ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

it is upto 8 weeks..it depends how quickly they investigate your case and give you an answer.
Rosskie, concerning this: "Borrowers such as xxx are being offered the option to consent for their up to date accounts to be reported. If consent is withheld, these loans will not be reported to credit reference agencies unless they are in arrears or default"

Is this about pre-1998 loans? or post-1998?

Rosskie

Erudioed - first loan in 98, so they can only report if I breach conditions.

Cheer about the 8 weeks thing, they have aknowledged a new complaint, and said they will take up to 8 weeks to reply, but it doesn't say the accounts on hold or anything.

anna2007

Rosskie wrote: »

"Borrowers such as xxx are being offered the option to consent for their up to date accounts to be reported. If consent is withheld, these loans will not be reported to credit reference agencies unless they are in arrears or default"

"should xxx complete and sign the deferment application form, but indicate that he does not consent to the fair processing notice, then his deferment application will be processed in the usual manner"

Except Erudio aren't giving the option to consent, borrowers are being coerced into consent by submitting the DAF and deferment being accepted by Erudio.

Rosskie - was this Erudio's formal response to your FOS complaint? If this is the best they've got, I don't see how your complaint can't be upheld by the FOS, as there's clearly no option on the form to indicate you don't consent.

And if this is for post-98 loans, and Erudio are so big on treating customers fairly and equally, why aren't pre-98 borrowers being given the option to consent?!

erudioed

anna2007 wrote: »

And if this is for post-98 loans, and Erudio are so big on treating customers fairly and equally, why aren't pre-98 borrowers being given the option to consent?!

As Arrow's lawyers interpret it (well, threaten or interpret depending which side of the fence you are on), they suggest they think it is ok to report it because of the way they interpret our T&Cs for the pre-1998 loans. It really does make a difference in Rosskie's case if it is pre or post 1998, which is still slightly unclear from the last reply (but sounds like post-1998 loans). We know they have to get permission for the post 98 ones, but the drama is all about how the T&Cs are interpreted for the pre-1998 loans

Rosskie

Sorry, missed an important bit! They are 98 on loans, [STRIKE]but I started uni in 97, so I have the older agreements I think.[/STRIKE] I'm on the ones they can't report without the FPN.

updated.

anna2007

Jonez wrote: »

I think for the moment I'm just going to let it lie. I was deferred ok by Erudio - some hassle, but nothing in comparison with that experienced by others here. My intention at present is to submit a request for the loan to be written off - probably around a month before my birthday.

Jonez You shouldn't have to apply for the loans to be cancelled, it should happen automatically when you reach the qualifying age, but a good idea to get Erudio to confirm in writing they've done it.

This might help from Honours Student Loans website FAQ's, who bought the second tranche of MS loans:

"I think that I may be eligible for my loans to be cancelled due to my age. What do I need to do?
If you were under the age of 40 when you took out the last of your student loans, and your earnings have never reached the threshold required to begin repayment of your loans, Honours Student Loans will automatically cancel your loans when you reach the age of 50. This is dependent on your loans having no arrears at the time of cancellation.
If you were over the age of 40 when you took out the last of your student loans, and your earnings have never reached the threshold required to begin repayment of your loans, Honours Student Loans will automatically cancel your loans when you reach the age of 60. This is dependent on your loans having no arrears at the time of cancellation".

Not sure why they've said "and your earnings have never reached the threshold", as the regs don't qualify cancellation in this way - your liability to repay the loans is cancelled, and that's it. But as both Erudio and HSL are part of Wilmington Trust, it might be something to watch out for when the time comes.

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

As Arrow's lawyers interpret it (well, threaten or interpret depending which side of the fence you are on), they suggest they think it is ok to report it because of the way they interpret our T&Cs for the pre-1998 loans. It really does make a difference in Rosskie's case if it is pre or post 1998, which is still slightly unclear from the last reply (but sounds like post-1998 loans). We know they have to get permission for the post 98 ones, but the drama is all about how the T&Cs are interpreted for the pre-1998 loans

I agree it comes down to interpretation, but the spirit and intention of the clause will surely be the same in both pre- and post-98 agreements, i.e. to protect borrowers' data in accordance with the DPA?

The fact the clause was tightened up in the later agreement to be DPA compliant actually helps those of us on the earlier agreement, as it's an acknowledgement that the earlier clause was insufficient and ambiguous. And the fact Erudio can manipulate the term, to say no consent from the borrower is required, supports that too.

Rosskie

anna2007 wrote: »

Except Erudio aren't giving the option to consent, borrowers are being coerced into consent by submitting the DAF and deferment being accepted by Erudio.

Rosskie - was this Erudio's formal response to your FOS complaint? If this is the best they've got, I don't see how your complaint can't be upheld by the FOS, as there's clearly no option on the form to indicate you don't consent.

Coerced exactly, you can defer only if you use their form, if you use their form then you agree to the new terms. The wording of the FPN clearly states "WARNING.. by submitting this application you confirm that you consent..." etc etc. However they have rolled over in my case, saying I can indicate I do not agree. This hasn't been told directly to me though, I was copied in with the letter to the FOS member handling my complaint, so, although I'm aware this is now the case, they haven't actually told me.

Also the guidance for deferment doesn't say its optional, and in two places clearly insists that you sign the form.(therefore giving consent...)

Unfortunately my accounts now too far behind to clear the arrears even IF they then accept the deferment, and close to default, so hopefully FOS compensation can clear that, assuming I win.

Its certainly a formal response yes, 3 written pages with lots of points to address my complaints, sent from erudios legal counsel. If its a final response or not I dont know, I responded to FOS and Erudio along the lines of its clearly contradictory to whats written on the form and no where does it say its optional. Then demanded my deferement be backdated to reflect the application date.

Getting worried tho and losing sleep so gonna call FOS today and see if I can get any more information.

Rosskie

erudioed wrote: »

As Arrow's lawyers interpret it (well, threaten or interpret depending which side of the fence you are on), they suggest they think it is ok to report it because of the way they interpret our T&Cs for the pre-1998 loans. It really does make a difference in Rosskie's case if it is pre or post 1998, which is still slightly unclear from the last reply (but sounds like post-1998 loans). We know they have to get permission for the post 98 ones, but the drama is all about how the T&Cs are interpreted for the pre-1998 loans

OK, looked at loans to clarify, they are 98 onwards, and consent is requried to report. Forget about me starting uni earlier.

I was of the impression that they simply could report 97 loans, no drama, thats just the way it is. I thought the drama was about them wanting to report 98 on ones when they aren't allowed!

erudioed

so far, all we know is that they are using it as a threat. One person on one of the forums said that they had been turned down for a credit card because it was listed on their file, but that hasnt been confirmed yet. Plus, no one else has reported it as being listed on their credit file yet. Unless we get evidence they are doing it, then it is just an empty threat, but lets face it, that threat started most of this momentum going on the forums and put a serious wall between Erudio and its 'customers'. For that, whoever decided they would try and use the CRA threat, whether it is Zach Lewy (more than likely) or those cretins at Capita (i doubt it), it was a most terrible decision. Unless Arrow are getting paid for passing on the info or it is part of the Exprian deal Arrow has with Experian to give them 200,000 pieces of loan info, then it is a threat that has backfired because Arrow would get nothing for passing on this info but have created a huge amount of anger within us 'customers'...and got the press involved. All in all, it has backfired on them and the person who devised that plan should come forward and say sorry. Fat chance right! This is how they roll.
If they had approached us with respect from the start, they may not have half of the problems they are currently having.