ERUDIO student loans help

babyboos

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.

QUOTE]



is it not the case then that slc had the right to refer us to credit agencies in the past but just never exercised that power?

BaffledByErudio

Hi, I've just been looking at Erudio's guide to filling out the DAF.
I suppose I must have read it at the time I applied for deferment (by using and signing their form), but on re-reading it today, there's a very dubious passage which caught my eye. (What isn't dubious about the situation?!)

It says, in reference to the new-look form, in comparison to the SLC version....
"What has changed from last year?
Some of the sections of the application form require you to provide more detail, however the requirements to successfully apply for deferment remain the same as last year. The deferment threshold continues to be set each year by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and is currently £2,398 gross monthly income for the year from 1st September 2013 to 31st August 2014. If you provide the required evidence that your gross income is below that threshold, your application will be processed quickly and efficiently."

I've bolded up the money shot there.
So, if we're working on the basis that the deferment process and requirements are the 'same as last year', I'd take that to mean that proof of last three months' wage and written confirmation that it won't be any higher in the coming month should be entirely sufficient.
There was not a requirement last year that we fill out an intrusive, poorly written and long-winded piece of paperwork for a company called Erudio!
The Erudio form contradicts itself. (We know this already, as it more or less does the same in the CRAs blurb). But it specifies in black and white that the requirements for deferment remain the same as last year, so why the giant phishing exercise and insistence that their form is used and signed?
My apologies if someone has already covered this inconsistency on this forum, but it is staggering just how mind-twisting some of Erudio's BS actually is in that form!

babyboos

griffythings wrote: »

Why did the government sell our loans for 5 pence in the pound? My £800 loan cost Erudio £40. Why didn't I get a chance to settle at even £60 or £80. I would have settled and the government would have raised even more money. I just put a petition on the Number 10 website asking for a change in the law so that every borrower has the right to "purchase" their loan whenever it is put up for sale and at the discounted price. Please sign and send these idiots a message.

this is a great idea

babyboos

shame deed already done so cant implement it

erudioed

I just got a reply from the FOS:
Financial Ombudsman ‏@financialombuds 2m @erudioed Hi – we're looking into things and still happy to help out anyone with a problem & let them know what they can do: 0300 123 9 123


...more to come!

erudioed

right, ive just called the FOS and they say they havent ring fenced them specifically and are still dealing with complaints on an individual basis. But they did say that the more complaints they get (about every issue of concern) the more things can get escalated.
I am aware that that slightly goes against the reply i posted above from the FOS, so am still out on what is actually happening.
However, for example, the FOS did say that if we complain about the process of not having a specific date set for when we have to return the forms by to stop the 1st DD being taken, if enough of us complain about that, then they will pass on that information to the FCA because only they have the power to enforce such procedural changes. But it will only happen if enough complaints are received. The sense i got from the call is that they have got complaints about Erudio but not in the quantity to make much difference, other than personal compensation or hitting Erudio with fines.
However, it was clear, the more complaints they have, the more chance of something being looked into on a wider scale. As such, we all need to complain (including to Erudio 1st) to the FOS if we are going to see anything significant change and put ourselves through this ball-ache.
Maybe someone else will be able to find if what i was told is accurate or if what Rosskie was told was right.

Rosskie

Erudioed-

Yeah, I was told that all complaints about Erudio are on hold.

In the advisers defence, since they are on hold hes not really up to speed, hence the vague response. He thought the whole argument was about Erudio wanting to report arrears and defaults, which its not. His comments on the two arguments seems to be more pertinent to the child benefits etc being included. He was very keen to get details of original agreements and copies of the DAF though.

So I think to be honest, the only solid thing I can offer is that they are on hold pending more senior input. I doubt they'll make a blanket decision on everyones case, as you said, there are many aspects of each.

Certainly mine will now be about the arrears accrued while this was all getting sorted out due to their initial attempts at imposing new terms, I doubt they can lump that in with child benefits being included.

Sorry I've nothing more to offer.

Pluthero-

If this is your first letter from FOS it took 2 months between my letter and for them to get in touch. It does stink a bit as the situation is deteriorating in the meantime, but they have put in a request for my account to be frozen pending outcome, but unfortunately they can't compel Erudio to do so.

As for building arrears, yes, if they find in erudios favour then your to blame for those. (I think, its certainly the impression I was given) And if Erudio aren't to blame, logic says it must be you If a court would see it the same way, I dont know. Even then, if they find in your favour, I don't know if they will clear the arrears, although they are in the business of compensation for mis treatment so it should surely be the case.

Pluthero

Rosskie wrote: »

Erudioed-

Yeah, I was told that all complaints about Erudio are on hold.

In the advisers defence, since they are on hold hes not really up to speed, hence the vague response. He thought the whole argument was about Erudio wanting to report arrears and defaults, which its not. His comments on the two arguments seems to be more pertinent to the child benefits etc being included. He was very keen to get details of original agreements and copies of the DAF though.

So I think to be honest, the only solid thing I can offer is that they are on hold pending more senior input. I doubt they'll make a blanket decision on everyones case, as you said, there are many aspects of each.

Certainly mine will now be about the arrears accrued while this was all getting sorted out due to their initial attempts at imposing new terms, I doubt they can lump that in with child benefits being included.

Sorry I've nothing more to offer.

Pluthero-

If this is your first letter from FOS it took 2 months between my letter and for them to get in touch. It does stink a bit as the situation is deteriorating in the meantime, but they have put in a request for my account to be frozen pending outcome, but unfortunately they can't compel Erudio to do so.

As for building arrears, yes, if they find in erudios favour then your to blame for those. (I think, its certainly the impression I was given) And if Erudio aren't to blame, logic says it must be you If a court would see it the same way, I dont know. Even then, if they find in your favour, I don't know if they will clear the arrears, although they are in the business of compensation for mis treatment so it should surely be the case.

Spoke to them this morn. Was told if I get a default notice but win my case it would be lifted. They suggested paying until this is all cleared up, lol I told him not a penny will they get. Its a bloody simple thing to sort out. I am kinda beyond anger into a zen calmness about the whole thing now.

Sarebear78

One of the FOI requests answers how the deferment level was calculated.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/224604/response/557497/attach/5/FOI2014%2018128%20Disclosure%20documents.pdf

Lungboy

Sadly, those figures appear, at a quick glance at least, to add up.