ERUDIO student loans help

Jonez

anna2007 wrote: »

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.

Thanks for this anna2007. 'Never reached the threshold' is an odd phrase? For a while around 04-06 my earnings did exceed and I paid via DD to the SLC in the usual way. I hope this odd wording doesn't indicate an attempt to wrangle out of the regs?

anna2007

Jonez wrote: »

Thanks for this anna2007. 'Never reached the threshold' is an odd phrase? For a while around 04-06 my earnings did exceed and I paid via DD to the SLC in the usual way. I hope this odd wording doesn't indicate an attempt to wrangle out of the regs?

I agree it sounds odd (and my natural reaction was to be suspicious), but there's definitely no such reference in the regs or loan agreement, so if you happened to be over the threshold at some point during the life of the loans, that's irrelevant to cancellation.

It may just be badly worded by HSL, but either way, it's nothing to be concerned about as it has no impact on your right to cancellation.

anna2007

Finally got a response from BIS re the original student loans literature - they only have paper copies so it's arriving by Special Delivery tomorrow, but these are the documents being sent, if there's anything useful I'll scan and post it up on the forum:

1. Loans for Students – a brief guide 1990-91
2. Student Grants And Loans – a brief guide 1991-92
3. Student Grants And Loans – a brief guide 1992-93
4. Student Grants And Loans – a brief guide 1993-94
5. Student Grants And Loans – a brief guide 1994-95
6. Student loans a guide for students 1995/96
7. Student Grants And Loans – a brief guide 1995-96
8. Student Grants And Loans – a brief guide 1996-97
9. Student Grants And Loans – a brief guide 1999-98
10. Student Loans – guidance on terms and conditions 1998-99
11. Financial support for students – a guide to grants, loans and fees in higher education 1998/99

BIS did say there may be additional documents held by the Department for Education, or in the National Archives. Two mentioned by Mr McGuffin were:

‘Top-up loans for students – the Government’s proposals’ February 1990, DES

‘The Student Top-Up Loans Scheme – An Outline’ May 1990, DES

Is there anyone near Kew who could check the National Archives for these two, or can they be ordered online?

Sarebear78

That looks good Anna - sounds like a good response. You'll be busy reading those

dotties

Hello,
I think I said that I sent back my deferment application next day delivery. That was on the 22nd August, it was signed for on the 25th August.
On Monday 1st September I got a letter to say my application was accepted and my loan was deferred from October for a further year. This deferment is under the the threshold until 31 August.
I know I can't get away with it next year but it gives me some breathing space.

bukowski_

Hi all, I just wondered if anyone could help clarify this. I'm in the process of deferring and wondered if the new lower threshold since 1st September will apply to me or the old threshold?

My form was sent to me dated 14th August and states the older figure of no more than £2398 a month. I haven't sent my forms off yet as waiting on child benefit evidence to come through. Including child benefit, I will be just under the older threshold but over the newer lower amount. Can anybody clarify or is this not yet known? Thanks!

Rosskie

Spoke to FOS, t'was a bit vauge... but.

FOS says - all erudio complaints on hold. The matter has been passed to senior folks to decide, seems it could go either way. Argument for erudio - they are acting consistently within the loan industry. Argument against - only some student loans are with Erudio, who, by treating us differently from people still with the SLC for example, are treating us unfairly and inconsistently.

Says its a 50/50, decision and guideance on how to deal with complaints and which way they will go should hopefully be made soon.

Arrears etc accrued while dispute goes on are the liability of the borrower should FOS side with Erudio.

If this seems like sensitive info or anything comment and I'l remove it.

So, since they told me I can defer without consent to the FPN I'm gonna try and do that, stop any further arrears and let FOS decide if I've been wrong or erudios been wrong in regard to the arrears that cant be backdated. Let the games commence.

JeLaw

Rosskie wrote: »

Spoke to FOS, t'was a bit vauge... but.

FOS says - all erudio complaints on hold. The matter has been passed to senior folks to decide, seems it could go either way. Argument for erudio - they are acting consistently within the loan industry. Argument against - only some student loans are with Erudio, who, by treating us differently from people still with the SLC for example, are treating us unfairly and inconsistently.

Just wanted to say I admire your will to fight Erudio on this, and wish you luck - in getting your deferment sorted quickly, and in your battle!

Am I just being thick here? This line about acting consistently within the loan industry - how does that justify Erudio attempting to coerce us to sign their form (and possibly consenting to a change in the original terms and conditions)?

Am I not right in believing that there is nothing in the original terms and conditions that compels us to defer in a given format? And were we not assured at the time of taking out these loans that it would not affect our credit rating?

I admit I don't know anything much about how all this works but I've had a look at the money advice service site and their description of financial mis-selling.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/financial-mis-selling-what-to-do-if-you-think-its-affected-you

I think one of the PPI reasons is relevant to us:

• Nobody fully explained the terms and conditions (small print)

I don't think any of us (I certainly wasn't) were made aware of the possibility that one day these loans could be sold on to a private company. We were encouraged to take them out on the understanding that they were with the government.

Also I think these could also be relevant to our case (reasons given for mis-sold investments):

• You weren’t told about the risks involved
• The product didn’t suit your needs or attitude to risk that you discussed with the adviser.

Maybe I am just failing to understand something.

JeLaw

anna2007 wrote: »

Received a response to my FOI request to SLC for information leaflets, promotional material, etc, which refers me to their disclosure log on their website (someone put the same request in before me). There are a few leaflets attached, not had a proper look, but doesn't look like anything earlier than 1998/99. It's under June 2014, Request reference: 104-14, if link doesn't take you straight there:

http://www.slc.co.uk/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-disclosures.aspx#June

Just had a look at this (thanks again for posting). As far as I can see there's not mention in the 1998/99 guide about the possibility of these loans being sold on from the government. That strengthens the argument for mis-selling. Should this not have been made clear in the information leaflet/guide?

In fact the first page of the guide states that "...student loans are part of the government's financial support package".

JeLaw

bukowski_ wrote: »

Hi all, I just wondered if anyone could help clarify this. I'm in the process of deferring and wondered if the new lower threshold since 1st September will apply to me or the old threshold?

My form was sent to me dated 14th August and states the older figure of no more than £2398 a month. I haven't sent my forms off yet as waiting on child benefit evidence to come through. Including child benefit, I will be just under the older threshold but over the newer lower amount. Can anybody clarify or is this not yet known? Thanks!

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (my health's been up and down so I might miss something) but as I understand it there's still some confusion as to whether or not child benefit should be included. I think there's a freedom of information request about this at the moment and we're waiting on a response.

It seems from some people's experiences on here that SLC didn't include child benefit, which could be seen as setting a precedent.

It's all a bit of a nightmare this Erudio situation. I hope you manage to sort things out with them.