ERUDIO student loans help

Jonez

They really do seem to be making stuff up as they go along!

weevil6969

Thanks SLS.

It might be part of the terms when you initially apply for a mortgage through a private institution that a stamped SA302 is a requirement the the loan app and credit check... this was NEVER a requirement with SLC and Erudio are in breach of an existing contract by demanding one without prior written notice of a change to T & Cs and giving us xx number of days/whatever to agree to any new terms, or negotiate new terms with them.

We are sending them a letter (certified) shortly, citing their own guidance chapter & verse, showing where he has complied to the letter - despite the fact that they are in breach of an existing contract themselves by changing the T & Cs in mid-stream... but that's beside the point.

As well they will be threatened with legal action should they continue to harass for information they are not entitled to, or if they do anything untoward such as take money they are not owed, or report anything negative to any CRAs prematurely.

StudentLoansSuck

I'm having a slightly different problem to you in that they are claiming total gross income to be the determining factor where SLC always based it on the taxable amount. eg: if you had £30K coming in but costs of £10K the amount that is comparable to a salaried employees gross is £20K but Eruido are claiming it to be £30K

@Chiefdave I would use the SA302 sent in the post by HMRC to fight your case. Its a very simple document that any fool can understand, but more importantly if the online calculations are shown like this: Gross Profit 30k/ Costs 10K/ Net Profit 20K, this is how HMRC declares the tax calculations on the SA302 they send out

Income received (before tax taken off)
Profit from self-employment = 20,000
Interest bank/building societies = £0.00
Total income received = £20,000

All this info is before HMRC do another set of calculations on tax due. HMRC used the net profit figure and not gross profit you declared in your online calculations. Erudio may think they are above common sense, but are they now suggesting they are above the government?

Plus, the T&C define gross income as: income from all sources before deduction for or relief from tax or other statutory charge. Self-employed people’s gross income are worked out as the gross profit of the business less the cost of doing business before the deduction of things like personal allowance and tax.

Pluthero

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

With respect to the contentious issue of pre-98 loans being reported to CRA's.

The ICO state the principles that lenders and CRA's must abide by.

The first being-

1. Data that is reported on your credit file must be fair, accurate,
consistent, complete and up to date.

For 22 years the SLC did not report my student loan to the CRA's but Erudio now want to and insist they are allowed to.

This is simply not consistent with how the loan was administered for the very large part of the life of the loan.

What was consistent was that no data was reported.

I believe this fails the ICO's own principles of what can be reported.

I wrote to the ICO and tried to get a response about the whole CRA issue. They sent this reply:


Thank you for your correspondence about Erudio.

Our aim is to improve information rights practices within organisations. We do this by taking an overview of all concerns that are raised about organisations with a view to improving their compliance with the Data Protection Act (‘the DPA’).

You are concerned that Erudio have stated they are going to start providing information to the credit reference agencies (‘CRA’s’) about your student loans. You are also concerned that this information may be reported inaccurately as you do not believe that you have defaulted on your account.


In this case we would be unable to consider this matter at this point as no information has yet been disclosed to the credit reference agencies and no inaccurate data has been processed.

However if information is reported to the credit reference agency and you believe that this is unfair or inaccurate, then we may be able to consider this matter further at this point. To consider this matter we would require:

• Copies of your correspondence raising this matter with Erudio and any response you may receive

• Details of your specific concerns and information to support your concerns

• An up to date copy of your credit reference file

Should you need you need to contact us again please quote the reference number at the top of this page. If you are in dispute with the Student Loans Company over this account you may wish to consider seeking independent legal advice.

anna2007

JeLaw wrote: »

I'd like to join in the legal action. Not sure if it's okay to express provisional interest? What is the latest I would need to commit by?

My financial situation is very precarious at the moment and £90 might be a stretch for me - but if my health improves I should be okay to start part-time work again, in which case I'll definitely chip in. Or if more people have joined and the amount is lower, I'd be able to chip in for a lower amount.

Thanks JeLaw, all we're really doing at this stage is expressing an interest. We need to find out exactly how we're going to go about it (I think Anthony mentioned either a test case with shared court costs, or a joint claim with one lead case?), and what issues will be covered (completion of DAF, CRA reporting, etc).

Anthony's on leave until next week, so once we speak to him and find out what's involved, we can make a decision on whether to take it forward or pull out.

I thought there would be way more interest in court action, so I'm like you, £90 is probably stretching it (Christmas x 3 kids around the corner!).

anna2007

Pluthero wrote: »

In this case we would be unable to consider this matter at this point as no information has yet been disclosed to the credit reference agencies and no inaccurate data has been processed.

Are ICO incapable of giving an opinion on a potential breach of DPA??

They told me the same about recording our loans as 'payment holidays' - can't or won't comment or act until the damage is done, which seems a strange way to go about protecting the individual's rights under the legislation.

I had my doubts about the ICO as soon as I read the 'Intro to ICO" section on their website - they're appointed by HM and report directly to Government... and I'm not going to apologise anymore for wearing a tin foil hat

The thing that really fcuks me off about ICO, or any regulator, is that it's ultimately the public that are financing them and it seems we're getting no extra legal protection in return. It's a farce, we might as well get rid and rely on the court system instead.

anna2007

My post #666 was about ICO... I rest my case

Edwood_Woodwood

anna2007 wrote: »

Are ICO incapable of giving an opinion on a potential breach of DPA??

They told me the same about recording our loans as 'payment holidays' - can't or won't comment or act until the damage is done, which seems a strange way to go about protecting the individual's rights under the legislation.

.

This from the faq's on Erudio's website-

Where your account is in deferral it will be treated in the same way as any other form of loan which is in a payment holiday and will not be treated as a default

A student loan is not the same as "any other form of loan!"

I will almost certainly defer for the full 25 years, provided Erudio get their neck in gear, so, according to them, I will have been on a 25 year payment holiday.

And then it is written off without ever having paid a penny, as of a right.

How on earth is that any other loan?

The ICO must be aware that it is not accurate to describe those with deferred loans as on a payment holiday.

They are deferred loans, probably a unique circumstance for credit.

Which is why the CRA's don't even have a term already in use as it was never needed.

It's a shambles.

Edwood_Woodwood

I may want to join the legal action too.

I say may as I am seriously considering just letting Erudio default me and then terminate my agreement.

I would then obviously have my own legal action against them instead.

I wonder if it would be better for Erudio to take a legal action, rather than us to commence one.

What do members think?

gardenia101

Amazingly I've had a response to my SAR well within the 40 day timescale, & all in large print.

But the data they've sent me is a bit worrying, if this really is all they have as it only lists statements from 2005 onwards, so none of my payments before then have been documented. Also my term is still shown as 60 so I don't know how I can prove that I've made any payments, as I haven't kept my own bank statements from 1996 onwards.

Has anyone else had a reply to their SAR & how far back do their statements go?

Erudio have obviously had other info from before 2005 passed on to them by SLC (I presume, although maybe they've got my previous addresses from CRAs?) All my previous addresses are correct, & Erudio know that I've had 16 deferrals in total (probably correct & surely that can only have come from the SLC?) since I left uni in 96, & they have the correct course end date.

Their manual log details the many times I've requested large print documents, but also reports they've sent out stuff in LP which either they're lying about or all this LP correspondence has been "lost in the post" while all of the standard print has found its way to me. I wonder which is true?

[Although to be fair I'm in dispute with HMRC over their inability to provide LP documentation (& have been for many months) - they insist they've sent LP, I complain about the standard print copy, they say oops we'll send out another LP copy, I complain about the second standard print copy, they ask me if I'm sure it standard print, I send the standard print copy back to them which they lose.... Its obviously a very complicated service to provide :mad: ]

Interestingly none of my emails to them show up on this log, only references their emails to me. so I guess that answers my question as to why they've not replied to them.

I haven't had any copies of my original loan agreements - surely these should have been passed on by SLC?

The accompanying letter has been signed by their legal counsel, & they've sent a full explanation of all abbreviations etc. I'm bizarrely grateful that they've done what they should do, in a format they should provide & on time - then I'm cross with myself for being grateful; why should I be so pleased that they've managed to do this one thing correctly :rotfl:

I feel there is a lot of info missing, but before I write back & ask why it is missing I'd like to know if anyone else has had this problem?

The letter also suggests that SLC may hold some info too & I should write to them requesting a SAR. I thought SLC had effectively washed it hands of us (without joint loans) & whenever I've spoken to them they've insisted they only deal with the ICR loans now. Has anyone with MS loans got any info from SLC?

Apparently I've also been sent a Happy Letter - any ideas as I'm still not happy with Erudio :rotfl: