ERUDIO student loans help

dizzybuff

I'm not quite sure how they can use the child care element which is specifically used to pay childcare so I can work. Be used in calculations. I'm happy for everything else to he used.the problem being that some parents earning significantly under the threshold the childcare element will take them above. Dependent on the number of children. I didn't ask to be single and it annoys me that my ex who earns 25k can differ and I bloody can't when I'm paying everything for the kids.

ericctheking

dizzybuff wrote: »

I'm not quite sure how they can use the child care element which is specifically used to pay childcare so I can work. Be used in calculations. I'm happy for everything else to he used.the problem being that some parents earning significantly under the threshold the childcare element will take them above. Dependent on the number of children. I didn't ask to be single and it annoys me that my ex who earns 25k can differ and I bloody can't when I'm paying everything for the kids.

Erudio seem to argue it doesn't matter if the SLC did things one way they do things their own way and follow the terms and conditions.
Why don't you do the same? It doesn't matter what the SLC included it matters what the terms and conditions say.
Income is generally considered as taxable income.
Let the courts decide, not erudio.
I'm sure anyone who is taken to court and has prove thru. the tax system that their income is under the threshold will always win, hence I don't think erudio will risk taking people who are paid under the threshold to court.
If you earn under the threshold, don't pay whatever erudio say. Let them take you to court because I'm sure when you wave the tax return that says you only earnt 16K gross or whatever for the past few years and the terms and conditions of the contract say nothing about benefits just income the judge will dismiss the case.

Anyone agree?

Pluthero

ericctheking wrote: »

Erudio seem to argue it doesn't matter if the SLC did things one way they do things their own way and follow the terms and conditions.
Why don't you do the same? It doesn't matter what the SLC included it matters what the terms and conditions say.
Income is generally considered as taxable income.
Let the courts decide, not erudio.
I'm sure anyone who is taken to court and has prove thru. the tax system that their income is under the threshold will always win, hence I don't think erudio will risk taking people who are paid under the threshold to court.
If you earn under the threshold, don't pay whatever erudio say. Let them take you to court because I'm sure when you wave the tax return that says you only earnt 16K gross or whatever for the past few years and the terms and conditions of the contract say nothing about benefits just income the judge will dismiss the case.

Anyone agree?

Totally agree. Its all scare and smoke and mirrors with these chancers. There may be a court case or two from p****ed of folk and hopefully that will end this f**king charade once and for all.

gardenia101

dizzybuff wrote: »

I'm not quite sure how they can use the child care element which is specifically used to pay childcare so I can work. Be used in calculations. I'm happy for everything else to he used.the problem being that some parents earning significantly under the threshold the childcare element will take them above. Dependent on the number of children. I didn't ask to be single and it annoys me that my ex who earns 25k can differ and I bloody can't when I'm paying everything for the kids.

I agree with you Dizzybuff - I'd be fuming if I was over the threshold due to childcare payments. I can't help thinking that goes against the whole ethos of these student loans (or at least how they were sold to us) - how we wouldn't pay them back if we didn't EARN enough money. To me childcare payments aren't earnings.

It may be a long shot but could you argue that you are being treated unfairly as a single parent? If you were still with your ex then your childcare payments could be seen to be halved as you'd be paying half each.

But on the SLC Deferment Processing Guide I can't see any differentiation between ordinary WTC & childcare WTC.

I can see a reference to One Parent Benefit on p.20 though - any ideas what that is? I've never had any One Parent Benefit....

Am I spending too long thinking about Eruio or what :rotfl:

Mr_McGuffin

anna2007 wrote: »

BIS have completed the internal review on FOI request for due diligence report:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/details_of_the_due_diligence_pro?nocache=incoming-561825#incoming-561825

No big surprise that they're still withholding the info (and even introduced a new exemption).

Feels like flogging a dead horse, but I'll ask the ICO for a decision, have seen other due diligence info released, so worth a go.

Thank you very much for this anna. Anthony Odgers even, Deputy Chief Executive, Shareholder Executive and Director of Corporate Finance Practice.

Comparison to the 1998 and 1999 sales is sure to be unwelcome.

He says: ‘It is relevant to note that the 1998 and 1999 sales were conducted on a different commercial basis to the November 2013 sale with the earlier sales involving Government retaining some of the financial risks of non-repayment as well as loan administration responsibilities.’

The 1998 and 1999 sales were indeed conducted on an entirely different basis. The concern to safeguard borrowers was central to the design of the terms of these sale agreements, which compensated for intrinsic deficiencies in the loans for the purpose of sale to the private sector. The safeguards specified by the then Government were not the incidental consequence of a different 'commercial basis' of the sales. They were the result of a guiding principle to protect borrowers that determined the structure of the sale agreements.

What this response from the Shareholder Executive says to me is that there was never going to be any 'due diligence' to check how borrowers would be protected, or safeguarded, or anything of that sort. BIS did not ask what would happen to borrowers. This would not matter to it as this would no longer be any of its business. Anyway, it did not need to ask because it knew the answers. The opportunity it was selling was the chance for private buyers to exploit the remaining borrowers in deferment by ‘gaming’ (to use Anthony Odgers’ phrase) against them the terms of the flawed agreements they had unwittingly signed up to. This was the only business opportunity that existed for almost half the loans sold, as they were otherwise structurally certain to be cancelled.

What due diligence test there was consisted of coming up with the most money and agreeing to clause 10.2.1, which the Government takes no responsibility to enforce or supervise.

The promises of Vince Cable and David Willetts, and Erudio, that there would be no change to borrowers terms and conditions did not mean what borrowers might have assumed and hoped. It meant only that the terms of these loans were fixed by the 1998 Education (Student Loans) Act and Regulations, and it is a fact that this legislation cannot be changed. What Erudio does and whether it abides by these terms is no longer a matter for the Government. It is now the responsibility of individual borrowers to dispute and fight.

Mr_McGuffin

The intended ‘safeguards’ for the 1998 and 1999 sales were outlined in 1997 here:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/jul/21/education-student-loans-bill#S6CV0298P0_19970721_HOC_202
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/jul/21/education-student-loans-bill#S6CV0298P0_19970721_HOC_235

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): ‘[Clause 3] removes all public law functions so that the lender and purchaser administer the loans purely as commercial contracts.

Hon. Members would naturally be concerned if the clause were to mark any reduction in the rights of borrowers, but it will not do so. The borrower will be safeguarded through our sale agreement with the purchaser, which will set down minimum requirements as to administration. The borrower will also have the protection of the terms of the loan agreement, which will have specific provisions on the core issues of repayment.
...

As far as the existing rights of borrowers are concerned, selling the loans and transferring the risk of default to the private sector inevitably means that the purchaser must take over responsibility for loans administration.

However, that does not mean that borrowers will be abandoned. We shall introduce a number of important and significant safeguards. We shall specify in the sale agreement with purchasers minimum collection standards that must be adhered to. They will be based on the present procedures adopted by the Student Loans Company. A purchaser's failure to abide by the minimum collection standards could lead to legal action. The borrower will be safeguarded by the terms of the loan agreement and, more generally, by consumer and data protection legislation.
...

We believe that the [regime] presently operated by the Student Loans Company forms the correct basis for introducing our minimum collection standards.

Nor need there be concern that an unscrupulous private sector party will use information held on student borrowers for his own ends. The Bill states explicitly that no person shall provide or make available to anyone else any information held in connection with the loans if that infor mation is to be used for soliciting custom and services.’


Dr. Kim Howells: ‘Some hon. Members have raised concerns about the position of borrowers whose loans are sold. Let me stress that we are selling the loans by way of competition. The bidders are all large and reputable organisations, and there is no question of the loans being sold to some ruthless or fly-by-night organisation. That is complete fantasy, which does no service to students and borrowers. We shall retain control over whom the loans are sold to now and in the future.

There are other safeguards for students. The sale agreement with the purchasers, a model of which will be placed in the Library in due course, will stipulate minimum collection standards to be followed. The loan agreements will protect students. In particular, key terms such as time and manner of repayment and deferment will be retained and frozen. Borrowers will have the protection of consumer credit legislation. In addition, there will be an independent assessor to investigate complaints.’

(Hansard, HC Deb 21 July 1997 vol 298)


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

erudioed

anna2007 wrote: »

BIS have completed the internal review on FOI request for due diligence report:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/details_of_the_due_diligence_pro?nocache=incoming-561825#incoming-561825

No big surprise that they're still withholding the info (and even introduced a new exemption).

Feels like flogging a dead horse, but I'll ask the ICO for a decision, have seen other due diligence info released, so worth a go.

I missed this yesterday. Yes, no surprise indeed. It does also hammer home that Erudio are able to act without monitoring by anyone, and that it would be up to us alone to prove they have breached the parameters set during the loan agreement...if Erudio et al were to employ dodgy tactics that is (not that it would be in their interest to we must understand).
Great try though Anna. Although it does indeed use very literate language and makes its points well, its hundreds of thousands of old student loans they have sold, and if thats not in the public interest, i dont know what is. In fact, when you consider the 'future gaming' angle, is that a big enough reason. How many companies would that gaming involve...i bet less than 5 companies bid for it. Id be surprised if it was more than 2, especially considering The Wilmington Trust are the investment trustees of 2 of 3 shell companies purchasing 2 of the 3 loan sales this far. As such (and forgive my blatant guess at the number of bidding companies above), how this isnt in the public interest given the sheer number of people affected by the sale is staggering. The government has already said it has cancelled the next sale of student debt, and although it will be back on the agenda at some point, surely it will be enough years ahead to not be a problem releasing this info now. If everything was above board, and were a company to be unwilling to bid if they thought their info would be released into the public sphere, then surely that company shouldnt be bidding for something like buying student loans. We are asked to expose our finances to this crew, even sending them our bank statements and such things, and we have no idea what this data will be used for or how many companies have access to it. Yet BIS do mind revealing such information...but they didnt mind giving a private damn debt consortium, the kind of vultures who hold countries to ransom and make the world a much worse place, 200,000 citizens private data!

dizzybuff

I've taken it to my MP. I'm not happy about them.using.my childcare element. Fine they can use everything else except maintanance. The fact of the matter is if my benefits were not included my taxable earnings would be 15-16 k. Because I am single and working I get help. Hey Mr MP why don't I just quite my job, loose my house and go on the Rock and roll. Because this is what some people will be looking at. Why should they use it as income when "responsible lenders" who provide mortgages will not include it as income. Food for thought.

dizzybuff

Maintanance wouldn't be used wither unless a court order was in place.

Sarebear78

Just read on Twitter that Erudio have lost someone's payslips twice and now sent her someone else's! So if yours are missing, maybe some other poor ex-student has them. Hope financial ombudsman gets all over this pile of crud.