ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi everyone

Following a request last week we removed a direct email address. We asked the company for an alternative email address and to let us know how long it will take for people emailing it to get the help they're asking for.

Here's the response:

The correct email is: [EMAIL="customerservice@erudiostudentloans.co.uk"]customerservice@erudiostudentloans.co.uk[/EMAIL].

If a complaint cannot be resolved by the close of the next business day following its receipt, Erudio will send a written acknowledgement of the complaint within five working days of receipt and a full investigation will follow. After investigation, Erudio will endeavour to send a final response to the customer within eight weeks of receipt of the complaint in line with FCA complaint handling guidelines. If Erudio is unable to provide a final response within this time, Erudio will send an update to explain why they have been unable to respond fully. Erudio endeavours to respond to customer complaints as soon as is practically possible.

So the dude at Carval or someone else from Arrow was monitoring the forum. No surprise there then. Now we are left with the email address where the replies can be twisted truths, no-replies or the usual inefficient service.
Erudio will..., Erudio is unable..., Erudio endevours... etc etc. They are an investment trustee and dont even exist, a shell company and we all know it. Call it the way it is, it is Ventura replying on behalf on Capita, on behalf of Arrow Global and Carval (or should i say the 'Consortium' as they like to be known). Its like a Babushka doll but now we all know, they can stop treating us like idiots and hiding behind this ridiculous Erudio name that takes all the blame for anything bad and deflects attention away from those truly responsible for this shambles imposed on us all. It is good as a brand damage limitation technique and a good way of hiding all the dodgy channel islands gumpf they get up to.
Strange they can impose fines on us if we lie or provide false information but this bunch, it took 2 months back in April to work out who the hell we were dealing with, and now we know, they still insist on hiding behind this ridiculous set up! Then when someone posts an email address that gets results, of someone who actually had a hand in this deal from the inception, they can even enforce this site to take it down, even though it is in our interest to have it if we get nowhere with the 'Erudio' contacts.

rizla_king

This is not as newsworthy as it was.

JeLaw

anna2007 wrote: »

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

I'm hoping their response to you will cover me. I didn't complete the DD. If they try to use that as an attempt to refuse to defer me, would you mind if I referred to their response to you? I'd understand if you'd prefer not.

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

I personally think that only confirms Erudio will scour the records for any pretext to force as many people as possible into default and/or ‘bespoke’ payment plans. It seems to me the loan agreements give them precisely this opportunity in a number of different ways. The borrowers' only protection from a lousy and nonsensical law and agreement was that the SLC continued to run deferment according to its original programming.

The Labour Government knew that when they sold the earlier loans in 1998 and 99 with SLC retained deferment, and this Government knew it last year when they sold these as a business opportunity.

I agree. It seems that Erudio are already doing just that - or trying to. Attempting to force (intimidate) people into using their form to defer, trying to insist on DD being set-up, etc. Leading to them trying to claim we are in arrears due to their refusal to defer us (despite us being eligible). That shouldn't work however as we won't be in arrears if we have done what is legally required of us - despite what they try to claim.

And then there's the lowered deferment threshold. Lowered again next year?

Spent yesterday at the hospital (routine appointment with my consultant) and although it's not a fun day out, it was actually a nice break from the whole Erudio nightmare! Just catching up on the thread now.

We really have been sold down the river.

anna2007

JeLaw wrote: »

I'm hoping their response to you will cover me. I didn't complete the DD. If they try to use that as an attempt to refuse to defer me, would you mind if I referred to their response to you? I'd understand if you'd prefer not.

Of course I don't mind JeLaw, feel free to use the letters, that's why I posted them up

I gave the FCA a copy with my complaint, asked them to step in and get the DAF, website, etc changed, also linked to the MSE article with the 500 stolen DD's, and the forums with reports of DD's being taken since then. Here's hoping they take notice.

anna2007

ericctheking wrote: »

People with split accounts (eg. one years loan with Thesis and the others with Erudio) were defered by the SLC and using the SLC's forms this year, This was never made clear however.
Next year will be the same I assume.

It was more the loans sold previously to Thesis Servicing and Honours - do you know if these included deferred loans (both of their websites say the deferment process is done by SLC, but it's not clear if they 'own' deferred accounts - it may just be ones with arrears)?

Thesis are part of Link Financial, and it says on their website:
"Thesis administers a pool of 250,000 UK student loans" and "Thesis already manages a portfolio of over £100 million of overdue student accounts".

So "overdue" will be accounts with arrears, which would include a limited number of deferred accounts, but not the majority that are up to date?

http://www.linkfinancial.co.uk/corporate/student-loans

JeLaw

anna2007 wrote: »

Of course I don't mind JeLaw, feel free to use the letters, that's why I posted them up

I gave the FCA a copy with my complaint, asked them to step in and get the DAF, website, etc changed, also linked to the MSE article with the 500 stolen DD's, and the forums with reports of DD's being taken since then. Here's hoping they take notice.

Thank you! It really is so helpful that you've posted up their written confirmation re. the DD. Hopefully others will also now feel more confident in not setting-up a DD.

I think I'm going to be on edge for the next few weeks waiting for a response from Erudio re. my deferment! I'll post updates when I hear anything.

cluelessfish

anna2007 wrote: »

It was more the loans sold previously to Thesis Servicing and Honours - do you know if these included deferred loans (both of their websites say the deferment process is done by SLC, but it's not clear if they 'own' deferred accounts - it may just be ones with arrears)?

My loans are now split between Honours and erudio. So Honours now owns at least 2 deferred accounts. These were sold while I was still a student so Honours must have known some of the accounts they bought would be deferred.

Personally I have never had a problem with Honours. They sent out separate balance updates and deferment reminders but never took money from my account.

erudio on the other had were/are amazingly efficient at setting up direct debits but unable to follow standard procedures before collecting.

ericctheking

cluelessfish wrote: »

Personally I have never had a problem with Honours. They sent out separate balance updates and deferment reminders but never took money from my account.

Honours are the same company as Erudio, just a different shell company so to speak.
Honours and Thesis loans were sold off with SLC still doing deferment.
If the Erudio loans had been sold off with the same conditions then none of this trouble would have happened.
I guess the guys behind all this weren't getting a big enough return on their investment in the first lot sold off so made a deal with BIS to take on deferment for the Erudio lot where they could use funny business to get more money.

By the way. Because you have a split loan I think SLC will defer your Erudio loans too. Does anyone now if this is confirmed?

GirlGeek

SLC are meant to cover deferment for any split loans, they send out the forms. Surprisingly Erudio aren't that keen on it! I think the reason some people haven't had deferment forms that have been promised to them by Erudio is because when they ask SLC to send them out SLC discover that person is still in deferment and don't need a new form. I am waiting to see who sends out forms for my next deferment in April. Despite two promises of forms from Erudio I didn't receive any, but as I was in deferment at that point I was never going to get one because the request was made to SLC (who have a better idea of what they're doing).

On another point, I have a Thesis loan and I'm not in arrears, I have deferred successfully every year, via SLC, since I left uni, with whatever company I've been pushed around to (until this year with those bl**dy Erudio people!!).

ericctheking

GirlGeek wrote: »

SLC are meant to cover deferment for any split loans, they send out the forms.

Is this all confirmed and will it be like this from now on until the loans are either paid or written off?

If the SLC always have to defer Thesis and Honours loans (as part of a previous agreement) they still need to keep people who can do deferment. Seems crazy to have Erudio doing deferment too.

Why couldn't it be kept with the SLC for everyone?