ERUDIO student loans help

ElwoodBlues

anna2007 wrote: »

It's all down to interpretation of the two clauses. The later one's very specific - they'll report to CRA's if in default. The earlier clause says they may disclose data to any person if they feel like it - that flies in the face of the DPA requirements.

I'm not fighting Erudio about the CRA issue for fun, or because I'm p'd off at their threats to report to CRA's (although that's partly it), it's because I believe the clause in the loan agreement isn't enough to comply with the DPA. I wouldn't waste my time if I thought there was no chance of winning that fight.

When people on the forums say Erudio already has the right, like it's a matter of fact, it could put others off challenging it. It's not fact, until we start getting some feedback on FOS/ICO complaints, we don't know for sure.

I agree with your principle, I was just pointing out the differences in the t&c between years. As things stand the clauses in Erudio's deferment form are more significant for post 97 loans.

At the end of the day we all agreed to those t&c when we signed up for the loans (young and naive as most of us were). Even if they don't meet current DPA rules, I think you've got a mountain to climb to try and prove that, and then to prove passing the data to CRAs is unreasonable. Until (and if) you win, Erudio does (in it's own eyes) have that right. By the time you've got a win, the horse will have already bolted and the damage will be done.

Sorry if that sounds negative, but Erudio are clearly hard nosed, heavy handed debt collectors.

I could have got through uni without these loans, and if I knew we'd be in this pickle with them now, I probably wouldn't have taken them out. Does the fact that we were told 'they'll never appear on your credit file' and 'they won't affect getting a mortgage', make a strong enough case for mis selling?

ElwoodBlues

erudioed wrote: »

Yep Anna, i couldnt make head nor tail of its double speak, that is the document i was hoping someone would decode a while back.

I've just had a look at that, not the easiest read! I think the idea behind it is that it allows DCAs (and others), to share information more easily, and in more depth than the CRA's currently do/are allowed to. I suspect that having Experian's backing (as a licensed CRA), gets Arrow and others privileges that they otherwise wouldn't. It also allows for DCAs to combine debts and collect them in one go. "Ah, we're already collecting/attempting to collect a student loan repayment from Mr Dirty Debtor, we can do a better job of collecting that other debt that they owe." Ultimately it's all about money, and data is money these days.

It also mentions about customer consent and reading a bit more about fair obtaining clauses, I can see where Anna2007 is coming from. I guess it depends what a fair obtaining clause looked like in the mid 1990's.

All this ties in with Erudio trying to force the new clauses (which are exactly and solely in relation to getting the fair obtaining consent). I guess on that basis there is quite a strong argument that the old ones are too vague for purpose (and Erudio clearly know it).

I think Erudio has/is using the argument that 'we aren't changing the t&c of the loans, these new terms are just related to the deferment application'. I can't see how that can be a fair and reasonable way of doing things though, they are in reality new terms to the original credit agreements.

Mitch_Sorenstein

Jesus, what a state of affairs.


OK please allow me to bore you with my story for a few minutes as I'm extremely distressed about the whole situation.


My partner has 3 student loans to the total value of £7000. I knew they'd been sold to Erudio as they wrote to her in March but thinking it would be business as usual, I filed it away, thinking nothing more of it until her deferment pack arrived. It was sent to us dated 15th July. We were on holiday when it arrived. When we got back and opened it I was quite horrified by all the bumf that came with it so looked online and opened this whole unpleasant can of worms regarding these shysters.


So our situation is this: My partner is the main provider on a modest income, I am a stay at home Dad raising our 3 children. We get by on a tight budget like most people. Our total monthly income including tax credits, housing benefit and child benefit is just over the threshold, as it has been for the last 3 years. Every year up to now SLC have deferred the loans. Naturally I always assumed that they did not consider our benefit as income but it transpires that this may well have been discretionally overlooked by SLC. Something which I highly doubt Erudio will be prepared to do. Now we've been through hell and back the last 10 years or so. We got into a horrible situation of spiralling debts and my partner was made bankrupt in 2006. It's something we are both deeply ashamed of but we have worked extremely hard and disciplined ourselves since then and we are now in a situation where we are living within our means (only just but nonetheless we're making ends meet and trying our damnedest to live responsibly). My partner now has a decent credit rating which is improving all the time. This despite 2014 being an unbelievably difficult year. She was made redundant in March after 10 years with her employer and we've just come through a really difficult and stressful battle to recover the redundancy money owed to her. Naturally whilst she was out of work, with outstanding wages and a large lump sum owing to us, times were extremely tough but we've come through it with not too much outstanding debt and she is now happy in alternative full time employment. Though you can imagine having gone through all of this how despondent and angry I am to find this unscrupulous set of quims trying it on and pushing the boundaries. I've actually had dealings with Arrow Global before so when I found out they were the parent company of Erudio I felt sick to the core.


The point is this: after all of the horror stories I've been reading on here I don't really know what to do. I've spoken to National Debtline, who have helped me brilliantly down the years and they said that if Erudio won't defer, we should declare our income and expenditure and make them a token offer and set up a standing order, NOT A DIRECT DEBIT. However I'm naturally concerned about any negative impacts on our hard earned new credit status. National Debtline also sent me their guidance notes regarding Erudio and SLC which states that "The Government confirms that all terms, conditions, policies and practices will remain the same. Therefore benefits that were not counted before, should not be counted now." Surely this invalidates any claims by Erudio that they are simply applying terms that SLC had the power to apply at any time?


I've already raised the situation and set up a case with the Ombudsmen in anticipation of Erudio playing dirty.


To me the whole thing stinks. I feel like I'm being punished for something that I've played absolutely no part in. I didn't even know my partner when she took these damn loans out. How can they demand a portion of money that comes to me and is meant to support my children? I'm sure when my partner took out these loans twenty years ago, she probably imagined she'd earn a decent whack somewhere and paying them off wouldn't be a problem. I doubt at the time she thought that she might be the sole provider for a family of five, on a modest income, living in such expensive times.


I know what these jokers are like and unsurprisingly they've started being arsey right from the off. When I returned to find the abomination on our doormat, my partner phoned Erudio with some questions. They were really unpleasant with her. They said that she needed to hurry up and that she would have to get her application for deferment sent back in record time if we were to get it deferred before the expiry which is not until 9th September. They said that it should have been in months ago! When my partner explained that it was dated 15th July and that we had been away from the 19th to 29th when it must have arrived, they were having none of it. "NO, no, no, you must have received it before then" my partner was told, even though we had the thing right in front of us with the date on. So much for the "we're here to help" claims made on their website.


So what should I do? I'm really unhappy about the amount of information that they are requesting, which I don't believe they are entitled to and according to National Debtline's guidance notes "there is nothing specific in SLC's terms that refers to what should be included as income". I'm so p****d off, the loans are only a few years from being permanently written off. If we have to start making payments now it will financially cripple us. Even if we can agree to reduced payments it will take many years to pay off and affect our credit rating just as we're finally starting to stand on our own two feet again.

Sarebear78

Sorry you have had such a stressful year and now Erudio are adding to the fun

If you are only a few years from getting them written off then I would be very careful about making sure that you don't get into any arrears, as they might clim that OU are in breach of the contract and demand it all back.

Is there any way that you can put the child benefit in your name to reduce your partners income? (If you haven't done so already). If you are close to the limit then this might be enough to get you under - then you could apply for deferral in three months time and get you another step closer to them being written off. (I don't believe Child benefit is income, but that is a different point!)

I know it might not help but if you manage to get deferral then remember they can backdate it three months, which might help.

Good luck - sounds like you have got through some tough times, these losers shouldn't be the ones to break you - stay strong x

Lungboy

I'd love to see an official government document stating that SLCs "policies and practises" will remain the same, as surely that would help any case to be made against Erudio.

skippers76

I hope you don't mind me adding another question to this huge post about Erudio.

If they have bought £900m worth of debt for £160m, with my bad maths that's about 17%. Would there be a loophole for me to pay back the same portion of the last chunk of my debt and have the rest wiped?

ericctheking

skippers76 wrote: »

I hope you don't mind me adding another question to this huge post about Erudio.

If they have bought £900m worth of debt for £160m, with my bad maths that's about 17%. Would there be a loophole for me to pay back the same portion of the last chunk of my debt and have the rest wiped?

There is no loophole regarding this.

But..........................the loans were miss-sold, because you were a minor when they were promoted to you and the only way they could be sold like that is without a view to financial game yet that is what erudio is after!
So you don't owe anything really.
I don't know way everybody with the erudio problem doesn't just band together and tell them where to get off? after all there is power in numbers!

Pluthero

Lungboy wrote: »

I'd love to see an official government document stating that SLCs "policies and practises" will remain the same, as surely that would help any case to be made against Erudio.

From the No2erudio website. From the PAC on Student loan sell off:

Mr Bacon:
Okay. Fine, I am just checking. So if you were then to sell the book, what freedom would somebody buying the book have? That is not you the Government as the person who is owed the money, but the person who now owns the book, it having been purchased by them? What freedom would they have to alter the terms and conditions after they had bought the book? Would they have any freedom at all?
Martin Donnelly:
The plan would be to sell tranches of the loans and the terms — this is an issue that we need to be clear about as we go through the preparatory process — would be set. So the point about the people buying the loans is that they would not have a say in what those terms were. But the question of what we have to say about what we would be prepared to commit to do or not to do is one of the issues that is in the value-for-money calculation we have to make.
Mr Bacon:
Yes, I understand that. But the moment you sell a particular tranche of debt, the terms and conditions upon which it is sold are set in stone. They are crystallised and the buyer of that debt buys them on those terms and that is it; they cannot change them. Correct?
Martin Donnelly:
We have to be clear about what those terms are, yes.
Mr Bacon:
Sorry, am I correct in what I just said? You were shaking and nodding, and that does not get recorded in the transcript. Can we just be clear that the person buying the debt buys it on set terms and conditions that cannot subsequently be changed by the new owner of the debt? Is that correct?
Martin Donnelly:
Yes.
Mr Bacon:
Okay. Thank you

Dunno if this would stand up in court but Erudio cannot change any terms. And if for 20 years DLA/CB etc were not part of the threshold equation then surely a precedent has been set?

And do Erudio REALLY want to go to court? Surely they will get more mileage/money out of their present tactics? If someone gets the better of them in court then its game over because it will be on every internet forum/site/twitter/fbook page that they are chancers with links to the ruling?

Thoughts?

Mitch_Sorenstein

Unsurprisingly after 20 years, various moves etc my partner does not have a copy of her original terms and conditions. She called SLC to request a copy and they referred her back to Erudio. Erudio told me today that an application for the original T & C's has been lodged and will be sent in due course. Will be interesting to see if and when they show up and whether or not I have to hound them for a copy.

Sarebear78

Mitch_Sorenstein wrote: »

Unsurprisingly after 20 years, various moves etc my partner does not have a copy of her original terms and conditions. She called SLC to request a copy and they referred her back to Erudio. Erudio told me today that an application for the original T & C's has been lodged and will be sent in due course. Will be interesting to see if and when they show up and whether or not I have to hound them for a copy.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't hold your breath - I sent a request for a copy of my original credit agreements in April and have had no reply to that (or my complaint, or my SAR.......).