ERUDIO student loans help

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

You can apply to defer repaying your loan unless we have notified you that your loan is repayable in full or the term of your loan has expired".

The "term" of your loan is 60 monthly payments.

What I think they may mean is if you have not deferred for enough years over time so that the full 60 payments have become due.

i.e. anything you haven't paid at that point would be non-deferable arrears, as the 60 monthly due repayment term of your loan would be up.

erudioed

anna2007 wrote: »

Wow, he's really going for it!

I doubt if he'll receive the info for most of them though, I think multiple requests from the same person in a 60 day period can be added together by the authority when applying the cost limit and can be refused on that basis

Lets hope someone else picks up the baton if that is the case, especially as BIS said they have the info requested for some of them, but it just needs narrowing down.

They've already put an apology on their website for mucking the annual statements up and saying people are in arrears (an innocent mistake i am sure...especially as it isnt the kind of error that could pressure people into paying them cash when not obliged to), so if they have mucked the interest up as well Anna, maybe we should sing about it if you are 100% right about it. If they cant get anything right, then surely that is a good case for debates at BIS about getting the deferment process back to SLC until these vultures can operate the business they have chose to enter properly! It would be nice to know they can get something right without us all feeling like their mistakes are deliberate, such is the lack of trust they emitted thus far from their multi-company operation/farce!

JeLaw

erudioed wrote: »

I know there are other issues as well along such lines, such as not having to have a DD in place during deferment

I thought the DD issue had been resolved? Anna2007 posted their written confirmation to her that there was indeed no requirement for a DD to be in place during deferment (again, thank you for that!). Also another poster with a lawyer wife referred to this when they deferred (their wife included a letter noting there was no requirement for this under the original terms).

I mentioned there was no requirement under the original terms for a DD to be in place during deferment. Didn't provide details and have been deferred. Hope this helps anyone else wondering what to do about this.

erudioed

Yes, i agree, it does indeed appear resolved, apart from the fact that Arrow hasnt updated the Erudio website or deferment forms on this issue. I also think they replied in such a way as to suggest it is necessary during deferment but not afterwards...am i reading that wrongly Anna?
Their modus operandi seems to be to say one thing once but leave things openly confusing.

ericctheking

Wouldn't trust erudio with interest, remember these posts I made below!

NEWS FLASH!

Heard that erudio's remedy of accounts letters that are removing interest added are adding interest for the year that the RPI was negative!!!!
In effect that year when the interest was negative so people had negative interest rates and the balance was reducing, the SLC didn't send out statements as is there statutory duty so they have decided now that people lose that bonus of the negative RPI through the SLC's own fault!
Surely that can't be right.

It is from the remedy of accounts letters sent to people with the late notice of arrears.
It seems that because the SLC didn't send balance statements out interest can not be charged in that period hence the reduction in the balance for many people.

However with the period where the RPI was a negative and therefore the APR was negative (a few years ago) what has happened is they have cancelled this negative intersest and in a way said during this period interest is void too even if it is negative interest.
Surely this is wrong as people are being penalised for something that isn't there fault during this period as the debt is effectivly growing in real terms?

cluelessfish

anna2007 wrote: »

Received my annual statement from Erudio this morning and it's great to see them stay true to form, as they can't get that right either :mad:

They've reduced the interest, saying that they wrote in June, detailing an incorrect balance, as it didn't include interest up to the date of the letter, so there's no interest been charged from 16 June to 31 August.

I've checked all correspondence, and my deferment letter dated 16 June does show the balance at 28 Feb. But it does feel like they're being devious and setting up a future trap, given that the loan agreement and legislation require a specific amount of APR to be charged on the outstanding balance.

I may be reading too much into it (and I do have trust issues with Erudio, ha!), but it's just a heads up to others to look out for it. Also, we need to keep our annual statements safe, maybe scan a copy too, in case they decide to drag these things up in future years.

They've included some FAQ's too, one of which says:
"Can I defer repaying my loan?

You can apply to defer repaying your loan unless we have notified you that your loan is repayable in full or the term of your loan has expired".

I thought the wording here is a bit strange - do they mean the loans qualify for cancellation (in which case you obviously don't need to apply to defer), or something more ominous?

also got my statement today and is also missing interest from March - July with a single large consolidated value for August. The opening and closing balances do add up to annual interest of 3.3%

The direct debit they took on 10th April is there as is the refund on the 29th April however there are also 2 adjustments and 2 PAYMENTS all on the 29th. I could understand an adjustment to errors from payment/refund but the extra adjustments and payments cancel out?

The statement was also dated 5th September only two days after my HSL statement but took almost three extra weeks to arrive?

erudioed

Heres a post i just put up on mumsnet that seems relevant here, especially after just getting another message on my Twatter account about someone elses statement missing 2 of their accounts. Heres the post anyway:
Its also becoming increasingly clear that the annual statements currently being mailed out are a confusing mess. And all after they have admitted on their website that their 'system' made another mistake for the last few weeks about falsely including arrears on some! These vultures arent fit for purpose. Its a joke thats getting out of hand and in a just world, we could all give them a wide berth and let their venture fail. However, as we have had them imposed on our lives for the the next 10 or so years by BIS, its about time they stepped in and gave these cretins a dressing down! Who would have have taken out a damn student loan if they new it would end up like this? Its a disgrace thats turning into a joke!

Me again: Can i suggest anyone who has a problem with their statement, finds it unnecessarily confusing, has seeming errors on it, go to my twatter account and leave some kind of post on https://twitter.com/erudioed . I have a twaat i just posted that reads thus: "According to the forums,it looks like the annual statements currently being mailed out (3 wks after printing date) are another disaster zone". Can anyone who has an account on there go and leave comment on it, then when i have enough, i will mail the link off to some journalists. Weve got to try and get these pathetic amateur schoolboy business errors stopped somehow, so lets try a more direct approach if anyone is up for it!

erudioed

Theres another 8 new interesting FOI requests just gone up that i have just seen, maybe they are what Anna saw earlier but they are in addition to the ones i mentioned yesterday.

Mr_McGuffin

All errors are deliberate here. The more confused and incomprehensible statements are the more it will be impossible to know for certain how much is owed now and in the future, what interest rate is applicable, whether there are arrears, when and how those historic arrears may pop up and accumulate, and with what penalties.

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

Yes, i agree, it does indeed appear resolved, apart from the fact that Arrow hasnt updated the Erudio website or deferment forms on this issue. I also think they replied in such a way as to suggest it is necessary during deferment but not afterwards...am i reading that wrongly Anna?
Their modus operandi seems to be to say one thing once but leave things openly confusing.

Erudio said they had revised their policy and the DD was no longer a requirement during deferment, but although it's there in black and white, you're right erudioed, what they say and what they do are usually two different things.

The only way to make the backtrack on the DD requirement official on the website, correspondence, etc is for the FCA to step in and enforce the changes. I've already passed on the proof to FCA that Erudio backed down on the DD, but as nothing's changed, it seems that's not enough. It's going to take a large number of complaints for FCA to do anything about it, so please email if you haven't done so already, it would be one less headache for future deferments.