ERUDIO student loans help

BaffledByErudio

All sounds a bit fishy that. I've been told over the phone by SLC that they have beggar all to do with mortgage-style loans sold to Erudio now and have no means of discussing or looking into them.
I wish I knew exactly what the ins and outs (specifically) of the deal are and just how many of its fingers dear old Her Majesty's Government still has in the pie! Especially with the loan note shenanigans we know of.
I bet somewhere in the small print there's some caveat that allows the government to retake control of the debts sold to Erudio. Although they've obviously been given extreme leniency on just how much they can manipulate the rules and regs. They'd probably have to send a bailiff to break one of our necks before the government stepped back in to the picture!

gardenia101

TraceE wrote: »

My post above is what was said to me this very afternoon.

I only have one loan of the mortgage type and it has been sold to erudio.

All I was looking for was a letter officially confirming my 14th November deferral due date was correct so I could send it to erudio but SLC customer services said they could deal with it for me through a "liaison dept", they definitely still had all my details on their system.

Apparently they will make sure the correct details get to whoever matters and confirmation will be sent from erudio.

So I am waiting to see what happens next .... I'll keep you informed.

That's interesting & is the exact opposite of what I've been told by the SLC :rotfl:. They say they hold no information about anyone with MS loans unless they are split loans, & the only single type loans they deal with at all are ICR loans.

I'll post back when I get a reply to my SAR from them - hoping they have records of my payments as Erudio don't seem to have them....

anna2007

TraceE wrote: »

A letter arrived from Erudio on the 5th Nov detailing that they had granted deferral but were changing it from the normal 3 years (as I am disabled) to 1 year and also changing the due date to 15th Aug

Sorry TraceE, I didn't realise they had changed your deferral from 3 years to 1 year (assumed they had amended it to 3 months before your 50th birthday).

The 3 year provision in the regulations hasn't changed and if your circumstances haven't changed, I would have thought Erudio are on dodgy ground by limiting your deferment to 1 year.

Did you mention this to FOS/FCA/SLC? If SLC can't sort it out informally, then you would have good grounds to go to FOS, based on your previous 3 year deferment(s) with SLC.

It might also be an idea to contact MSE, or Simon Read at the Independent? If Erudio are being more strict in granting the 3 year deferment, or simply ignoring the provision, they won't like the bad publicity if the media report on it.

babyboos

fermi wrote: »

I've now seen copies of several, so SLC should have sent you one letter and form that referred to and covered both sets of loans with HSL and Erudio.

I would contact SLC to query what is going on.

both have different deferment dates so maybe that's why I got two letters are only a week apart mind you


I always wrote both letters on the one letter before so not sure why not picked it up this time would have had my letter from slc and hsl by now this time last year


are this liason department dealing with them on some peoples behalf then? is this a new thing?

babyboos

erudioed wrote: »

I would assume SLC would have to have some contact due to SLC deferring some of Erudio's 'customers' if they have split loans between 2 of the shell companies. The nature of that relationship would be interesting to know though....

so because slc sold my first loan to hsl and my second loan to erudio they will deal with my deferement?

anna2007

babyboos wrote: »

so because slc sold my first loan to hsl and my second loan to erudio they will deal with my deferement?

Yes, confirmed in an SLC response to FOI request:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/maintenance_payments_when_assess

The arrangements that have been agreed with Thesis Servicing (“Thesis”) and Honours Students Loans (“HSL”) for the issuing and processing of deferment applications are as follows:

· SLC issues and processes deferment application forms (“DAFs”)
in accordance with the Sale and Purchase Agreement entered into when the debts were sold to Thesis and HSL. The process in place is as follows:

o We receive instructions from the debt sale owners through interfaces that advise us to issue a DAF.
o Also, for those customers currently in deferment we issue a new DAF application pack 8 weeks prior to the end date of the current deferment period. This is system generated.
o All completed DAFs are returned to SLC.
o SLC issues all requests for missing information or evidence.
o All missing information and evidence is returned to SLC.
o The outcome of the DAF assessment is communicated to the borrower by SLC. This is issued by paper correspondence.
o SLC will communicate the outcome of the DAF assessment to the debt owner.

· For shared customers who have loans split between HSL/Erudio and Thesis/Erudio, SLC issues and processes DAFs under the Sale and Purchase Agreement entered into with Erudio, which follows the above process.

anna2007

MrsA80 wrote: »

Unfortunately this your responsibility and your account is in arrears of £365.84. I must inform you of the consequences of being in arrears which may lead to the following:

· "Calls and letters"

Please stop calling and writing, our relationship is o-v-e-r.

· "Further administration charges"

Please show me where in the 1998 regulations ("The key terms of all agreements entered into before 1st March 1998 will be replaced by the terms set out in Parts I and II of Schedule 2" - see explanatory note of the regs) it states that you are entitled to impose further administration charges?

· "The account being terminated which leads to the loss of right to defer and the cancellation of any age and time related loan closure dates"

Please explain what you mean by "loan closure date", as it's not a term used anywhere in the regulations and is therefore likely to be Erudio-speak for something completely different from what us customers understand it to mean. Can you not call a spade a spade? And while we're at it, you must be asked the Frequently Asked Question: When will my student loans be cancelled, with no further financial obligation to Erudio? It's a key term of the regulations at this late stage of the loan agreement - surely Erudio would be held up high as a beacon of good practice in "treating customers fairly", if you were to explain in plain English, under your website FAQ's for all to see, exactly what the majority of your customers will be entitled to do in the not too distant future - which is to wave Bye-Bye to a very toxic relationship?

· "The account being passed to an external debt collector"

Is that your sense of humour shining through? We thought it already had been?

· "Outstanding arrears could impact your credit file"

Would that be a positive impact? Negative impact? Or just plain impact? Please do explain. I see there being more of an "impact" on Erudio, when the !!!!!! hits the fan if you go ahead and report loans you're not entitled to report. But you know that already.

fermi

The original pre-loan 98 loan agreements had a clause allowing them to charge to recover costs incurred if you should break the agreement, as do the post 98 ones.

You quote above from the explanatory notes, which do not form part of the legally binding part of the regulation.

The legally relevant part says:

Terms of loans

7. (1) Every agreement for a loan made before or after these Regulations come into force shall include the terms set out in Part I of Schedule 2.

(2) Every agreement for a loan made before these Regulations come into force shall in addition include the terms set out in Part II of Schedule 2.

i.e. they do not entirely replace the original, so the original term allowing them to charge is not affected and remains in place.

anna2007

That explanatory note to the 1998 regulations explains things not very well:

"The amendments to the Act are aimed at facilitating the sale of student loans to the private sector, and have made necessary a number of changes to the regulations made under it. Matters which were governed by regulations made under the Act from time to time, such as the interest loans bear, the time and manner of repayment, and the deferment and cancellation of a borrower’s liability, are now required to be governed by the terms of the relevant loan agreements, which are required to be prescribed by regulation. The prescribed terms are not subject to alteration by amending regulations once the loan agreements are entered. Accordingly the Regulations now prescribe the key terms which all loan agreements are required to include (regulation 7 and Schedule 2).
The key terms of all agreements entered into before 1st March 1998 will be replaced by the terms set out in Parts I and II of Schedule 2. The terms in Part II are transitional provisions to ensure that the agreements will operate properly after 1st March 1998, although they were entered into on a different legal basis before that date. The key terms of loan agreements entered into on or after 1st March 1998 will be those set out in Part I only".

I don't know the legal ins and outs, but to me that sounds like we've been shafted.

Maybe that's why the Chair of the BIS Committee back in Dec/Jan couldn't "possibly comment" on Mr Willett's statement that the student loans sell off was legit?

anna2007

fermi wrote: »

The original pre-loan 98 loan agreements had a clause allowing them to charge to recover costs incurred if you should break the agreement, as do the post 98 ones.

You quote above from the explanatory notes, which do not form part of the legally binding part of the regulation.

The legally relevant part says:

i.e. they do not entirely replace the original, so the original term allowing them to charge is not affected and remains in place.

Regulation 7 is saying that the terms set out in part 2 are in addition to those set out in part 1, surely?

That fits with the explanatory note (the original agreement is replaced with the terms in parts I & II of Schedule 2) which must be aimed at explaining the regs to the less legally minded, why should that not form part of what an ordinary consumer understands the legal position to be?

I accept that the original loan agreement allows for charges, but if what you're saying is right, there is a clear contradiction with what's stated in that explanatory note. Would be interested in how a court might view it? ... Anthony?