ERUDIO student loans help

Lungboy

Are debts enforceable without the original contract as proof?

Pluthero

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.

I have a copy. PM me and I'll mail it too you. Also you might want to read a few posts on the CAG (consumer action group) forum. Few mods there take a more strident view of how to deal with Erudio! Don't let them drain away the fight in you!

anna2007

@ Mitch Sorenstein - There were also copy agreements posted up on MSE here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4945901

@ Sarebear78 - I emailed the FCA, copied in Erudio Customer Services, to let them know Erudio were well over the 12 day time limit - received the copy agreements 5 days later.

FCA did say they couldn't get involved in an individual case but they would monitor the situation - seems to be what regulators do best, but it's probably worth letting them know.

FWIW, it was such a bad copy of the originals that I couldn't read most of it, looked more Arabic than English. Erudio also supplied template agreements, none of them even matched the numbered clauses on the original agreements, never mind what's written!

ericctheking

By the way,

What are these anti fraud agencies Erudio talk about (the police?)
ie. if someone supplies false information etc.

Anyway, why don't people report Erudio to these anti fraud agencies? As they are trying to gain money by deception and lying!

anna2007

Lungboy wrote: »

Are debts enforceable without the original contract as proof?

I thought if the debt was unenforceable for whatever reason, the creditor could apply for a court order to enforce it, which means proving to the court that the debtor owes the debt? But I don't think it's as straightforward as that, and is more considered on a case-by-case basis.

Some interesting cases in this BBC article (written in 2011, things may have moved on since then):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13349239

Having read into it more, I'm pretty sure the copy agreements Erudio gave me aren't CCA compliant, the copies of the originals are illegible, and the templates aren't a true copy as there are extra terms in there not in my agreements. I also can't tell if what's stated in the templates is what's stated in the originals, most I can do is a word count! They haven't given me a statement of the accounts either, which I asked for and I think they're required to provide under the CCA? Looks like another complaint will be going in to Erudio...

For all I know, Erudio have done this intentionally, in the hope I'll say well stuff it, they can't enforce the debt anyway. I can't get past the idea that their motive for everything they do is to make genuine deferrers default on the loans.

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

Some interesting cases in this BBC article (written in 2011, things may have moved on since then):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13349239

Paul Tilley mentioned in that article is one of the site team on the legalbeagles.info forum

if you want to ask the horses mouth about the present state of things and your agreements, then I would get on there and see what he might think.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/member.php?551-pt2537

anna2007

fermi wrote: »

Paul Tilley mentioned in that article is one of the site team on the legalbeagles.info forum

if you want to ask the horses mouth about the present state of things and your agreements, then I would get on there and see what he might think.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/member.php?551-pt2537

Thanks for this.


When I was googling for info last night, I also came across this and bookmarked it - didn't realise until now that it's the same litigator in the BBC article!


http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/dispelling-the-myths-on-section-781-consumer-credit-act/

fermi

Yes. Plus newer wordpress blog here: http://consumercreditlitigationanddebtcollection.wordpress.com/

Technobabble

Firstly I want to offer some empathy for everybody who is stressed out by the Charmers at Erudio.

I took out 2 loans in the academic years 92-93 and 93-94 for about £700 and £800.

I am one of the complacent and naive fools who filled in my Erudo form (ok, sigh now). I had a letter in Feb saying my loan had been sold and I got my form mid March. I deferred last year with no problem as I am not in work and my partner works full-time. In 2013 she wrote a short note to explain her 'support'. Against my better judgement I filled in the DD agreement too.

On the 17th April I had 2 letters. One confirmed my DD and stated payments would be £0.00 commencing May 10th. The second asked for evidence of support payments made by my other half. She sent a letter on the 22nd stating her level of 'support' and that she could not provide proof of payments as none were made to me - we live as a couple, we do not transact after all.

May came and I had heard nothing. I could not afford to have any payments taken out of my bank account so I went there and cancelled the DD. I had no choice in this as I would have been pushed into an unauthorised overdraft as there is only a token sum in there. I have explained this to Erudio.

On the 17th May I had an identical letter asking for proof of payments. I was pretty fed up, but I emailed the same day with an explanation, a copy of my partner's letter and a copy of the one she had sent the SLC in 2013. I had emails acknowledging receipt and stating the evidence would be considered.....

I heard nothing for 6 weeks, but then had a letter stating I was over £100 in arrears and I needed to phone them to set up a DD. I was not willing to phone. The only previous communication I had had regarding payment stated £0.00 would be taken. I emailed the next working day and 2 days later had a reply stating my evidence was not acceptable - this was now 11 weeks after it was originally posted.

We put together a detailed letter, explaining our outgoings and how we had added this up and halved the total to explain the level of 'support' my partner was providing and also again stating why no proof of payments could possibly be provided.

Again, we were seemingly ignored and on the 21st July I received a letter now stating I was over £150 in arrears.

On the 25th July I wrote and emailed and said I was making a formal complaint, I was also contacting the FCA and my MP (which I did) and would complain to the FOS if they did not confirm my deferment and make it clear I was not in arrears within 14 days. I also stapled a copy of the original loan agreement to the letter, the part relating to deferment and pointed out it did not make any demand that I had to take unreasonable steps to prove my lack of income.

On the 1st August I had a letter from Erudio that said they were 'sorry to learn of my concerns' and that they would be undertaking a thorough investigation into my issues.

Perhaps if they had made a thorough investigation months ago I would have been happily deferred already.

Are they incompetent or do they have a sinister agenda to push deferers into being defaulters? I know (having just found this forum) how many feel on here as I have read from page 1 over the weekend.

I do not care about my credit rating issues. We buy nothing on credit and our mortgage is paid off, but I do not see why anyone else should suffer who it IS a big issue for and though I have no children it is horrible to read about parents having sleepless nights because child benefit pushes them over the payment threshold and so on.

To say I am incandescent about Erudio does not come close.

I will update the forum with any further developments, but however this turns out for me, we have to combine our individual problems and create a movement against Erudio, both in the press and if needed legally.

This is just too disgusting for words really.

anna2007

ericctheking wrote: »

...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!

An update, of sorts, on my FOI request for the Government information leaflets, etc, which includes those given to minors - BIS emailed yesterday, asking me to clarify whether it was the info given to those resident in Scotland, or England and Wales, so I've asked for both.

Thought it sounded promising that they have some of the documents, otherwise they would surely have said already that they don't hold the info?