ERUDIO student loans help

JeLaw

Just checked the form and, yes, it does have that CRA threat.

Also noticed the wording about direct debits. Not happy at all about this as I really don't want to set one up with them. I never had a problem with SLC having one (although it seems it was cancelled after a while, I guess because I kept deferring) but I don't trust Erudio not to take money from my account.

They say "You are required to maintain a direct debit mandate for your repayments regardless as to whether your repayments are deferred. Failure to do this constitutes a breach of your agreement".

Is this the same wording as before? Guessing it's the same form.

erudioed

It sounds about the same. There have been mixed messages out of capita and arrow about having to have a DD in place but then you can cancel it after deferral, the erudio website has another strangely worded version. But the one thing is they all suggest is this ridiculous idea of having to have the DD in place during the deferral. After, well that is unclear. The have told some it is ok to cancel and even recommended cancelling it when they DDs were being stolen, so it is another area that needs clarifying and a solid rule putting in place. I think it is a good issue for the ombudsman personally...how can the 'customer' be confident a DD wont be stolen when Capita is still doing it on occasion. Considering they did it to over 500, i would say not having a DD in place is something the ombudsman would side against Arrow on.
I also wonder what kind of freedom of information request would be possible to ask Arrow how many DD were stolen before, exactly how many. I think the over 500 number far exceeds 500 and i am sure it would be humiliating for Arrow to have to admit how many. I assume FOIs probably donn't apply to private companies though...does anyone know of anything?

TraceyJ_2

anna2007 wrote: »

This from Erudio's FAQ (under 'Applying for deferment' on their website:

"As is the case for all deferments reviewed by the Student Loans Company (SLC), deferment applications will be assessed by Erudio on the threshold applicable on the date the deferment application form is received".

Unfortunately, Erudio aren't very good at getting things done quickly when it comes to deferment, I wouldn't trust them to get your application pack to you in good time.

Could you ask them to email you the application form? The guidance notes are available on their website.

If they can't or won't do that, has anyone got a blank application form they'd be willing to post up on here (would have to screen out the customer reference number on the first page) - it would obviously help anyone else in the same situation?

I have an electronic copy of the application form from them. You do need to add your own reference number to the top and it's not a great copy when printed but I've filled it in (partly) and sent it with a letter today. The form arrived after 2 working days - happy to forward it if anyone wants an electronic version.

Pluthero

I have a fresh copy of the DAF from last week . That's 4 now! I am on a half day tomorrow will redact it and scan up a copy. Just compared them all no changes as far as I can see. I take it I have host it somewhere as you can't upload in a post??

TraceyJ_2

Not sure if this will work but here's the form:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/leef8iy2xuu5kti/daf.pdf

anna2007

TraceyJ wrote: »

Not sure if this will work but here's the form:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/leef8iy2xuu5kti/daf.pdf

That's great TraceyJ, works fine, thank you!

anna2007

@ erudioed FOIA doesn't apply to private companies, but there's nothing to stop a FOI request to BIS for all correspondence with Erudio/Arrow Global/Capita on the DD debacle

anna2007

JeLaw wrote: »

I can't promise anything but if I can help I'd like to. I haven't yet filled in my deferment form but I don't have a scanner.

Thanks for that JeLaw, TraceyJ's upload is working fine, so no need to get your copy scanned

JeLaw wrote: »

What also strikes me is that the first page of their "Getting your deferment application form right" guide to completing the form states that "If you have a mortgage style loan and you have a gross monthly income below the current deferment threshold you may be eligible to apply for deferment".

I bolded the word "may". Seems they are trying to suggest we are not definitely entitled to defer, which of course we are if our income is below the (now even lower) threshold level.

I think the SLC said the same thing, I don't think it's anything to worry about, all it means is that we have to show our income's below the threshold - if we do that, there's no "may" about it, we are eligible to apply for (and get) deferment.

JeLaw wrote: »

The other worrying part of their "guide" is also on the first page where they say that "You will need to continue to make repayments until you receive confirmation in writing from us that your deferment has been accepted".

No mention of whether we can obtain refunds for repayments taken due to any delay in their part in deferring us.

This is more worrying, as it's definitely an area that Erudio can manipulate.

Again, I'm sure the SLC said the same thing about continuing to make repayments, BUT I think it was meant for borrowers who are currently repaying and are applying for deferment, rather that those already in deferment and applying to renew it? Will have to check if there's anything in the regulations about this, but if you're entitled to defer and you're renewing deferment, no repayments should be due - but Erudio are probably trying to manipulate the law or agreement to say deferrers have to repay until the new deferment's in place.

One thing that the regulations are specific on is that the deferment can only be backdated a maximum of 3 months from the date deferment's granted, whether you're already in deferment or applying for the first time. But if it goes beyond the 3 months and you have evidence of Erudio's deliberate faffing about, that's surely a different story?

erudioed

Nice one TraceyJ, it looks about identical to me. It seems to me they want everyone to fill out this one the first time for some reason.

Maybe it was the same with the SLC form, but part of the bit above the signiture box seems asks us to allow them to contact our employers or supports to confirm all is ok. If there aim is to intimidate, calling employers could either be a source of intimidation or embarrassment if you want to keep personal issues to yourself. This is all new to me so maybe it is standard practice.

That would be interesting Anna to ask BIS, i think i can guess the answer...similar to yesterdays. Certainly from my discussions with BIS, Lewy and BIS talk mainly over the phone. I dont know how accountable BIS would actually be such things as the DD lawbreaking thefts.

erudioed

I agree Anna, that is an issue. I was saying a while back that Erudio need to make sure they send the paperwork out at least 1 month before the deferment deadline (maybe longer for those overseas). Then, when they get the deferment forms back before the deadline (that they should also state), they should suspend collection activities because we have upheld our part of the bargain by returning the form on time. Just because they are inundated with work has nothing to do with us if they cant process it before the deadline, so they should give us the leeway by suspending collection activity and TREATING US FAIRLY until they have had chance to assess our forms.