ERUDIO student loans help

JeLaw

BaffledByErudio wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe there have been fewer than 30! But I'm losing the will to care anymore! The more it looks like blind eyes get turned and people/government/business cover eachothers' backsides, the more I fear we're merely pi$$ing in the wind over this whole sordid situation. I don't think anything will change!

I'm pretty sure more than 30 just on this forum have complained to the FOS! I look forward to the figures being updated once the complaints have been processed.

I'm so glad of this forum. Good to be encouraged not to give up the fight - because like you, I can't help at times feeling hopeless about it all!

I refuse to accept that we haven't been mis-sold these loans. I accept that I'm clueless on how mis-selling works but can't understand how one reason for PPI mis-selling can include "not being made aware of the implications" despite something being buried in the small print - yet the same wouldn't apply to us? It can only be for political reasons.

Several recent posts on here refer to literature at the time the loans were introduced, which refers to the loans as "government financial support". A tiny line buried deep in the small print (and certainly not easily understood) mentions the possibility of the loans being sold on in the future - yet this was never made clear to us (in fact it was the oppposite since we were sold these loans pretty much on the premise that they were government loans).

Apologies for the rather garbled post. I'm not feeling great today (not helped by anger and stress caused by Erudio!).

I'm not in a good financial position at the moment but as this is such a massive issue for us, I would be willing to chip in a small amount if people here wanted to consider getting together. I don't know how it would work (or if this is something we could do) but if there's the possibility of taking legal action to pursue a mis-selling case, I'm up for it!

BaffledByErudio

I've just been perusing the document posted by Ed-1, which looks like a staff crib sheet for SLC employees.
Now I realise BIS and Erudio seem to have some idea that Erudio is allowed to interpret the deferment process however it wishes, the bit that jumps out at me from the SLC document is methods of payment.
It suggests DD as the most convenient way, but doesn't say it's compulsory. It even also suggests standing orders and cheques.
So, for Erudio to suggest (as it has in so many cases already) that a DD whilst in deferment is mandatory, and cancellation of it voids the T&Cs, is such a swing into bu11sh1t territory, they could open their own fertiliser plant!
Now I know Erudio has since backtracked a little on the DD in deferment issue. I myself have had a very sketchy letter that says the DD isn't compulsory while in deferment any longer. But I've never dared cancel it because the letter doesn't actually give me permission to go ahead and do so.
Erudio needs to be very clear on this point, very soon because I'm sick of checking my balance daily cos I still don't trust them.

gardenia101

Ed-1 wrote: »

Don't know whether anyone on here has seen this but a FOI request in 2008 yielded this document being released which details the procedures and practices of how SLC manage loans (and in particular deferment applications for MS loans): https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1790/response/19206/attach/2/Class%20Manual%20PDF.pdf

That is interesting reading, if a little long....

fermi wrote: »

Interesting in the Q&A it says.



We know benefits were, but that answers the question on maintenance.

I'm not sure it does answer it definitively - p 182 & 194 say maintenance is included as income, but doesn't clarify what type of maintenance. I'd agree that spousal maintenance should be includes (since it is, by definition, income for the spouse). I haven't seen child maintenance mentioned anywhere.

I still think CM shouldn't be included. In a way including this CM as my income is discriminating against us single parents - its money that their father has earned & if we we're still together that money wouldn't be counted as my income; we'd be using it for our children. My ex is furious & threatening to withhold his CM payments & use that money to buy them things directly himself. I know how he feels as the monthly loan repayment = 29% of his CM. I don't think this would be fraud...

JeLaw wrote: »

Haven't had a chance to check in here for a day or two. Just had a quick skim of new posts since I last checked and will read properly later.

Thought I'd give a quick update on my deferment. Seems the games have started.... I got a letter this week from Erudio. Confirms receipt of my deferment application - and then tells me I haven't provided enough information and asks me to confirm my means of income...

I've sent an email explaining that I sent full information including relevant documentation with my deferment application. Attached copies, etc.

Received an email response telling me they would respond in 14 days.

I'm so fed up with them. My health isn't good (which they were told in my application) and I'm not prepared to send copy after copy of the paperwork that they have already received.

I'll wait for their response and if they're still messing me around, I'll have to take it to the next stage - formal complaint and complaint to the FOS.

I had a reply today too - not a hint of anything in large print, so that's going on the complaint. They say I haven't signed & dated the form - correct as they only sent me part 9 (certificate & warranty) to complete, which I told them about in my covering letter.

Then there is the standard guff about my account falling into arrears - no statement given, no notice of arrears...

Another stalling tactic I think as I have provided them with enough info & proof to grant deferment (even including CM).

gardenia101

anna2007 wrote: »

...
All that seems to matter to Erudio is the declaration signature at section 9 of the form, people who have refused to complete the form have been told if they sign the form and complete NONE of the other details, that will be accepted. It's all hairy balls IMO - their FPN says if we submit the form, we're agreeing to Erudio searching our credit record, and if they accept the deferment application, they can pass our loan data onto CRA's. This is where they can make their money on our deferred loans (that, and reducing the deferment level by some random amount!). Seems like harassment at best, or coercion at worst.

Remember none of this really matters, it's Erudio's nature and they want you to feel intimidated, but don't let them. All that matters is that you're legally entitled to defer, Erudio are just throwing a few obstacles in your path

I know this is a relatively old post, but I can confirm that I wasn't granted deferment by just completing section 9 & signing it.

anna2007

gardenia101 wrote: »

I know this is a relatively old post, but I can confirm that I wasn't granted deferment by just completing section 9 & signing it.

The point I was making with that post was Erudio saying people only had to sign and date the form was a bit of a red herring, as the form states that by submitting the form and Erudio accepting the deferment application gives them the right to search our credit files/report our loans. It has nothing to do with the signature.

I wasn't suggesting that's what others should do (I've always said to complete only the details you're happy to supply).

I'm not clear on what's happened in your situation gardenia, as you've said Erudio's rejected your form with your signature/date at section 9, but in your previous post Erudio say you haven't signed/dated the form? There's only the one section that needs your signature (at section 9), unless they're referring to the DD mandate?

Whatever's happened, I think you have good reason to go straight to the FOS, due to Erudio not providing you with the large print documents for your application. It might be worth calling FOS first, before taking things further with Erudio? The FOS number is 0800 023 4567.

anna2007

gardenia101 wrote: »

I'm not sure it does answer it definitively - p 182 & 194 say maintenance is included as income, but doesn't clarify what type of maintenance. I'd agree that spousal maintenance should be includes (since it is, by definition, income for the spouse). I haven't seen child maintenance mentioned anywhere.

I agree it's not a definitive answer on child maintenance, not sure it is for benefits either, as it says all income sources are included in their calculation - which could mean some income sources are deducted for all we know.

SLC are due to reply to the FOI request on this within the next 7 days, hopefully that will give us a final answer.

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

and dont forget, most people had to wait 8 weeks for erudio to process the complaints before complaining. I would expect the next reports to have the info if more than 30 of us have complained.

There's also the FCA's 6-monthly complaints data to look out for - regulated firms who have received more than 500 complaints have to submit their stats - number received, closed, upheld, etc.

The data covering January to June should be out around the first week into October, going by the previous release:

http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/systems-reporting/complaints-data/firm-level

You would think the 500 mark could easily have been reached by the end of June? I suppose it also depends on how 'accurate' Erudio's complaints data is...

gardenia101

anna2007 wrote: »

The point I was making with that post was Erudio saying people only had to sign and date the form was a bit of a red herring, as the form states that by submitting the form and Erudio accepting the deferment application gives them the right to search our credit files/report our loans. It has nothing to do with the signature.

I wasn't suggesting that's what others should do (I've always said to complete only the details you're happy to supply).

I'm not clear on what's happened in your situation gardenia, as you've said Erudio's rejected your form with your signature/date at section 9, but in your previous post Erudio say you haven't signed/dated the form? There's only the one section that needs your signature (at section 9), unless they're referring to the DD mandate?

Whatever's happened, I think you have good reason to go straight to the FOS, due to Erudio not providing you with the large print documents for your application. It might be worth calling FOS first, before taking things further with Erudio? The FOS number is 0800 023 4567.

What happened in my case was that initially all they sent me was 1 page from their DAF (section 9) which I completed with my income, signed & dated. I included a covering letter saying what proof of income I was sending, & that I'd only been asked to complete that 1 page of their DAF.

Today I have a complete DAF to fill in, but no instruction booklet that is referred to on the DAF (not even in standard print, never mind large).

I've spent a few more hours compiling a complaints letter that I'm going to re-read tomorrow before emailing it & posting it.

Do I need to wait for 8 weeks from putting in the complaint to Erudio before I can go to the FOS, or can I complain to both at the same time? My brain is a bit fried with all this tonight...

Pretty sure I'm close to having missed 2 payments, yet not a written word from Erudio about my arrears - anyone would think they want me to run up more than 3 months arrears so they can say I've defaulted :rotfl:

anna2007

gardenia101 wrote: »

Today I have a complete DAF to fill in, but no instruction booklet that is referred to on the DAF (not even in standard print, never mind large).

There's an online copy of Erudio's DAF guide here:

http://www.erudiostudentloans.co.uk/lib/docs/143723-erudiohowguide08092014.pdf

gardenia101 wrote: »

Do I need to wait for 8 weeks from putting in the complaint to Erudio before I can go to the FOS, or can I complain to both at the same time? My brain is a bit fried with all this tonight...

Usually there's an 8 week wait from the time your formal complaint goes to Erudio, but the FOS were stepping in earlier in some cases (was on the Mumsnet thread, but this is going back to April/May time).

Might be worth a try, especially with no large print docs/only 1 page of DAF being provided?

gardenia101

anna2007 wrote: »

There's an online copy of Erudio's DAF guide here:

http://www.erudiostudentloans.co.uk/lib/docs/143723-erudiohowguide08092014.pdf


Usually there's an 8 week wait from the time your formal complaint goes to Erudio, but the FOS were stepping in earlier in some cases (was on the Mumsnet thread, but this is going back to April/May time).

Might be worth a try, especially with no large print docs/only 1 page of DAF being provided?

I've seen that guide, & while on p.15 in the how/why will my data be verified section it mentions the fair processing notice included here - I can't find a copy of it in that guide. I think that is what is on p 5-6 of their DAF, but I'm not sure what I'm looking for as I can't read the original they've sent to me. But its over a page of A4 in standard print, so I think I ought to read it