📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

ERUDIO student loans help

1142143145147148659

Comments

  • anna2007
    anna2007 Posts: 1,182 Forumite
    edited 21 August 2014 at 2:24PM
    DuB-RooTz wrote: »
    Hey guys,

    Iv also been messed about by erudio, iv been chasing for a deferment form since april and still havent received one, everytime i call i get told im in arrears but they still aint got me a form.. all of my loans are pre 98, i was wondering what if i just ignore them as even though they havent sent me a form they keep calling me.. i havent signed anything with erudio so does that mean i dont have an agreement with them?

    oh also i hadnt receved any notice informing me who Erudio are, i had to find out that i needed to contact erudio to defer when i called SLC to chase for a deferment form..
    There was a blank deferment form kindly posted up by TraceyJ yesterday, you could use that instead? You would need to add your Erudio customer reference number, which you might not have if you've had nothing in writing from them, but you could phone them for it:

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

    Did the SLC have your current address details? You should have received a Notice of Assignment back in March (or Feb?) telling you the loans had been sold to Erudio. This means the debt is legally assigned to Erudio, so no need for a new agreement, the original one still stands, but with Erudio rather than SLC as creditor.

    If you haven't received the NOA or an application pack, or anything else from Erudio (and your address details are up to date), you should make a formal complaint to Erudio and get all collection activity put on hold while they investigate your complaint (and sort out your deferment).

    Has your deferment ended now? The regulations say deferment can be backdated a maximum of 3 months from the date Erudio grant the new deferment, so the sooner you get your application in, the better. If it means you're liable to repay because more than 3 months has passed, you could try claiming compensation from the FOS (financial ombudsman), as it's not your fault Erudio failed to communicate with you. You would need evidence to support a claim though - not sure how that would work, unless Erudio can't produce evidence that they wrote to you?
  • Deroosanders
    Deroosanders Posts: 2 Newbie
    edited 22 August 2014 at 11:29AM
    I had major issues with Erudio, taking money out when I was already deferred! Got no where with customer services. I contacted the big boss of Erudio direct [text removed by MSE Forum Team] within 5 mins of me mentioning the media his PA phoned me offering me compensation for all the messing about with Erudio! I've just emailed again asking for an explanation of the new loan threshold which means I can no longer deffer from April next year! I havent had a pay rise in 7 years I simply cannot afford to pay them back! lowering the threshold by over £2000 Ridiculous! My suggestion for people not happy with Erudio is to contact the above! Forget customer services who have NO idea what they are doing contact the top people!!
  • socherry
    socherry Posts: 13 Forumite
    edited 22 August 2014 at 11:29AM
    I had major issues with Erudio, taking money out when I was already deferred! Got no where with customer services. I contacted the big boss of Erudio direct [text removed by MSE Forum Team] within 5 mins of me mentioning the media his PA phoned me offering me compensation for all the messing about with Erudio! I've just emailed again asking for an explanation of the new loan threshold which means I can no longer deffer from April next year! I havent had a pay rise in 7 years I simply cannot afford to pay them back! lowering the threshold by over £2000 Ridiculous! My suggestion for people not happy with Erudio is to contact the above! Forget customer services who have NO idea what they are doing contact the top people!!

    Wow - good research! :)
    Well done! Let's hope we don't have to go through this every year...
    Unfortunately government department BIS lowered the threshold - I'm still formulating my email to my MP about this but think some people have emailed already
  • JeLaw
    JeLaw Posts: 172 Forumite
    anna2007 wrote: »
    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.

    I didn't realise it was discretionary. Thank goodness for me in that case that I was dealing with SLC when I was backdated! I didn't defer in time once or twice and SLC refunded me without question.

    However the late deferment on those occasions was down to me. If Erudio delay deferment for 3 months or more, that's unacceptable and I don't believe we would be liable for payments in that situation.
    anna2007 wrote: »
    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?

    How do we go about making a misselling claim? What more does Erudio have to do before this line is pursued!
  • JeLaw
    JeLaw Posts: 172 Forumite
    socherry wrote: »
    Originally Posted by socherry View Post
    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.



    I think maybe I wasn't clear - I am in no way trying to stick up for erudio - I have had significant stress due to their methods in dealing with my deferment since they took it over.

    I was simply clarifying previous posts where people were questioning whether the SLC had used the word 'may' as they'd spotted it in their erudio claims, and also whether SLC had required us to give them DD info.

    I think I'm getting a bit over-sensitive when it comes to Erudio! Forget the "may" issue -just me jumping on every little thing I think Erudio is trying on. I just saw the word "may" and felt that it was perhaps them trying to imply that we weren't entitled to defer - just to try and worry people unnecessarily.

    When it comes to DD, I would argue that even if SLC did state on their forms that we had to maintain DD whilst in deferment, by not insisting on this as a condition for deferment they set a precedent whereby this became unnecessary. I haven't heard of anyone ever being refused deferment by SLC for not having a DD set-up.

    Actually, I can't find where SLC say we have to maintain a DD whilst deferred. Is it on the actual application form? I have an old SLC Change of Details and Direct Debit Instruction but can't see anything on it saying we have to maintain a DD whilst in deferment. The form asks that we complete it if our bank details have changed - but doesn't explicitly state that we have to do so as a condition of deferment.

    In fact my last deferment acceptance letter from SLC states "Any Direct Debits currently in force or future dated will be suspended during a period of deferment". Certainly doesn't appear to be the case with Erudio considering that they've taken money from many accounts despite those people being in deferment.
  • anna2007
    anna2007 Posts: 1,182 Forumite
    edited 21 August 2014 at 4:54PM
    JeLaw wrote: »
    I didn't realise it was discretionary. Thank goodness for me in that case that I was dealing with SLC when I was backdated! I didn't defer in time once or twice and SLC refunded me without question.
    I think I might have got the 'discretionary' idea from another forum, someone was apparently told this by SLC. I checked the 1998 Regulations, here's the wording:
    "Each deferment period will last for 12 months beginning on a date the lender tells the borrower. This date will be not more than three months before or two months after the date the lender accepts the borrower’s deferment application".

    So the "not more than three months" obviously refers to the 3 months' backdating, but can also be post-dated by up to 2 months (can't quite get my head around why it might be post-dated 2 months - if you get your DAF in extra early?).

    JeLaw wrote: »
    However the late deferment on those occasions was down to me. If Erudio delay deferment for 3 months or more, that's unacceptable and I don't believe we would be liable for payments in that situation.
    Completely agree. I do wonder though with Erudio twisting everything to their advantage, if the above wording could be read to mean that Erudio can suit themselves as to the date of deferment, as long as it falls within that 5 month period?

    They haven't a chance of making that stick, a quick Google shows plenty of references to the SLC backdating deferment by up to 3 months - can't find anything specifically from the SLC though.

    Erudio have told people deferment can be backdated 3 months, but I haven't seen that in writing - quite telling that it doesn't appear in their FAQ's on the website - they must get asked it often enough!

    JeLaw wrote: »
    How do we go about making a misselling claim? What more does Erudio have to do before this line is pursued!

    Hopefully the FOI requests will give us something useful before going down that route, but in the meantime the more Erudio muck up, the more it helps any misselling claim :)
  • You assume right...

    Your payments, and your right to defer, will be calculated on the basis of your incomes in whichever country you live, using standard exchange rates. No allowance is made for differences in the cost of living. Defaulting would lead to the same problems faced by anyone else who moves abroad and leaves debts behind: what happens if you ever want to return to the UK, or move to a country with a legal system compatible with the UK (Australia, USA, anywhere in the EU...)?

    If we go, I will be quitting my job and freelancing/be supported by him.

    I can see next year's deferment being an absolute dream.:(
    DEBT FREE! Sep '08/£9,800 in Oct '06 :beer:
  • erudioed
    erudioed Posts: 682 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    According to one of those links fermi put up about drysdenfairfax lawyers and the option of seeking cash from the home value, the nature of the home ownership question on the deferment form is a little clearer. But like the part on the same form about CRAs and it affecting others close, i think student loans are exempt from both of those threats.
    Great link, and one of good immediate hope, by Derroosanders about cutting to the chase and stopping messing about with the monkey and going to the organ grinder. It probably wont last too long but it is good for anyone being screwed about right now...and i bet Carval will be passing messages down to alleviate their name getting tarnished the same way Arrow, Capita, Ventura, The Wilmington Trust and i guess the zero employee Erudio is being, and will continue to be for as long as this debacle continues.
    Shameful customer service (Ventura/Capita), despicable overall tactics of confusion, lies and new experimental debt collector induced psychological pressure (Arrow Global) and the facility to do as many tax dodges as possible and fly as much money out of the country as is 'reasonable' (The Wilmington Trust) all lead to a heady mix of a potential 300,000 odd ex-students having their lives invaded for the foreseeable future, all thanks to those self-interested, business (above all else) adoring trash that somehow manage to get themselves elected every few years by pretending they give a !!!! about you and me. Sounds like a recipe for disaster...oh, sorry, it already is a disaster.
  • anna2007
    anna2007 Posts: 1,182 Forumite
    JeLaw wrote: »
    When it comes to DD, I would argue that even if SLC did state on their forms that we had to maintain DD whilst in deferment, by not insisting on this as a condition for deferment they set a precedent whereby this became unnecessary. I haven't heard of anyone ever being refused deferment by SLC for not having a DD set-up.

    Actually, I can't find where SLC say we have to maintain a DD whilst deferred. Is it on the actual application form? I have an old SLC Change of Details and Direct Debit Instruction but can't see anything on it saying we have to maintain a DD whilst in deferment. The form asks that we complete it if our bank details have changed - but doesn't explicitly state that we have to do so as a condition of deferment.
    It doesn't say anywhere on the SLC documents that we must maintain a DD, that's why you can't find it! It was one of the points I made in my complaint, that and the fact it's not mentioned in any of the legislation or regulations either.

    I never completed the DD mandate that SLC sent each year with their DAF, but each year they granted deferment - if the DD was a requirement then they would have refused my application.

    I posted a while back that Erudio upheld the DD part of my complaint, and said it was no longer a requirement during deferment. erudioed suggested I post it up here, hopefully others can use it to tell Erudio where to stick their DD requirement (but, as always, make sure you get it confirmed in writing). The important bit:

    "Please accept our apologies for the correspondence from Erudio which stated you would be in breach of your agreement if you did not have a direct debit set up on your account. We have reviewed our policies and we can confirm we no longer require a direct debit to be set up on an account when it is deferred"

    Page 1 of their letter here (the last paragraph is quite good for a laugh):

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/grmvj84zowiq08t/Erudio%20Response.pdf

    Also, an extract from my complaint letter covering the DD issue, as it mentions relevant bits of the loan agreement and legislation:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/v7fbgp77qbbka01/Complaint%20to%20Erudio.rtf
  • erudioed
    erudioed Posts: 682 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    Just a quick cut and paste job from a post by ibreakwindinerudiosdirection from the mumsnet forum that most have probably seen but i think is definitely worth putting here as well:

    I've been busy for the last couple of weeks and missed this news about the deferment rate falling.

    I have no issue with the deferment rate falling. I have sympathy for those who will now have to start to repay some of the money but there's a far greater force at work here.

    Everyone knows wage rises have remained stagnant over the last few years for the majority of people, be they public or private sector.

    What did we see in the news recently? Ah, the unemployment rate keeps dropping. At the same time, the number of part-time workers increases as does the number of self-employed persons.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28866302

    "The TUC described the figures as "worrying", as the pay of self-employed workers is typically around half that of people in staff positions."

    What we're really seeing is the truth of the economic revival under Cameron and Osborne. Those jobs earning somewhere around the student loans threshold mark have been squeezed. Those public sector jobs earning £25,000 to £30,000 have been rigidly squashed in the area where I live. Those at the bottom have been getting very small pay rises or none at all. Sure, those at the top keep earning away but the vast majority of ordinary folk are being squeezed harder and harder. Add in the rise in self-employed people who earn less than conventionally employed persons and it isn't hard for me to understand why the student loan threshold rate has dropped so sharply.

    That the drop is that sharp is a damning comment on the Conservative-led Government. "We're all in this together".... like !!!! are we. We're a nation of serfs who have allowed successive Governments to sell us out to corporate and financial interests, Governments who clamp down on the tax affairs of small businesses and the self-employed whilst simultaneously bending over and letting multinationals !!!! them up the !!!! whilst tax pounds disappear to overseas tax havens. The recovery is not equally spread out and neither is the economic pain.

    ======

    I'm sure there are those here who would say that the reduction in threshold is Governmental chicanery in favour of Erudio. That would be hard to prove. The question I would ask BIS is this:

    "You sold the loans to Erudio with the belief that it would be hard to reclaim money. I imagine you were fully aware that future average earnings after the sale would drop and drop and thus more people would be ineligible for deferment and would have to pay.

    In that case, why did you sell so cheaply knowing more would be paying within two years of the sale?"
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.1K Life & Family
  • 257.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.