ERUDIO student loans help

Pluthero

rizla_king wrote: »

Erudio trying to con someone into thinking they have to pay their entire loan over 3 months.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=66312016&postcount=24

Jesus wept. On the one hand !!!!!! will these sharks do next?

On the other, if this is true and if they put it in writing or a recorded call, well it makes them look PRETTY bad and potentially open to some kind of justice.

anna2007

Pluthero wrote: »

Jesus wept. On the one hand !!!!!! will these sharks do next?

On the other, if this is true and if they put it in writing or a recorded call, well it makes them look PRETTY bad and potentially open to some kind of justice.

This happened to someone over on MN, due to start repaying but payments much higher than expected. Erudio said it was down to the date the loans 'matured', which meant the date the loans were due to be cancelled when the borrower reached the qualifying age.

Shocking tactic and a breach of the law and agreement.

If Erudio have demanded the higher payment in writing, then there's evidence, I'm sure they'd be more sneaky about it though and make the demand over the phone only?

socherry

tbh, I wouldn't listen to anything they say over the phone, and would never contact them this way again.

They hung onto my deferment form for 5 months without a word/letter of contact. When I phoned to ask the status I got told all kinds; I didn't sign the form (I did), I didn't enclose my P60, the 3 payslips wasn't good enough, I'm 3 months in arrears, they took a DD payment and then refunded it... I was to wait for a replacement application form.

On checking this, the bank said no-one from Erudio took a payment, experian say my credit score is (so far) untouched by them.

Then I got a deferment acceptance form through the post, which they surely wouldn't have sent if there were all the issues above that they said there were...

Now I have to keep checking my statements and credit score on a monthly basis to make sure they haven't taken money? Ridiculous!

So I suspect the 'pay full amount in 3 months' is a twist on the requirement that if you ignore deferment application, cancel any DD agreement, and end up defaulting, then they have a right to claim all the loan back. But not if you've deferred correctly, or come to the end of a deferment process. Surely then, the standard 60 month payback comes into play? I wouldn't accept any info from them unless it's in writing.

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

If Erudio have demanded the higher payment in writing, then there's evidence, I'm sure they'd be more sneaky about it though and make the demand over the phone only?

More evidence that the loans were mis-sold?

anna2007

Rosskie wrote: »

Mitch deferred without signing FPN? Brilliant news imo.

Mitch said he was told during a call to Erudio that he'd been deferred? Unfortunately Erudio's word during a phone call means nothing - see socherry's post above.

The only one to have deferred that I'm aware of without the signed form is at Fermi's post # 1359, page 68.

Rosskie wrote: »

Jelaw - your not eligable to defer if you've previously defaulted, so this may explain their 'may' statement?

Why would a defaulter be applying for deferment? It seems more likely the 'may' refers to having to give proof of income first, then you're eligible to defer?

Rosskie wrote: »

The 'must continue to make payments until you receive confirmation' bit is a strange/concerning one tho. What’s to stop them delaying everyone’s by 6 months then claiming 3 months of payments off everyone, as they don’t want to backdate further? Obviously there must be something to prevent them from doing this if they just feel like it, but what exactly? And good luck trying to get a refund out of them afterwards! What about their responsibilities to defer valid applications in a timely manner? So must we, really, continue to make payments? Is this in the agreements? I don’t know, but I'm not convinced.

The only thing my untrained eye can spot on a 1999 mort. Style T's and C's in relation to the above is point 4.5 - we me allow you to make a repayment late or to miss all or part of a repayment without waiving or altering our rights against you.

That says to me that deferment can effectively be back dated further, hopefully that’s the case, as I'm gonna need that now!!

Still need to check this, but from what I remember the way it's worded in the legislation, it can be read as the lender doesn't have to backdate, it's discretionary? I think the SLC used to say any backdating of the deferment date was at their discretion - will try and find where I read that.

anna2007

@ erudioed - I've PM'd you - can you check your inbox?

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

More evidence that the loans were mis-sold?

Definitely evidence that Erudio's broken the agreement and law. The regs are clear that payments are made over either 60 or 84 months, if there is an outstanding amount before 60/84 payments are made and the loans qualify for cancellation, then that outstanding amount is written off - raising the payments/reducing the payment term is outrageous behaviour IMO.

Might help a misselling claim, in that Erudio aren't fit for purpose?

MrStarship

Hi there. i am a long-term lurker and thought I'd post my two cents on this issue.

I have the pre-1998 loans and I deferred in April or May of this year by blanking out the various parts of the forms, signing it and giving my DD details on the form. I also claim ESA due to long-term disability and I have over £5000 in arrears as I did not defer during the time with SLC due to their incompetence Yet, I got deferred with Eridio.

So far, there has been no attempt to take money though the DD in my bank - not that I have anything in there anyway.

I would like to know where I stand should I have to pay this back. Can they cancel it at any time and have to pay it back in one lump sum, or can it be paid over 60 months? What if I could take a loan and pay the arrears would I still then have to pay the actual loan part.

I have absolutely nothing of value to any bailiffs should they come and if they demand the whole amount or even monthly amounts I cannot even afford that at all.

ericctheking

anna2007 wrote: »

Shocking tactic and a breach of the law and agreement.

If Erudio have demanded the higher payment in writing, then there's evidence, I'm sure they'd be more sneaky about it though and make the demand over the phone only?

I don't think all this funny business will end until there is a court case.

socherry

Just for info: I have an SLC deferment application letter on me (I keep EVERYTHING!), and can confirm that it also used the word 'may be entitled to defer payment'.

It also required us to keep DD details with them even though we are deferring.