ERUDIO student loans help

fermi

Another article on the threshold.

"The Government is lowering the earnings threshold for people with a pre-1998 mortgage style loan. We find out why... "...

Read the full story:

Student loan deferment threshold to fall: Q&A on why it's happening

erudioed

That is an interesting article, at least if offers a perspective on it all. £2000 seems like a rather radical and i guess slightly too coincidental drop but that doesnt mean it isnt i guess. I guess we need to know why the statistics used mean it is £2000 lower.
The article states:
It (BIS) says it's based on "known quantitative data" – weekly earnings and earnings growth – so there should not be "any real fluctuations".

Is £2000 not considered a real fluctuation then? It is the biggest single yearly difference by almost double, whether increase or decrease, according to BIS's own 10 yearly figures it that article. And it has only decreased once in those 10 years. So why the large drop?

RandomCurve

Hi - not my fight this one, but in my fight against Mobile phone companies and Ofcom I have come across the following that may prove useful to you.


I have not read the whole thread - so if this has already been discussed then just ignore me and carry on.


This may be useful in regards to the way that Erudio have sneakily asked for your consent to give your data to credit reference agencies and to get you to set-up a DD:


From the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations:
See page 14 paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284442/oft1008.pdf
(don't get hung up on the word "product" it covers a multitude of sins, and I think Erudio's actions have mislead some into taking a course of action they would not otherwise have done - i.e. a "material distortion" has occurred!)
General prohibition
10.2 The general prohibition is made up of two tests. It prohibits practices that:
• contravene the requirements of professional diligence
and
• materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product (or are likely to).
Test 1: Professional diligence
10.4 Professional diligence is defined (in Regulation 2) as:
‘the standard of special skill and care which a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers which is commensurate with either — (a) honest market practice in the trader’s field of activity, or (b) the general principle of good faith in the trader’s field of activity’.

Test 2: Material distortion
10.8 Material distortion is defined (in Regulation 2) as:
‘appreciably to impair the average consumer’s ability to make an informed decision thereby causing him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise’. It applies either when a practice distorts or is likely to distort the average consumer’s behaviour.

The second condition is likely to be met if, for example, because of the practice, the average consumer would buy a product they would not otherwise have bought, or would not exercise cancellation rights when otherwise they would have done so.

Misleading and aggressive practices
3.5 Regulations 5-7 of the CPRs prohibit commercial practices which are misleading (whether by action or omission) or aggressive, and which cause or are likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision.

skippers76

Has anyone received an official letter from SLC stating that they've handed over the loans to Erudio? For all I know this come be a scam!

Lungboy

skippers76 wrote: »

Has anyone received an official letter from SLC stating that they've handed over the loans to Erudio? For all I know this come be a scam!

Pretty much all of us.

Forever

I don't have a lot of experience with loans etc so please excuse me if I am asking a stupid question.

But if they are going to report us as being 'on holiday' with credit agencies, hence giving us a bad credit score, is it worth just defaulting on the student loans anyway?

Once you default, then this is wiped off of your credit file after 5 years, and no more nightmare experiences with Erudio (I have 6-7 years before mine will be wiped anyway).

Have I got this right?

Pluthero

Forever wrote: »

I don't have a lot of experience with loans etc so please excuse me if I am asking a stupid question.

But if they are going to report us as being 'on holiday' with credit agencies, hence giving us a bad credit score, is it worth just defaulting on the student loans anyway?

Once you default, then this is wiped off of your credit file after 5 years, and no more nightmare experiences with Erudio (I have 6-7 years before mine will be wiped anyway).

Have I got this right?

I was thinking the same thing! But I think these student loans are 'special' in some way and the debt follows you forever if you fall into default! Remember reading something about that somewhere. I should have studied law

erudioed

Thats the way i understand it it as well.

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

That is an interesting article, at least if offers a perspective on it all. £2000 seems like a rather radical and i guess slightly too coincidental drop but that doesnt mean it isnt i guess. I guess we need to know why the statistics used mean it is £2000 lower.
The article states:
It (BIS) says it's based on "known quantitative data" – weekly earnings and earnings growth – so there should not be "any real fluctuations".

Is £2000 not considered a real fluctuation then? It is the biggest single yearly difference by almost double, whether increase or decrease, according to BIS's own 10 yearly figures it that article. And it has only decreased once in those 10 years. So why the large drop?

I think what they might mean is that there shouldn't be too much fluctuation between the BIS estimate and the actual average earnings come January 2015, as they're using "known quantitative data"?

I'm no expert at reading stats, but it looks like there is a huge fluctuation... there is no way that earnings growth is negative to the tune of 7%, as far as I can tell it was up 0.7% in April 2014 on the previous April (see table 15, page 63 of 73 here):

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_363998.pdf

The 0.7% is the growth figure for total pay (regular pay + bonus pay), but if you check the table 15(1) on page 64 showing the earnings growth for bonus pay only, this shows -7.4% - this could be a coincidence, but made me think they've used this -7.4% in the calculation, rather than the 0.7% for total pay? Which would be completely inaccurate. The reason given for the unusually low growth figure for bonus pay is on page 18 of the above pdf file:


"The single month growth rate for total pay for April 2014 (minus 1.7%) was the lowest since March 2009. This reflects an unusually high growth rate for April 2013, due to some companies which usually paid bonuses in March paying them in April".

I'm at a loss re the average earnings figure - BIS said in the latest MSE article they've taken this from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) for April 2013 - April 2014, but going by previous years' releases, this isn't due to be published until the end of this year?? The latest ASHE, released 12 December 2013, covers the period to April 2013:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2013.html#tab-Annual-earnings

I'm basically even more confused as a result of the latest MSE article - the figures just don't add up (but I could easily be looking at the wrong figures!). I'm going to ask MSE if they can get the actual figures used by BIS for the latest deferment level, along with last year's, if they're not willing to give those figures to MSE, then hopefully we'll get it through Sarebear78's FOI request - thanks again Sarebear for submitting that and the other request.

Thought I'd email the ONS too, see if they can help clear things up... don't suppose there are any statisticians following the thread?!

erudioed

The more ive thought about it, the stranger it seems that it is such a large drop. That does need explaining, im with you on that as well. Its twice the amount of the next largest change in over 10 years...and its down and not up, bucking trends.