ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

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.

This, from Martin Lewis' blog back in May

"Erudio says it wants to provide a bespoke system for each borrower. It believes many who deferred in the past shouldn’t have been deferred, they should have been given forbearance (ie, they are eligible to repay, but should in special circumstances be let off doing so) and it wants to look at each case individually".

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2014/05/06/the-government-has-sold-people-out-over-erudio-student-loans/

I would have thought that if you previously had arrears with SLC and you brought the account up to date (and SLC then continued to grant deferment each year), then Erudio would have no grounds to refuse deferment?

However, it does make me wonder if it's connected to those retrospective arrears notices issued by Erudio "to correct a long-running error in correspondence" by the SLC, which seemed more than a little suspicious:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2014/07/hit-by-1990s-student-loans-blunder-check-for-erudio-packs-in-post

anna2007

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

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.

I was looking at the SLC statistics again (copy here https://www.dropbox.com/s/uif1q9lh0kchy5m/SLC%20Loan%20Stats%202013.pdf?dl=0) - a couple of points re defaulted loans:

This, on page 3:
"The increase in the amount written off during the financial year under "Other" was due to a one-off exercise to write off the outstanding balance of Mortgage Style loans that had become uncollectable".

The number of borrowers with accounts cancelled or written off under "Other" was 3,700 shown on page 7 - table 2(i). This was up from 800 in the previous year.

Also, table 2(ii) on page 8 shows the number of borrowers with no repayment schedule and >=£100 overdue as 61,400 (of 78,600 borrowers not paying in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement).

The note at page 12 re these borrowers states:
"Borrowers who have no current repayment schedule and an amount equal to or greater than £100 is still due. This group generally comprises those in a long term arrears position, many of whom are in litigation".

It seems unlikely that many of these borrowers are in litigation because SLC took them to court for defaulting, by all accounts SLC had a very low record of taking court action. So the majority of this 78% could represent the number of borrowers who are in litigation because they're claiming their debt has become statute barred?

These are the figures reported by SLC for financial year 2012/13. BIS quoted 40% of borrowers not paying in accordance with the terms in November 2013. It's possible that the vast majority of that 40% relate to these defaulters who are "in litigation", i.e. statute barred?


If the majority of that 40% quoted by BIS is unrecoverable, that leaves very little other than deferred loans for Erudio to chase...

leigash

Pluthero wrote: »

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.

Thanks Pluthero, how will they actually default us anyway, will they just do it without informing you? What are the procedures? As you can see, not got a clue when it comes to this, glad I didn't get a loan!

anna2007

leigash wrote: »

Thanks Pluthero, how will they actually default us anyway, will they just do it without informing you? What are the procedures? As you can see, not got a clue when it comes to this, glad I didn't get a loan!

leigash There are procedures Erudio legally have to follow - arrears notice, default notice, etc - there's a section on their website under FAQ:

http://www.erudiostudentloans.co.uk/faqs/default.htm

Remember you're not choosing to default though, if Erudio say you're in arrears, they've put you in that situation due to refusing to complete their form. All you're legally required to do is show Erudio your income's below the deferment threshold - the relevant parts of the legislation are in post# 1474, page 74.

If you're not prepared to take them to court, then I think it's a case of waiting to see how far Erudio take this - I can't remember anyone actually being sent a default notice for refusing to complete the form, probably because there's no legal basis for Erudio to refuse deferment on those grounds?

You could formally complain to Erudio - this puts your account on hold for up to 8 weeks (so they can't chase for arrears) then you can complain to the financial ombudsman, which is a free service.

I keep reading on the forums that FOS won't actually consider any legal disputes, which seems ridiculous as the whole point of an ombudsman is to resolve disputes before resorting to court action? When I complained to the FCA (I got the same response as Forever - it's being passed to the "supervisory team"), they advised to take my issues to the FOS (even though I said I was doing that already!), but I think you have to word the FOS complaint in terms of unfair treatment, rather than the legalities of it, hopefully then they will consider it.

erudioed

As an aside, i wonder when Erudio will release their quarterly accounting/business report or whatever it is.

Also, Zach Lewy still seems to have not voluntarily reemerged and asked MSE forum readers about the redesign of the deferment form he kind of insinuated at strongly for appeasement purposes after his illegal, unpunsihed, virtually unreported, non-investgated mass Direct Debit stealing escapades.

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

As an aside, i wonder when Erudio will release their quarterly accounting/business report or whatever it is.

I'd like to see that too, but also the FCA publish the number of complaints by company - I think it's every 6 months - now there's a great incentive for everyone to get those complaints in to Erudio and the FCA!

http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/systems-reporting/complaints-data

erudioed wrote: »

Also, Zach Lewy still seems to have not voluntarily reemerged and asked MSE forum readers about the redesign of the deferment form he kind of insinuated at strongly for appeasement purposes after his illegal, unpunsihed, virtually unreported, non-investgated mass Direct Debit stealing escapades.

MSE's Helen told me last month that she was about to meet with Erudio to discuss redesign of the form (I emailed her a copy of my complaint and Erudio's response confirming the DD was no longer required).

I'll PM her for an update - and ask when we get to have a say

erudioed

Heres an erudio page on drysdensfairfax solicitors site. It is for people with a county court judgement against them but maybe it is worth a look to see how they are approaching it.

Good news Anna on the DD letter, that has to lead to that bit being pulled off the form.

erudioed

a rather bizarre post about Erudio which i really wish i understood but is rather amusing in its own way:
http://buzzing4humanrights.com/kredyty-kolbuszowa/

BaffledByErudio

I saw that bizarre post a few weeks ago @erudioed
Found it similarly difficult to understand, so didn't bother mentioning it at the time.
I've looked at the drysdenfairfax site and was secretly hoping it was going to be one of those faux solicitor set-ups, as proven to have been used by SLC. But alas, it's bone-fida and seemingly specialises in debt recovery.

I was amused (a few posts back) at your comment "....unless the deferment threshold falls to £6.31...."
It got me thinking though. Even if we can ultimately account for how it's dropped £2k this year, how much further, in the long run, can it fall?
I know it's tied to the 85% of average national wage figures, but I'd love to know just how much these figures can be twisted.
I'm on £18k (and possibly soon facing redundancy) and I do wonder about the threshold's future changes. If I stay in my job, I suppose within 5 years, I'll maybe be on £20-22k.
I pray that these b*ggers can't cook the books to force me into repayment at such a low wage. I can't get to the end of the month without using my overdraft as it is!
If I manage to land a £26k job, then fair enough, I'll pay up as required, but I can't help but think Erudio wants to push us all into repayment and they'll use whatever sneaky measures they can find.
Any suggestion that they were told by BIS that the deferers were as good as written off seems to have a strong whiff of BS to me. This wasn't just about Erudio chasing up the defaulters. It was about getting the money every which way but loose!

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

a rather bizarre post about Erudio which i really wish i understood but is rather amusing in its own way:
http://buzzing4humanrights.com/kredyty-kolbuszowa/

:rotfl:

That's beyond bizarre!!