ERUDIO student loans help

babyboos

I am going to be just over the threshold for a month as my salary is about to go back down but currently on a better paid secondment
so I have a honours student loan and an erudio loan
I got the deferment form from slc today for the honours not had pleasure of getting erudios yet
what happens when I have to then pay back how long do I get to pay back and as I have two loans is it like double the hit I have to pay and if my wage then goes down below threshold can I reapply for deferment at a later date
when I repay does the loan from erudio go on my credit file? heard if I defer it does?

gardenia101

Had a reply about whether child maintenance can be included as my income by Erudio. As we'd discussed in this thread the thought is that it shouldn't be counted as income, but there doesn't appear to be anything that says it is specifically excluded either - part of the email below;

The money that makes up the child maintenance is from the payers income, not the receivers.
It belongs to the child and has already been taxed from that income.
So they can't very well count it as income again, and tax it for a second time......

I would feel a lot happier if there was a statement somewhere saying it was excluded, like there is for disability benefits.

fermi

babyboos wrote: »

I am going to be just over the threshold for a month as my salary is about to go back down but currently on a better paid secondment
so I have a honours student loan and an erudio loan
I got the deferment form from slc today for the honours not had pleasure of getting erudios yet
what happens when I have to then pay back how long do I get to pay back and as I have two loans is it like double the hit I have to pay and if my wage then goes down below threshold can I reapply for deferment at a later date
when I repay does the loan from erudio go on my credit file? heard if I defer it does?

The Erudio deferment should be dealt with by SLC as well since you have split loans.

Most Erudio and SLC staff don't seem to realise that, so they will tell you a load of nonsense if you query it.

JeLaw

On the subject of blitzing the media, MPs, etc.... I've still not had any reply whatsoever from my MP (I emailed them a few months ago).

Maybe I'm just being paranoid but would my MP have any way of knowing that I used to support a different political party? I was a member of a political party for a year (not anymore) and it's not the same one as my MP. Can't help wondering that my MP knows and is therefore not going to bother to help me with my concerns.

I think they wouldn't know and their lack of response is simply coincidence. Maybe they've been very busy dealing with other constituents or perhaps even the email never reached them for some reason.

I'll try contacting them again and hope for a response this time. I want to go in person if I can make one of the surgeries.

ericctheking

babyboos wrote: »

so I have a honours student loan and an erudio loan
I got the deferment form from slc today for the honours not had pleasure of getting erudios yet

Why no form from the SLC for the Erudio loan?
The SLC should be dealing with your deferment for Erudio because you have a split loan.

Mr_McGuffin

Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Robert Jackson): 'The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks.' (Hansard HC Deb 12 June 1990 vol 174)

The terms of the loan agreements did not authorise this. Neither the original 1990 Regulations nor the now applicable 1998 Act and Regulations authorised this.

The Erudio Deferment Application Form requires that borrowers 'authorise the organisation or persons from whom my income is derived' to give any information about that income that Erudio 'may request.' Erudio do not otherwise have this right. Deferment is made conditional on agreement to this authorisation. Deferment is refused without the borrower's signed consent to this in an application form unilaterally prescribed by Erudio.

The Government Minister responsible for the sale to Erudio promised: 'Borrowers will remain protected and there will be no change to their terms and conditions'. The authorisation to contact sources of income is a new term. The authorisation to 'undertake checks that you are eligible for deferment' is a new term. The prescription of a particular compulsory form is a new term.

How are these not changes to borrowers terms and conditions?



Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v.1.0

Pluthero

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Robert Jackson): 'The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks.' (Hansard HC Deb 12 June 1990 vol 174)

The terms of the loan agreements did not authorise this. Neither the original 1990 Regulations nor the now applicable 1998 Act and Regulations authorised this.

The Erudio Deferment Application Form requires that borrowers 'authorise the organisation or persons from whom my income is derived' to give any information about that income that Erudio 'may request.' Erudio do not otherwise have this right. This authorisation is demanded in order to obtain deferment. Deferment is refused without the borrower's signed consent to this in an application form unilaterally prescribed by Erudio.

The Government Minister responsible for the sale to Erudio promised: 'Borrowers will remain protected and there will be no change to their terms and conditions'. The authorisation to contact sources of income is a new term. The authorisation to 'undertake checks that you are eligible for deferment' is a new term. The prescription of a particular compulsory form is a new term.

How are these not changes to borrowers terms and conditions?



Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v.1.0

I made that part of my complaint to the FOS.

Erudio's DAF tries to change the loan terms: I will not sign it because of this.

They won't defer me without using their DAF. Coercion, Possibly illegal?

Hardly treating me fairly at any rate!

Once a few more battles have been won against this shower of extortionists I think MSE should put a stickied Post up of how to deal with them in future and for others to easily reference:

It should contain:

No need for DD.
Don't Ever Phone Erudio.
Use recorded mail only.
List of what information you legally have to provide them.
FOS address and FCA address and complaints process.

Feel free to add to this!

erudioed

@MrMcguffin
very well spotted. Maybe i have missed this being suggested before but this is the first time i am consciously aware of this issue. It seems to me that you have hit a nail that cant be argued against. It is indeed a T&C. BIS argue that the changes to the deferment process arent a change to the T&Cs...however, your example clearly is. I dont see how that can be argued against by either BIS or Arrow's chosen lawyers. This is definitely one to try and get out their as much possible. Brilliant work! It is another brick that would make the 'implicit threats' asscoaited with our deferments much less stressful. After all, who wants these vultures ringing up your boss and discussing your own personal student loan with them...the fact that we havent done a runner in the past suggests that most of evidence we give will be real and hold up in court. After all, it isnt so much the lower earners who employ those kind of tricks to get out of paying stuff, that has been proven time and time again to be those with stacks of cash who lie and avoid paying as much as possible. They set up things like complicated business structures and establish premises in tax havens. As such, removing that threat, if we can get word out, would be another factor making deferment less stressful for many for the next 10 or less years.

fermi

This is what the SLC forms used to have on them.

erudioed

Nice one again fermi... the ultimate leveller. You caught me jumping to the end too quickly again.
There does seem to be some contradiction though