ERUDIO student loans help

ericctheking

Some examples of the people you are dealing with!

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2014/09/11/wilmington-trust-pay-m-settle-fraud-charges/15446833/

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/crime/2014/07/15/ex-wilmington-trust-loan-exec-indicted-bank-fraud-housing-loan-probe/12711287/

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/money/markets/2014/02/05/former-wilmington-trust-vice-president-indicted-in-lending-scheme/5243011/

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Another-Wilmington-Trust-officer-pleads-guilty-to-fraud.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Wilmington-Trust-Failed-banks-lender.html

cluelessfish

anna2007 wrote: »

I had the consolidated entry too, June to August, but the amount of interest (forgetting the interest from March to June) is wrong. It's monumentally !!!!ed up - it almost looks like it's deliberately wrong!

Mine was dated 5 Sep too, but received today. Did you have a statement at the bottom about interest being reduced?

The extra adjustments on 29th sound very Erudio...

Nothing about a reduced interest rate. It just states there was a system error which stopped interest accruing as it should.

My guess is that when issuing a refund my loans status were changed to a holding state (no debits/credits until review) and so system did not apply interest.

I am also confused about the adjustments and payments.
Surly as holders of the debt any adjustments by erudio should be recorded as adjustments not payments. Does the word payment not imply money was given to erudio?

Why are there any adjustments at all??

erudioed

Anthony Reeves, the lawyer currently seeking legal opinion from a well placed senior counsel just posted this on the mumsnet forum concerning where Erudio are potentially court worthy for reporting us to CRAs and signing their forms. Here it is anyway for perusal:
Further to my previous posts, I have some very interesting thoughts from Counsel. Below is a short summary of the argument.

The issue with Erudio is not really a Data Protection Act issue but one of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended. The opinion of Counsel is that the way through this problem with Erudio is to use section section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Section 140A of the Act enables the court to make an order (under section 140B) if it determines that the relationship between the lender and the borrower arising out of a credit agreement is unfair to the borrower. Note that the relationship is the important thing, not the agreement itself.

If an unfair relationship is alleged, the burden of proof falls on the lender to show that the relationship is not unfair, although the borrower must at least show some evidence of unfairness.

-The court can take account of any of the following:
-The terms of the agreement (or any related agreement)
-The way in which the lender has exercised or enforced any of his rights

Any other thing done or not done by or on behalf of the lender either before or after making the agreement

In short, Erudio are unfairly exercising their rights under the pre 1998 agreement. The range of remedies available under section 140B to the court, having found an unfair relationship, is extremely wide. The court can, among other options:

-Require the lender to repay a sum to the borrower
-Reduce the amount owed by the borrower
-Change the terms of the agreement

In fact, the court has a wide discretion to do what it feels is required to make the relationship fair. In the case of Erudio, the changing of the terms to make the relationship fair is especially relevant. The court could order Erudio to consider deferment applications without their particular forms where evidence of gross income is provided and state that they can't disclose information to CRA's.

I am awaiting Counsel' written advice but this is his Opinion he expressed to me in a long conversation this evening and is going to write up this advice. Counsel has said then he is prepared to present the case to court on a CFA basis. I am prepared to act on a CFA basis also. He therefore believes there is a good prospect. The only fees would be court fees. If enough affected persons come forward, then we could potentially do group litigation.

Look forward to hearing from anyone interested in pursuing the point.

Anthony Reeves

Pluthero

Awesome news Anthony

GirlGeek

The best news for ages!

atomickarma

Just landed here after being fascinated by the depth of questioning on the deferral form.

Obviously there is a lot to get through - has anyone made a summary post or a definitive explanation that will save a lot of reading?

gardenia101

No sign of a statement here, even though my deferral period ended in July.
I guess its because Erudio are putting it into a large print format for me to be able to read it :rotfl:

I've had a letter from FOS (& all in large print, so it really does exist & isn't a figment of my partially sighted imagination ). It says they have written to Erudio about my complaint, & that if I haven't heard from Erudio within the next few days then I should contact Erudio again. Erudio have now sent me a letter acknowledging my complaint & a copy of their complaints procedure in large print (so annoyed it takes 3 complaint letters/emails to get this done :mad:) but haven't confirmed (or denied) that collection activity has stopped on my account.

I guess I'll have to contact Erudio again & request that they send me a welcome pack, statement, DAF, NOA etc.....

JeLaw

GirlGeek wrote: »

The final thing is in the FAQ list: "How should I make repayments? You should maintain a valid direct debit with Erudio Student Loans even if your account is currently in deferment".

erudioed wrote: »

The only fees would be court fees. If enough affected persons come forward, then we could potentially do group litigation.

I'm not happy about the DD issue. I do hope that they're not going to try and use this against me further down the line if and when I get to the stage where my loans should be written off.

I'll fight against any attempt from Erudio to do this. They deferred me without having my direct debit details. Surely they can't turn around at a later stage and try to claim this puts me in any sort of breach. They didn't mention the DD issue in my deferment confirmation letter, and surely if they wanted to try and insist on having a DD debit in place during deferment they should contact me about this.

I wasn't sure whether I had any valid reason for complaints (to FOS or FCA) seeing as I have been deferred with relatively little issue, but perhaps I should put in a complaint about their website claiming we should have a DD in place during deferment. I'll get something written up later today.

Fantastic news about the lawyer! I'd certainly be interested in joining any group litigation. I wonder whether the DD issue could also be included?

Edit - forgot to add. I haven't yet received my statement so I'll be keeping an eye out for that.

JeLaw

Gardenia101, I thought they had to suspend collection activity on an account whilst investigating a reasonable complaint? And in your case it certainly is a reasonable complaint.

Did you include the lack of confirmation in your complaint to FOS?

How many times are you expected to contact Erudio before they actually do what they're supposed to do!

fermi

This update on a FOI request to BIS confirms 100% the position on deferment for borrowers with shared loans.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/227596/response/566053/attach/html/3/FOI%202014%2019700%20R%20Miles%20reply.pdf.html

I can confirm that BIS holds information within scope of your request. The responsibilities
agreed for processing mortgage style loan deferment applications are as follows:

Erudio Student Loans Ltd is responsible for the processing of deferment applications
from borrowers who only have mortgage style loans owned by Erudio.

Deferment applications from ‘shared borrowers’ (borrowers whose mortgage style loan
accounts are split between Erudio and either Honours Student Loans or Thesis
Servicing) are processed by the Student Loans Company. If an application is successful,
deferment will apply to all of a shared borrower’s mortgage style loans, including those
now owned by Erudio.

Appeals Procedure

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal
review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of
the response to your original letter and should be sent to the Information Rights Unit at:

Information Rights Unit
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills

So if SLC staff try to deny they have anything to do with it, you can tell them that is not so, and hard luck, they are the ones that have to process your deferment for ALL loans where you have them with more than one company.