I have done the same using a slightly different method: my cover letter. So why am I being treated unfairly?

I am also putting in a bit about them being unfit for purpose. I mean they are a DCA in charge of a deferment process (a process that ain't running smoothly judging by the 1000's of forum posts) which if people defer successfully Erudio LOSE money. How the hell can that be right?

Any thoughts/advice welcome. Also has anyone got a reply from the FOS upholding their concerns?

Thanks

Brooker_Dave

Even their logo is sinister, a big pair of eyes watching everything...

ericctheking

Pluthero wrote: »

I am also putting in a bit about them being unfit for purpose. I mean they are a DCA in charge of a deferment process (a process that ain't running smoothly judging by the 1000's of forum posts) which if people defer successfully Erudio LOSE money. How the hell can that be right?

Any thoughts/advice welcome. Also has anyone got a reply from the FOS upholding their concerns?

Well I can see a number of issues;

First; With Erudio in charge of deferment they have an incentive to lose paper work etc.
This could come under an "unfair contract"? How can the deferment process not even be regulated!!

Secondly; Miss-selling, someone really needs to dig up the literature from back in the day. If that fails there are plenty of witnesses to the claims made when these loans where sold about not worrying, it won't effect getting a mortgage, deferment etc, In a previous post someone even quoted someone speaking in Parliament so that can be used as evidence.

anna2007

ericctheking wrote: »

Miss-selling, someone really needs to dig up the literature from back in the day. If that fails there are plenty of witnesses to the claims made when these loans where sold about not worrying, it won't effect getting a mortgage, deferment etc, In a previous post someone even quoted someone speaking in Parliament so that can be used as evidence.

I've just submitted a FOI request to the SLC via Whatdotheyknow:


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_on_mortgage_style_st/new


I've sent separate ones by email to both the BIS and SAAS (I'm in Scotland), so perhaps between the three, we'll get something back.


I posted a link previously to a Commons debate on the SLC back in 1990, not sure if this is the same one, but it mentions the 'information leaflets' being sent to prospective students, it's near the bottom of this page:


http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1990/apr/04/loans-for-students-1


There's also something on how the SLC would be subject to the DPA provisions, in the same way as any commercial organisation, but can't find it in the above link, must have been another debate - will have a look and post it up later.


Edit - I think this is it:


http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1990/feb/15/the-student-loans-company

ericctheking

anna2007 wrote: »

There's also something on how the SLC would be subject to the DPA provisions, in the same way as any commercial organisation, but can't find it in the above link, must have been another debate - will have a look and post it up later.


Edit - I think this is it:


http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1990/feb/15/the-student-loans-company

Very interesting reading as for the loans to be compliant with the consumer credit act information can not be circulated to under 18's with a view to financial gain.

Quotes from the link anna2007 posted;
"
The Government always intended that students under 18 should be eligible for loans. We also intended that the scheme should satisfy the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 50 of that Act prohibits the sending of documents to minors with a view to financial gain, inviting them to borrow money or to apply for information or to get advice on borrowing money. That section is untested. The words are lucid, but the application is unclear. The crucial words in the amendment are with a view to financial gain".

"The common-sense view, which I know hon. Members and the other place will take, is that the Student Loans Company Ltd. could not be construed as operating with a view to financial gain from loans."


Therefore, if to comply with the CCA the SLC could not operate with a view to financial gain then surely the sale of loans must be illegal to a private enterprise which has a view to a financial gain (ie. arrow/carval/erudio etc.)

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

I'm sure the FOS would consider a student loan mis-selling complaint, as they deal with PPI complaints, and I'm assuming that a formal complaint would have to made first to the SLC - unless there's a shortcut we can take? I haven't looked into it properly yet, so will post here if I can find out more

Check with the FOS, as if I recall correctly their jurisdiction would not cover the actual selling of loans that were sold that long ago.

FOS covers the conduct regulated of lenders after the ombudsman gained jurisdiction (2007? maybe), so anything they do now or in the recent past, but not anything they did before they came under the ombudsman scheme.

(NB. FOS didn't even exist when most of the loans were taken out)

ericctheking

fermi wrote: »

(NB. FOS didn't even exist when most of the loans were taken out)

So when a loan sold without a view to a financial gain to comply with the CCA is then sold to a profit making organisation does the miss-selling happen at the time (when minors were given information about the loans) or from the time of the debt sale?

Who should the complaints be directed at if the miss-selling occurred so long ago, or does someone need to go to court?

fermi

The FOS is there as an alternative dispute resolution path so that court is unnecessary in most cases that fall under their remit.

If it's not something the FOS can deal with then yes court may well be the only option.

If you are referring to that the terms of the loans were misrepresented when they were taken out then I imagine that would fall outside any jurisdiction.

However, you could maybe couch it in terms that you are now being treated unfairly compared to the reasonable expectations you had when they were taken out, which may shift the window on that forward.

As said, you would need to check with some of the more technical/legal minded FOS staff or other advisors who are well acquainted with the law there.