ERUDIO student loans help

gardenia101

anna2007 wrote: »

I think you posted that info in response to my comments re illegible CCA agreements? If so, I completely forgot to follow up on it


Do you think he could help with the gross income definition in the regs?

No - think that was in respect of checking out the legalbeagles website, which I've done & reported on earlier.

Not sure what you mean by CCA agreements - this any good? Apologies if not what you meant.

anna2007

JeLaw wrote: »

I was wondering whether it might help to do some research at the British Library looking at the newspaper archive. I'd like to look at how the introduction of these loans was reported on. Especially relating to the impact on our credit record. And also the fact that these loans were promoted on the basis that they were different and nothing to worry about because "they were with the government".

I clearly remember being repeatedly assured by my university finance department that these loans were nothing to worry about because they were with the government and that our credit records would affected.

Do people here think that might be useful?

I think it could be really useful, yes. Are you able to do this JeLaw, or do we need a volunteer?

Remember there are a couple of FOI requests in, one I put in to BIS and SLC for info given to students (although I read on Mumsnet that SLC has already confirmed they don't hold anything that far back, in response to an identical request), and one for info supplied to the Uni's (Sarebear78's I think).

I should hear back from BIS soon - they did email to clarify if it was info for Scotland or England & Wales, which I thought sounded promising that they hold something?

anna2007

gardenia101 wrote: »

No - think that was in respect of checking out the legalbeagles website, which I've done & reported on earlier.

Not sure what you mean by CCA agreements - this any good? Apologies if not what you meant.

That's the one gardenia101 - sorry, I meant my request for my original loan agreements (under the Consumer Credit Act), which Erudio supplied but were illegible, and also not true copies, as the clauses in the template agreements supplied clearly didn't match the ones in my originals.

I think Paul Tilley won a big case on this issue, and I should have contacted him for advice on my own agreements, but forgot!

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

I think you posted that info in response to my comments re illegible CCA agreements? If so, I completely forgot to follow up on it


Do you think he could help with the gross income definition in the regs?

He's a para-legal (not solicitor) with extensive experience on credit agreements, but I think basic issues of contract law may well be better directed to a specialist on that. The firm he works for may have that, but I can't say.

I referred there simply to the credit agreement enforceability issue, and can't say further.

To be blunt though, from what I have seen in the last 7 or 8 years looking at this type of thing, the student loan agreements look pretty watertight regards enforceability.

They may be temporarily unenforceable if in breach of a s77 request, but if they supply accurate repopulated templates then that protection goes away.

Just my take on it though, which is why I suggest checking....

anna2007

gardenia101 wrote: »

Still compiling my letter to Erudio, & am wondering what I should blank out on my bank statemnts. It is the same bank account that they have details about (even if they can't actually manage to collect the direct debit that has always been in place).

I need to show child benefit & tax credits, interest from a savings account that gets paid in monthly, & child maintenance from ex. Salary is already covered by supplying wage slips, showing all deductions.

I'm planning on blanking out all my d/ds for utilities etc., my credit card d/d - all of these show funds leaving my account so I can't see how they can argue that they need to see them. Am I obliged to show them a running balance on my account, even if they can't see where the money is going? I don't really like them knowing anything about me that they may try & exploit - this isn't like dealing with HMRC etc. where I'm happy to give them full access to everything. Or am I being too paranoid?

What isn't so clear is a gift from a family member for my DS's birthday - I want to block this out as it has her bank details on, & also isn't my income, yet this could possibly be seen as trying to hide income? Thoughts anyone.

I've no idea what info Erudio will already hold about me either.

Should I also blank out my NI & employee numbers from my wage slips?

No, you're not being too paranoid! You should black out everything that is irrelevant to the income you're declaring on the deferment application, so all of the debits you mention, any credits that don't relate to your income (including the gift payment for your boy's birthday). I think the same goes for running balances - can't see that as relevant, as it's not income, just your account balance?

Not too sure about the NI and employee numbers, as I didn't submit payslips, but I'd have thought if the payslips show your name and gross pay, that's all Erudio need to see, maybe someone else could confirm that?

gardenia101

anna2007 wrote: »

I think it could be really useful, yes. Are you able to do this JeLaw, or do we need a volunteer?

Remember there are a couple of FOI requests in, one I put in to BIS and SLC for info given to students (although I read on Mumsnet that SLC has already confirmed they don't hold anything that far back, in response to an identical request), and one for info supplied to the Uni's (Sarebear78's I think).

I should hear back from BIS soon - they did email to clarify if it was info for Scotland or England & Wales, which I thought sounded promising that they hold something?

If they don't go back that far is it worth requesting the info from the year closest to the one you've requested?

Just thinking out loud here, but if Erudio say that all income apart from disability benefits/expenses is now counted for deferment then aren't those who were granted deferment by SLC when their child benefit/TC/other benefits was excluded from their income now suffering a financial loss in the form of additional interest being added to the loan?

For instance (& I'm not sure this applies to me as I'll need to hunt for more paperwork to be sure), but if SLC have (mistakenly in Erudio's eyes) not taken certain income into account & allowed borrowers to run up larger debts, then that can't be the borrowers' fault. But yet they're still expected to repay the loan under different conditions (regardless of who is wrong & who is right there is still a material difference in including or excluding certain income sources) & now have more to pay off because of this change.

If I've been incorrectly deferred (in Erudios eyes, not mine) since 2002 then that's quite a chunk of extra interest added to my account.....

I'm sure someone with better English can explain what I mean :rotfl: (I'm not an English graduate!).

Mr_McGuffin

The BIS Press Release of 25 November 2013 gave these figures:

- 17% of total mortgage-style loans issued between 1990 and 2000 were sold to Erudio.
- 46% were below repayment threshold, 14% were still repaying and 40% were not repaying according to terms of the loans.

Therefore, among these loans approximately 7.8% of the total issued were below the repayment threshold.

The Press Release also made clear that 69% of the loans retained after the 1998 and 1999 sales had been fully repaid. The remaining 31% of outstanding loans were therefore equal to the 17% of total loans sold to Erudio.

This indicates that approximately 45% of the total loans were sold off in 1998 and 1999, while 55% were retained by the SLC.

I do not know what number of loans in the tranches sold in 1998 and 1999 were still below the repayment threshold at November 2013. If these were in the same proportion to the total as those sold to Erudio, then approximately 6.4% of loans in those tranches would be eligible for deferment. If this were the case, that would mean 14.2% of the total loans issued were below the deferment threshold in 2013. This is by no means certain without knowing the profile of accounts among the privately owned loans.

Any loans still in deferment are nearing cancellation after 25 years. Included within the 55% of total loans retained after 1999 are loans in deferment amounting to 7.8% of the total issued. This figure, and, if correct, the figure of approximately 14%, are within the range of estimates made by the Government in 1989 for the number of loans to be written off from 2016 to 2027 because deferment had continued for 25 years. If my arithmetic is correct, the estimated cancellation rate was between 10% and 15% of loans issued in each year over this period, 12.9% on average.

The decision in 1989 to place the deferment threshold at 85% of national average income was confirmed after the proposals for the loan scheme were well advanced. Political opposition pointed out a contradiction in fixing a deferment threshold below average income when graduates would supposedly earn more than the average. If the scheme were to ultimately arrive at the forecasted equilibrium of loans being drawn, repaid, deferred, in default, and written off, then the deferment threshold would be an important mechanism in producing the desired results.

Regulations to amend the deferment threshold were made annually until the Labour Government 'fixed' the terms of the loans forever, and retrospectively, in The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998. This was done to prepare the loans for sale to the private sector, as happened in 1998 and 1999.

There were some significant changes from the drafting of previous Regulations, including the change to 'he can show' rather than 'satisfies the loans administrator' in relation to income in the 'relevant month'. The definition of the calculation of the deferment threshold was also changed. Between 1990 and 1992, the Regulations merely stated a monthly figure. From 1993 onwards this became the product of a changing amount and an 'annual adjustment' based on the 'average earnings index'. The 1998 Regulations finally resolved this into:

'"Deferment level" means 85% of the lender's estimate of average monthly earnings of all full-time employees in Great Britain for the January when the level will apply based on figures published by the Office for National Statistics,'

This included the ambiguous terms 'lenders estimate', and 'based on', and the responsibility for defining this ‘estimate’ remained with a Government Department. Other contributors to this thread have calculated that the deferment threshold in earlier years does not seem to correspond to the ONS figures.

The number of borrowers in 2013 with deferred repayments and nearing cancellation seems to be close to the original estimates of loans to be written off. There was the facility in the Regulations both in 1998 and before for an adjustment to be applied to externally stated figures of national income in order to arrive at the deferment threshold. Did BIS and its predecessors adjust the deferment threshold to produce results to match the original forecasts for the performance of the loans?

If so, have they now changed or removed any such adjustment following the sale to Erudio? If not, what is the explanation for the reduction in the deferment threshold? What is the reason for the reduction in the 'lenders estimate' of average monthly earnings?

gardenia101

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

The BIS Press Release of 25 November 2013 gives these figures:....

I've not quoted the entire post as its quite long & should be ^^

I'm hoping this FOI request will help - what do the rest of you think?

anna2007

gardenia101 wrote: »

I've not quoted the entire post as its quite long & should be ^^

I'm hoping this FOI request will help - what do the rest of you think?

That FOI request was made by one of the regular posters on here gardenia, we're all waiting in anticipation for the answer to that one!

anna2007

@ Mr McGuffin - I'm interested in where you're going with all of that - are you saying you think the fall in deferment level is down to the Government trying to meet the original forecasts way back in 1989??


Do you have a link to the info on the decision back in 1989 - is it in a Hansard report?