ERUDIO student loans help

JeLaw

gardenia101 wrote: »

Why would it be better? Special deliver guarantees next day delivery whereas recorded doesn't & I need them to receive it ASAP.

Have I missed something?

Actually now I'm confused! I thought I understood the reasoning behind using recorded rather than special delivery - but my mind's gone blank.

I just remember people on this thread (and other threads) recommending recorded (instead of special delivery).

Now I don't know why - sorry!

anna2007

I think the reason people said to post recorded rather than SD is purely down to cost? You get proof of delivery with both, only difference is if you send 1st class recorded, it's not guaranteed to arrive next day (although usually it will).


But if it has to be there next day, SD's the only Royal Mail service that's guaranteed to get there on time.

anna2007

JeLaw wrote: »

I sent
copies of my bank statements but just realised the dates don't quite stretch back enough to cover 3 whole months! I suppose I'll have to send another earlier statement to cover the additional time!

JeLaw Do the ones you sent show the 3 months of credits though? If they do, that should be fine.

If it's for benefits, etc, their guidance on completing the DAF actually say to provide the previous month's bank statement only - it's only because of reports on the forums of deferment being delayed due to Erudio demanding 3 months' worth, that it seems to have become the norm.

You could email and get them to confirm it's enough evidence (refer to their guidance) - I had more luck with the customer services email (on their website), rather than the deferments email.

JeLaw

Thanks for the reasoning behind recorded v special delivery, Anna2007.

I think in that case if I need to send any further information for deferment I'll use special delivery because I don't want to give Erudio any excuse to delay!

Edited as just seen your response to my post. I'm not claiming benefits as I'm living on savings.

Just had another look at their guidance notes and it doesn't seem to specify how many months of bank statements they require. It just says "bank statements". It does specify that people receiving rental income should send 3 months bank statements but that doesn't apply to me. I've sent statements (showing all credits but with outgoings blanked out) going back over 2 months - so that seems to be surplus to their requirements. I think (hope!).

I'll update here when I hear anything from Erudio.

Forever

JeLaw wrote: »

Thanks for the FCA email address. Good luck to all of us!

I think Pluthero wanted to know whether you used Erudio's DAF (deferment form) for your deferment, or were you able to defer without it?

I'd be interested to know as well. Also, did you set-up a DD with them?

I did use their form. I haven't seen anyone get through the deferment process who hasn't signed it. I fully filled in my form, but I have seen others who have said that they got through the deferment process by only filling in relevant information.

I did set up the DD, as it is part of our contract. They did raid my bank account during the deferment application process too. But I got this back as part of the DD guarantee after ringing my bank.

I am complaining about both the intrusive form, and the fact that Erudio keeps snatching money from people's accounts when they shouldn't be. On top of this, there is the really beyond hopeless customer service, and contacting CRAs so that we all end up with a bad credit rating!

I hope this helps

gardenia101

anna2007 wrote: »

I think the reason people said to post recorded rather than SD is purely down to cost? You get proof of delivery with both, only difference is if you send 1st class recorded, it's not guaranteed to arrive next day (although usually it will).

But if it has to be there next day, SD's the only Royal Mail service that's guaranteed to get there on time.

I'll second the cost argument - £7.15 for an A4 size envelope with 26 sheets of A4 paper in :eek:. Hardly MSE, but it should be there by 1pm tomorrow & I can track online & get a picture of the form completed on receipt. Compare that to £1.72 to send a first class signed for A5 letter/envelope - both should get there by tomorrow but only one is guaranteed.

JeLaw wrote: »

Thanks for the reasoning behind recorded v special delivery, Anna2007.

I think in that case if I need to send any further information for deferment I'll use special delivery because I don't want to give Erudio any excuse to delay!

Edited as just seen your response to my post. I'm not claiming benefits as I'm living on savings.

Just had another look at their guidance notes and it doesn't seem to specify how many months of bank statements they require. It just says "bank statements". It does specify that people receiving rental income should send 3 months bank statements but that doesn't apply to me. I've sent statements (showing all credits but with outgoings blanked out) going back over 2 months - so that seems to be surplus to their requirements. I think (hope!).

I'll update here when I hear anything from Erudio.

All it said on my letter from Erudio was bank statements, so I've sent 2 months worth as only one month should be required (as per regulations). In the end I only blacked out where my outgoings we're going, & left the running balance so that I can prove how little I usually have in bank.

I've also emailed a scanned copy earlier today - thanks Anna (& I've even taken a photocopy of everything too - just in case!).

Will let you know when I hear anything.

No replies yet on the legalbeagles site, but will update if I hear anything.

Looking at the stuff Anna posted above (the FOI reply), while it doesn't answer specific enquiries I think it does give a feel for the whole ethos around student loans. I can't copy statements from the 1999/00 guide, but p12 talks about LEA maintenance grants. I know they were abolished years ago, but they we're still around when a lot of took out our loans. It says "...this income includes all the money that you earn or receive, after tax & social security contributions. Your LEA will then ignore the following income...most social security payments or other similar payments which are not taxed. Your LEA will give you more advice".

To me that suggests that if the grants system recognises that child benefit/maintenance (which are not taxable) should be excluded from income calculations, & the SLC didn't "count" them then its a bit much to suggest they count now. Surely if it was a rule to include them the last statement about the LEA giving advice wouldn't be there?

I wish the FOI about the threshold calculations would hurry up :rotfl:

JeLaw

Forever wrote: »

I did use their form. I haven't seen anyone get through the deferment process who hasn't signed it. I fully filled in my form, but I have seen others who have said that they got through the deferment process by only filling in relevant information.

I think I remember at least one person saying they were deferred without the form - but can't be sure. I ended up using their form but crossed out a lot of it. I also removed the FPN page (photocopied the side that required our signature and sent the photocopy in - without the FPN stuff).

I did set up the DD, as it is part of our contract. They did raid my bank account during the deferment application process too. But I got this back as part of the DD guarantee after ringing my bank.

I'm not sure whether I'll regret it but after agonising over what to do, I didn't complete the DD part of their form. I hope I have the strength for this fight... If I lose courage I do have a blank form, which I suppose I could complete and send on (and/or scan and email to them).

I am complaining about both the intrusive form, and the fact that Erudio keeps snatching money from people's accounts when they shouldn't be. On top of this, there is the really beyond hopeless customer service, and contacting CRAs so that we all end up with a bad credit rating!

I hope this helps

Thanks. It's good to hear how other people are dealing with this. And good luck with your complaints!

gardenia101 wrote: »

I'll second the cost argument - £7.15 for an A4 size envelope with 26 sheets of A4 paper in :eek:. Hardly MSE, but it should be there by 1pm tomorrow & I can track online & get a picture of the form completed on receipt. Compare that to £1.72 to send a first class signed for A5 letter/envelope - both should get there by tomorrow but only one is guaranteed.

The cost of deferring is certainly adding up! Photocopied several pages of bank statements and the Erudio form, and then the cost of recorded or special delivery. And then there's all the time spent on this....

All it said on my letter from Erudio was bank statements, so I've sent 2 months worth as only one month should be required (as per regulations). In the end I only blacked out where my outgoings we're going, & left the running balance so that I can prove how little I usually have in bank.

Sound similar to me. I agree that only one month (bank statements) is/should be required, so by sending 2 months (or more) we are going beyond what is necessary. I blacked out all outgoings and the running balance but maybe I went overboard.

I've also emailed a scanned copy earlier today - thanks Anna (& I've even taken a photocopy of everything too - just in case!).

I'll have to take another trip to the library to scan a copy to them. I think it's a good idea. It's such a pain all of this. I don't have a scanner or printer at the moment so have to get to the library - and there's often a wait for a free computer. I've also spent far too much time on Erudio. I'm at the hospital tomorrow and should be preparing my questions for the consultant but I've spent half the day on Erudio related issues!

Will let you know when I hear anything.

I'll do the same. Hope we both get our deferments confirmed with no further stress (and same for anyone else waiting for confirmation).

To me that suggests that if the grants system recognises that child benefit/maintenance (which are not taxable) should be excluded from income calculations, & the SLC didn't "count" them then its a bit much to suggest they count now. Surely if it was a rule to include them the last statement about the LEA giving advice wouldn't be there?

I still feel it could be argued that a precedent has been set. Especially as both the LEA (for grants) and then the SLC didn't count child benefit/maintenance.

I wish the FOI about the threshold calculations would hurry up :rotfl:

I'm sick to the back teeth of Erudio and yet this is just the first year. The thought of being stuck with them over the coming years is horrendous. Someone I went to university with defaulted on their loan. They went abroad for a few years and never corresponded with SLC (even when they returned to the UK). Now I guess they're statute barred so don't have to deal with Erudio. I'm beginning to regret being so responsible and I'm sorry I didn't just default on my loans.

Forever

JeLaw wrote: »

...

I'm sick to the back teeth of Erudio and yet this is just the first year. The thought of being stuck with them over the coming years is horrendous. Someone I went to university with defaulted on their loan. They went abroad for a few years and never corresponded with SLC (even when they returned to the UK). Now I guess they're statute barred so don't have to deal with Erudio. I'm beginning to regret being so responsible and I'm sorry I didn't just default on my loans.

I wish I had stopped dealing with the SLC now too.

Although I did ask in this thread previously, whether it was worth becoming statute barred now, so you don't have to deal with Erudio.

This is especially so if we are going to end up with a bad credit rating anyway. It seems to me like there is nothing to lose.

But then someone said that our student loans are different to normal loans, so they won't ever go away?

I don't really understand the ins and outs of this though.

erudioed

They get cancelled 25 years after they came due to be repaid or when you get to 50 0r 60. Dont believe anything you hear about them not going away @Forever. You just have to not default, that is the only way they will stick to you forever...and that is the heart of the initial concern with this Erudio and Arrow Global crew, you get the idea they would like us to do that.
Some day, if the deferment threshold doesnt drop to £6.38, they will start to offer short settlements, then we can collectively tell them to go to their tax havens and swivel, they should have offered such settlements straight away!

Forever

erudioed wrote: »

They get cancelled 25 years after they came due to be repaid or when you get to 50 0r 60. Dont believe anything you hear about them not going away @Forever. You just have to not default, that is the only way they will stick to you forever...and that is the heart of the initial concern with this Erudio and Arrow Global crew, you get the idea they would like us to do that.
Some day, if the deferment threshold doesnt drop to £6.38, they will start to offer short settlements, then we can collectively tell them to go to their tax havens and swivel, they should have offered such settlements straight away!

I'm sorry, I still don't understand how the statute barred, default, etc works.

If people have managed to avoid the SLC and now, no longer need to pay back their student loans, why can't we do that with Erudio?

Apologies for being a bit stupid about all of this