ERUDIO student loans help

JeLaw

anna2007 wrote: »

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"

So, doesn't this contradict their claim to Elwood Blues that have to "apply the same method of application for deferment for all customers" under the "Treating People Fairly and Equality Laws"....?

They state on the application form I was sent that "You are required to maintain a direct debit mandate for your repayments regardless as to whether your repayments are deferred."

So they are not applying the same methods for all customers.

cluelessfish wrote: »

The deferment threshold has been decreased by 7%!!!!

But the surveys are on the ons website show small increases in average earnings until last month when there was a whopping 0.2% fall. Has any one seen any news stories about wages falling by anywhere near 7%?

It would be good if the media did pick up on the lowered deferment threshold because it certainly won't help the government's claim that the economy is picking up!

JeLaw

Thanks for posting the letter they sent to you.

Have you put in a complaint to the FOS?

I could be wrong but I'm sure I read of at least one or two people on here that were deferred without using Erudio's form. If so that means that they are not applying the same "method of applications for deferment for all customers".

Also, and again I could be wrong because I'm not legally trained, but they're claiming in the letter that there have been no changes to the terms and conditions of your credit agreement. In which case surely it could be argued that under the terms and conditions of the original credit agreement there is no obligation to use a specific method of deferment. Am I wrong?

I was wondering if anyone with legal knowledge knows anything about signing under duress. I'm sure I heard something about this but don't know how it works and whether this is something any of us could do/state if forced to sign Erudio's form? Perhaps I'm just desperately clutching at straws!

Btw, had a bit of a laugh at their excuse for trying to make you use their form. They claim their new form gives more customers the chance to defer!

ElwoodBlues wrote: »

This is the letter I received from Erudio today, along with yet another deferment form.

The events behind it are: I received first deferment form. I wrote back to request deferment (used template letter and sent payslips etc). They sent out another deferment form with a letter saying 'you didn't sign the first one (I hadn't even sent one back).

They took first payment by DD and wrote to me stating I was a month in arrears (for the previous month). I did a DD indemnity and got payment returned.

I wrote back again stating that they should process my deferment with my original application, that I am not in arrears as they claim. Otherwise, start the official complaints procedure.

They took another DD payment, and again I got my bank to overturn it.

Not sure what to do next, they obviously ignored my previous official complaint request.

rizla_king

That is the most pathetic excuse.

Most of the letters people have been sending and signing say in them.

I declare that all information given is correct to the best of my knowledge, and no relevant source of income has been omitted. As such I fulfil the conditions for deferment.

So the excuse that you must use their form because of the declaration is utter bullsh1t.

You can write your own declaration in your letter.

Anyway, there is nothing in the loan agreement or legislation that says you must sign a warranty or declaration, so even that much is dubious dribble from Erudio.

Just another pathetic excuse and lies from Erudio.

Pluthero

JELAW, the method of deferment is not specified in law. And that is from BIS.

I made it part of my complaint to the FOS and hope to hear back soon. I told them to tell erudio to defer me or take me to court and prove I have not met the original loan terms by using a cover letter and wages slips.

Also they have deferred the guy who's wife was a solicitor which proves the universal adage ! Bullies don't like being bullied!

JeLaw

I agree with rizla king.

I'm trying to find out more about the law around signing under duress.

This might be relevant for people who have used Erudio's form (even with parts blacked out). Could be argued that it was signed under duress? Considering that Erudio used threatening tactics to get people to sign the form - refusing to defer unless their form is used.

JeLaw

Pluthero wrote: »

JELAW, the method of deferment is not specified in law. And that is from BIS.

I made it part of my complaint to the FOS and hope to hear back soon. I told them to tell erudio to defer me or take me to court and prove I have not met the original loan terms by using a cover letter and wages slips.

Also they have deferred the guy who's wife was a solicitor which proves the universal adage ! Bullies don't like being bullied!

Good luck with the FOS! Looking forward to your update.

I was sure I'd read on here that there is no legal obligation to use Erudio's form. And their attempt at justifying their form in their letter to Elwood Blues - that the form was developed to enable more people to defer is laughable.

ElwoodBlues

rizla_king wrote: »

That is the most pathetic excuse.

Most of the letters people have been sending and signing say in them.

Quote:
I declare that all information given is correct to the best of my knowledge, and no relevant source of income has been omitted. As such I fulfil the conditions for deferment.

So the excuse that you must use their form because of the declaration is utter bullsh1t.

You can write your own declaration in your letter.

Anyway, there is nothing in the loan agreement or legislation that says you must sign a warranty or declaration, so even that much is dubious dribble from Erudio.

Just another pathetic excuse and lies from Erudio.

Yes, my original letter requesting deferment included that statement.

rizla_king

Pluthero wrote: »

Also they have deferred the guy who's wife was a solicitor which proves the universal adage ! Bullies don't like being bullied!

Yes saw that.

They know they are breaking the law or insisting on things that cant be justified under it, so faced with someone who can call them on that and beat them, the cowards back down.

rizla_king

ElwoodBlues wrote: »

Yes, my original letter requesting deferment included that statement.

Their feeble reason for rejection is complete BS then.

anna2007

ElwoodBlues wrote: »

I'm not going to use their form, they are insisting that I have to. So we are at loggerheads. Now they're saying that's because of "Treating People Fairly and Equality Laws". I guess that must mean they have the right to shaft us all equally then!

The following might be helpful, as it's based on the law and regulations that govern our loan agreements, which I think trumps Erudio's rather pathetic "Treating People Fairly and Equality Laws":

The 1998 Regulations on deferment (section 9 of Schedule 2) state:

"9. Each year the lender will tell the borrower the new deferment level for the period between 1st September and the following 31st August. The borrower can defer making repayments of the loan if—

(a)the lender has not already asked him to repay the loan in full, and

(b)he can show—

(i)that his gross income for the relevant month is not more than the deferment level, and

(ii)if the lender asks, that his gross average monthly income during the 3 months immediately following the relevant month will not or is unlikely to be more than the deferment level.”

Under the 1997 Regulations, section 11 stated that...”a borrower .....shall be entitled to defer making repayments of that loan if he satisfies the loans administrator...”. It could be argued that if the 1997 Regulations’ wording had remained then Erudio could have said that without the DAF it would not “satisfy the loans administrator”, however this wording was removed in the 1998 Regulations.

Under the 1998 Regulations, if the lender has not already asked for repayment in full and you can show that your gross income for the relevant month is not more than the deferment level and (if asked by the lender) that your gross average monthly income during the 3 months immediately following the relevant months will not be or is unlikely to be more than the deferment level, then the borrower can defer making repayments of the loan.

The word “show” can reasonably be interpreted to mean “prove”. This burden is on the borrower who would have to prove on the balance of probability that the income requirements are met. The Regulations do not state a requirement as to how the borrower has to “show“ the requirement, or the format in which this information has to be provided. It is not uncommon in law for statutes and statutory instruments to specify a particular format in which notices/applications have to be presented. A simple example from the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) of the County Court is contained in Practice Direction 7A to CPR Part 7 with regards to starting a money claim. The Practice Directive at 3.1 states:

“The claim form

3.1 A claimant must use practice form N1 or practice form N208 (the Part 8 claim form) to start a claim (but see paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4 below).”

If the 1998 Regulations had intended that a particular form should be used, then it is reasonable to say that it would have been specified in the 1998 Regulations or some follow up Regulations. Therefore, there is a strong argument to say that Erudio cannot force people to use their DAF’s.