ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

Yep, you are right Anna...they are fundamentally different issues.
And i totally agree, there seems to be a method to the creating of such confusion for every issue. It cant all be explained by incompetence.
Im still bamboozled how easily they managed to disregard the DD mandate and take money without sending the official advance notice (The accurate number still hasnt been admitted actually on that one, especially as it still seems to be happening).

ted999

Thanks Anna I'll give the calculation a try.
On my statement it does give all 3 loan numbers on each page, so does sound like there is an error if they only have 1 on yours.

anna2007

Jonez wrote: »

Noticed something else wrong with the statement - only my first loan reference number is shown, with the date it was taken out, but the total shown is for all 3 of my loans. Not sure if they're up to something there, but going to ask for all 3 loan reference numbers to be shown on the revised statement.

Yep - same here. But the three numbers are quoted on the deferment confirmation letter and the balances tally, so I'm not really concerned.

Just checked my letter, and it's definitely just the one loan ref number on there. The letter even says "The amount shown above [the total of my 3 loans] covers each of your agreements with the Loan Numbers shown in the table below" - only the one Loan Number is in the table.

Also, yet another 'error': they've quoted the monthly repayment amount due (unless in deferment), and it's way higher than the outstanding balance divided by 60 months. In fact, the repayment term, based on the monthly amount they've stated, just happens to coincide with the date my loans are due to be cancelled...

ericctheking

anna2007 wrote: »

Also, yet another 'error': they've quoted the monthly repayment amount due (unless in deferment), and it's way higher than the outstanding balance divided by 60 months. In fact, the repayment term, based on the monthly amount they've stated, just happens to coincide with the date my loans are due to be cancelled...

You aren't the only person this has happened to. There have been reports of Erudio trying to force people over the threshold of paying off the entire loan before it is due to be cancelled if the time to write off is less the 60months. Erudio say the whole amount has to be paid before the loan maturity date (write off) of the loan.

This is a scandal and another of Erudio's fraudulent activities.

fermi

The repayment amount should be a bit higher than the current balance ÷ 60 as it should take account of interest that would accrue over the 60 months based on the current years rate?

ericctheking

fermi wrote: »

The repayment amount should be a bit higher than the current balance ÷ 60 as it should take account of interest that would accrue over the 60 months based on the current years rate?

Fermi this is correct but the real scandal is Erudio trying to force people to pay off the whole balance before the write off. They are not dividing by 60 but instead dividing by the number of months until the loan is due to be written off as per the regulations.

fermi

Yes, I'm aware of that. Just making the point that the correct monthly payment is not just the outstanding balance divided by 60 (or however many months you have left to pay).

The "maturity date" of the loan as referred to by SLC and the original paperwork is not the write off date as far as a recall.

The "maturity date" is the date that the full 60 or 84 monthly payments have all become due, and as such if you defer then the maturity date is a moving target.

But yes, it does not mean that SLC or Erudio are allowed to reduce the number of weeks to get it all paid off before the write off date.

You are entitled to have the loan run the full 60 or 84 payments, and if they haven't been completed by the write off date then that is just tough on Erudio.

ericctheking

fermi wrote: »

, it does not mean that SLC or Erudio are allowed to reduce the number of weeks to get it all paid off before the write off date.

This is what they are doing and it is even evidenced in people's paper work.

Is that not a breach of contract on Erudio's part? and what does that mean? What can people do about it?

If people have DDs set up Erudio are just going to help themselves to the money!

fermi

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/211/made

5. The number of monthly repayments will be 60, or 84 if the borrower has 5 or more student loans when his first repayment is due. The lender will tell the borrower the date in each month on which repayments are due.

7. The lender will work out the monthly repayment amount for each year by adding to the principal balance as at 1st September (or 1st April in the case of the first repayment amount) the amount of interest which will after taking account of repayments accrue over the remaining period of the loan at the current rate and dividing the total by the number of repayments then unpaid. The first monthly repayment amount will be fixed for five months beginning in April and from then on each monthly repayment amount will be fixed for 12 months beginning in September.

http://www.slc.co.uk/media/758483/pre_98_ms_credit_agreement.pdf




http://www.slc.co.uk/media/758487/post_98_ms_credit_agreement.pdf

ericctheking

So what do people do, quote the regulations, take them to court.
When the DDs are going out and people are left with no money for the kids food what should they do? Claim the money back with the direct debit guarantee? Then Erudio claim the poor ex-student is in breach of agreement and they are calling in the whole loan?