ERUDIO student loans help

TraceE_2

Thanks anna2007 ...

I have been on 3 year deferals because of chronic muscular dystrophy.

Should be straight forward to defer .... I'm just wary of signing and agreeing to changing the original t&c's.

I have already complained to the ombudsman about the loan being sold and being sent arrears letters when my deferal doesn't end till Nov. 14th and erudio have acknowledged.

I think for my circumstances sending the form is the way to go but I'm not totally sure of the parts to score out and the exact way to go about it e.g. initialling ammendments etc.

Hi Lungboy .... what if I was to photocopy the form and completely remove sections?

Sarebear78

TraceE - I deferred with completing the form (missing out any irrelevant bits I didn't want to fill in!) I wrote over it that I didn't consent to any changes in the original terms and conditions and did not give them any further permission to share my details with CRA, crossing through the final pages of white on black writing. Some other people have done as you have suggested and just removed those final sections - I would do that now tbh.

Good luck - one other thing - make sure you send it recorded delivery (I also scanned it for my records) so you have proof they got it and don't send them originals of any letters - they'll claim they have lost everything!

TraceE_2

Sarebear78 .... where abouts did you write over to say you were not consenting to any changes to original t&c's?

Sorry to everybody for butting in please dont let this spoil your plans for erudio ... I'll let you know how my deferral goes.

pbs84

Deferment form received a couple of weeks ago from SLC listing both Thesis and Erudio loans with covering letter referring to both sets as well.

Same deferment form as always used by SLC and same evidence required.

No extra forms or declarations trying to get consent for CRA reporting or anything else dodgy.

Looks like those with split loans will be lucky and not have to endure the horrors of Erudio's forms and lies.

Former_MSE_Helen

Hi all I just wanted to flag the following news story we've just published:

Are you an Erudio student loan holder? We want your feedback

Please leave your feedback on the revised form and how to guide on the following forum thread NOT on this one.

Thanks.

fermi

TraceE wrote: »

Sarebear78 .... where abouts did you write over to say you were not consenting to any changes to original t&c's?

Sorry to everybody for butting in please dont let this spoil your plans for erudio ... I'll let you know how my deferral goes.

You are not butting in at all.

Practical help with deferment is just as or probably more important than some of the theorising etc on here.

Sarebear78

TraceE - I wrote it just below the signature bit and continued it onto the next page too. (It looked a bit rambley but I don't care if I looked a bit crazy!) I also sent a covering letter stating it too.

Also agree with Fermi - no butting in occurring. We are all in this together (All the ex-students, not the people who normally say this and then sell you down the river!)

gardenia101

crapola wrote: »

Just a quickie regarding the recent botched Annual Statements.....

....has anyone recieved a revised Statement yet?

My husband recieved one of their standardised "complaint response" letters within the same week as his query. Nothing else, until this weekend when he recived another standard "we're still investigating".

Technically, he didnt make a formal complaint, but its (kinda) good to know they are treating it like one. We can then go to FOS after the 8 weeks if need be.

No sign of any annual statement here, in large print or standard print, correct or incorrect. My last 3 emails to Erudio asking for correct documentation have been ignored - I feel unloved :rotfl:

pbs84 wrote: »

Deferment form received a couple of weeks ago from SLC listing both Thesis and Erudio loans with covering letter referring to both sets as well.

Same deferment form as always used by SLC and same evidence required.

No extra forms or declarations trying to get consent for CRA reporting or anything else dodgy.

Looks like those with split loans will be lucky and not have to endure the horrors of Erudio's forms and lies.

That's good news (just wish I had split loans). May also be useful to highlight the differences in the deferral process & show how some of us are being treated less fairly than others.

I saw my MP yesterday - it was a flying visit as I hadn't known I'd be able to go so didn't have my Erudio file with me. I gave him an overview of my case & directed him to this thread & he'll look into it. He had the same type of loan (obviously paid off long ago :rotfl:).

Will keep you all updated - Erudio have another 2 weeks ish to reply to my complaint.

This is turning out to a real saga, isn't it?

TraceE_2

Right ..... have been out and got photocopies of all docs to send and have blanked out the white on black box at the end of the form that most people score out. This gives me a good space to write extra info on. Will fill out and send recorded on Monday.

Any advice about what exactly to write about the CRA etc. from those who have already done it?

erudioed

On the Deferment application page, Lawyer Anthony Reeves posted this:
The new DAF - chip in for legal action
I have just looked at this new DAF .
There is still a very big issue with the so called "new" form.
The key issue which I have made many times before is that I cannot see why they should need to do a credit reference check to confirm a person's income. It is also unfair that post 1998 agreements will only be passed to CRA's if there is a default.
The best way to resolve the issue is to test the fairness of the clause in the original agreement and the way they are behaving by bringing an action for an unfair relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended, and get the court to declare the relationship unfair. The court could rewrite the agreements so that the relationship is fair.
In short, I would not sign this "new" form. This issue could rumble on. Yes, there is a cost in going court. However, if people feel strongly about it why not each just a chip in a small amount to cover one chosen case to go to court and test the issue. If half a dozen or so chip in a small amount to cover court fees and I would provide the legal service on a CFA basis (ie no fee payable unless we succeed), then surely that is a good basis on which to proceed and get the issue decided.

Anthony Reeves
Lawyer

---

A note about the Data Protection issue:

They mention that they have the right to share information under the original agreement. Well I believe that is debatable for the following reason:
Although the pre 1998 agreements under clause 16 says they can passs on information to who they feel is appropriate (this is not an exact quotation), under the Data Protection Act 1998 there is certain criteria prescribed under the first principle as a pre-condition to legitimate processing. Most importantly, data will be processed fairly as required by the first principle only if at least one of the conditions are satisfied:

• the individual has consented to the processing

• The processing is necessary to perform a contract with the individual, or for taking steps to comply with a request made by the individual with a view to entering into a contract (for example, to meet orders placed by the individual, to process a job application or to administer employee pensions or payroll).
• The processing is necessary to comply with a legal obligation of the data controller (other than a contractual obligation) (for example, video surveillance in casinos would be legitimate in countries where it is legally required).
• The processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the individual (for example, to protect the life of the data subject).
• The processing is necessary for the administration of justice, or for the exercise of any function conferred by statute.
• The processing is necessary for the legitimate interests of the data controller or a third party to whom the data is disclosed, except where it is unwarranted because it is prejudicial to the individual.

The only one of the criteria they could try to come within is in my opinion that of "consent" and it requires consent to be "unambiguous". This is defined as a freely given, specific and informed indication of the wishes of the individual by which agreement to processing is signified. The transitional provisions of the DPA 1998 gave time for organisations to comply with the new requirements of the Act. So when it fully came in orgainisations had to comply with the new processing requirements. To be fully compliant with the DPA 1998, they would need to get "informed consent", and that is why I believe they are so desperate to get people to sign the declaration on the DAF. The original agreement while giving "consent" does not in my view comply with the DPA 1998 requirements for informed consent.

AND THIS:

By small amount, I am thinking of no more than say £90. If a lot get involved, then that could be less.

Anthony Reeves
Lawyer.

My reply on the same page:

Well, you can count me in on that Anthony, its time to test these barstewards metal. They are not giving an inch, and only a good jab in the ribs seems like it will work. And if we dont do it, then no one will, so it sounds like a small price to pay. Lets hope we can share the costs amongst as many of us as possible!!!


ME AGAIN NOW: I dont know if it is right to cut and paste like this, but its time i think to see what we can do as a group, or for the group. I would suggest directly mailing him via his MSE email if you want to keep things secret, and because it is most appropriate.