ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

Forever wrote: »

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

I think it takes 6 years (5 in Scotland?) for a debt to be statute barred, and you must not acknowledge the debt in that time?

My understanding of it is that the SLC were quite lax about chasing debt, which is how some debts managed to become statute barred, i.e. no contact made either side.

Erudio are very unlikely to be so laid back about it all, so I can't see it being a good idea to default, especially if you're entitled to defer and likely to continue to defer until the loans are cancelled. Remember, Erudio want us all to default on our loans, as they know they haven't a chance of getting our money otherwise!

Forever

anna2007 wrote: »

I think it takes 6 years (5 in Scotland?) for a debt to be statute barred, and you must not acknowledge the debt in that time?

My understanding of it is that the SLC were quite lax about chasing debt, which is how some debts managed to become statute barred, i.e. no contact made either side.

Erudio are very unlikely to be so laid back about it all, so I can't see it being a good idea to default, especially if you're entitled to defer and likely to continue to defer until the loans are cancelled. Remember, Erudio want us all to default on our loans, as they know they haven't a chance of getting our money otherwise!

Oh I get it! Thanks very much anna2007 - yet again!

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

They get cancelled 25 years after they came due to be repaid or when you get to 50 0r 60.

I checked the 25 year rule a while ago, as that would apply to my loans before the age rule, and the regs say they're cancelled when the last agreement (not loan) has been outstanding for 25 years.

I take this to mean they qualify from the date the last agreement was made, as you owe the debt, with interest, from that time. That's not the same as the date repayments are due to start, which is usually delayed until the April after you finish your course.

This is important, as it makes quite a difference to the cancellation date, e.g. my last agreement was signed February 1993, but repayments weren't due to start until April 1994 - which means one less deferment application to Erudio!

What do others think?

Mr_McGuffin

anna2007 wrote: »

Note that BIS said in the press release that "40% are not repaying their loans in accordance with their terms" - NOT 40% are in default.

So a little fiddling with the statistics, a big fat lie about the number of loans in deferment - and it doesn't look quite so bad (for BIS)... that's almost TWO THIRDS of the loans book (excluding ones in repayment) which are in deferment!!!

This is very interesting. Quite right, BIS did not say 40% of the loans are in default.

The NAO Report of November 2013 said that ‘£127 million of outstanding loans may become ‘statute barred’’. That amount is 14.2% of the value of loans sold to Erudio, all of which were at least 13 years old. So this indicates 14.2% of the loans defaulted more than six years ago, and the oldest were 20 plus years old. That would leave a relatively much larger 25.8% to have defaulted in the last six years to add up to 40%. I think you are right, BIS are not saying 40% are in default, many of these may be in deferment.

If not, there was acceleration in the number of people defaulting in the previous six years, or an addition from elsewhere.

For various reasons, which are important and interesting, is it possible that the SLC allowed people to continue to defer even if technically they may have lost the right to? As I understand it, missing just one repayment over 20 years would be enough to technically breach the agreement.

The BIS Press Release also contained this ominous explanation:

‘Borrowers will continue to be able to defer repayment of their loan if they are under the income threshold provided they have previously met their obligations under the terms of the loan agreement, and similarly will still have their loans cancelled if they meet the criteria set out in legislation.’

Not just meet or continue to meet, but 'previously met'. This suggests to me that the purchaser may be able to retrospectively check whether borrowers ‘have previously met their obligations’ in deciding whether to defer future repayments, even if the SLC had previously allowed deferment.

erudioed

That is all very interesting Mr McGuffin to an unsophisticated statistical phobe like myself.
Not that it means much, but when i spoke to BIS, they considered the deferment part of the portfolio to be as good as written off and the main reason why they were sold for such a low price. BIS considered it was the defaulted ones that had value to Arrow because its their speciality tracking people down...but it would take much work to do so.

Mr_McGuffin

It is very interesting that they said that.

That is consistent with what the BIS Committee were told. David Willetts also said this about the value of the loans book:

'Another figure that we have not gone into in public is our internal estimate and we haven't ever accepted a particular figure'.

leigash

anna2007 wrote: »

I think it takes 6 years (5 in Scotland?) for a debt to be statute barred, and you must not acknowledge the debt in that time?

My understanding of it is that the SLC were quite lax about chasing debt, which is how some debts managed to become statute barred, i.e. no contact made either side.

Erudio are very unlikely to be so laid back about it all, so I can't see it being a good idea to default, especially if you're entitled to defer and likely to continue to defer until the loans are cancelled. Remember, Erudio want us all to default on our loans, as they know they haven't a chance of getting our money otherwise!

Anna, surely if you wont sign the form and they wont defer you, what choice do you have other than default. I don't understand what you can actually do about it? Surely if they were to take people to court and chase up the default, you can just show that you have deferred fine for however many years with SLC and you have given Erudio all of the information required to defer but they wont do it. Doesn't this then just turn into a dispute between the deferrer or defaulter and Erudio? Am I being really naive?


Just asking because my wife hasn't signed the form but provided everything they needed and they have sent back the arrears, she made a complaint to them and also to the FOS but beyond that what can we actually do? They are going to default her, I don't know how you are supposed to stop them??

Pluthero

leigash wrote: »

Anna, surely if you wont sign the form and they wont defer you, what choice do you have other than default. I don't understand what you can actually do about it? Surely if they were to take people to court and chase up the default, you can just show that you have deferred fine for however many years with SLC and you have given Erudio all of the information required to defer but they wont do it. Doesn't this then just turn into a dispute between the deferrer or defaulter and Erudio? Am I being really naive?


Just asking because my wife hasn't signed the form but provided everything they needed and they have sent back the arrears, she made a complaint to them and also to the FOS but beyond that what can we actually do? They are going to default her, I don't know how you are supposed to stop them??

Next up is court! My letter before action is already typed. Just waiting on FOS to get back to me with their findings. Not expecting them to find in my favor TBH. But if erudio want to trash my credit rating they ain't doing it without a fight!

leigash

Pluthero wrote: »

Next up is court! My letter before action is already typed. Just waiting on FOS to get back to me with their findings. Not expecting them to find in my favor TBH. But if erudio want to trash my credit rating they ain't doing it without a fight!

How much is that likely to cost you though Pluthero? I know my wife is just going to bury her head in the sand and if they ever contact her, tell them to p*ss off! I know she wont take them to court she's already forgotten about it, I'm the one worrying

Pluthero

Whatever you do! Don't default because the debt will follow you forever!

Stop worrying. They are debt collectors and brilliant ones. Their letters are scare tactics.

It's early days in the fight against them and there may be much legal action in the coming months and years.

Remember! If you are below threshold and legally entitled to defer and Have demonstrated this in writing to erudio then there is no way in hell they will risk taking you to court!

Start a paper trail. Never phone them ever!

I was as scared as you a few months ago but have since taken lots of legal advice and educated myself, never took out a loan to do it either Boom boom!

Hang in there and don't be bullied.