ERUDIO student loans help

fermi

The explanatory note says that it is the "key terms" that are to be replaced to harmonise things and make administration more straight forward.

It does not say that the whole of the original pre-98 agreements are replaced.

Also as it states, that explanatory note "is not part of the Regulations". If it is not explained very well then that does not negate the actual effect of the part of the regulations that is legally binding.

As stated, the terms in the regulations supersede those of the pre-98 agreements.

The phrase is "shall include". Certainly NOT entirely replace.

Simply it's just "replacing" the applicable parts of the original terms. Not the whole agreement.

But where there is no contradiction or the 1998 regulation terms do not even go there, then the original stand.

Such as any provision for charging costs incurred due to any breach of the agreement .

fermi

Saying that, SLC and now Erudio are allowed to charge for "costs incurred".

They are not allowed to charge for things that were not genuinely incurred, or if they were for more than they actually cost to do.

If they try charging large unrealistic flat fees for things that obviously cost nowhere near, or try to impose default or even penalty type charges then these would be open to challenge.

I recall that people have challenged those charged by SLC in the past and received refunds.

anna2007

@ Fermi Makes sense, would still be good to get a legal opinion on it, if Anthony sees this maybe he could give a view on it?

I've had a response today from Erudio re my complaint on the issues with the annual statement. I can't work out if they're being deliberately obtuse or completely incompetent - I think it's a bit of both. The main points:

They say it's the 2014/15 daily interest rate (APR 2.5%, which was simply divided by 365) that's wrong, and that the following formula is used to calculate the daily rate for 2013/15 - APR 3.3%:

=+((1+0.033)^(1/12)-1)*(12/365)*100 = 0.0089

Apart from trying to fry my brain, does anyone know why they would calculate it in this way? It's clearly flawed, because 0.0089 x 365 does not = 3.3%. From a google search, the way to calculate it is simply divide by 365 (which is what Erudio initially did for 2014/15), e.g.

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/work-out-interest

I'm guessing they're sticking with the flawed calculation, as they don't want to have to reissue revised annual statements to all customers?

Re the monthly repayment figure, they say:

"We can confirm this calculation is based on your repayments being deferred for one year from 1 September 2014...After one year deferment has expired it is assumed that monthly repayments will be received for the 60 months to the Maturity date of 10 March 2019".

They've included a detailed statement showing the assumed interest/payments, with payments starting 10/06/15 (when my deferment ends), and not 10/09/15, as stated in their letter. That makes 46 monthly repayments to 10/03/19, not 60 as stated in the letter!! If "maturity date" means the date the 60th payment is made, that would give a date of 10/05/20, assuming repayments start when my current deferment ends next June. But I'm guessing by "maturity" date, they mean the date my loans are due to be cancelled, which is also wrong, as I reach the 25 year period in February 2018 (when the last loan became outstanding). Safe to say their response on this point is a complete f'n shambles.

On waiving part of the interest for the year, they say this is because of the "Remedy of Account" letter they sent in June... I never received this letter, and I'm not affected by the whole 'CCA Remediation' issue, as I never had arrears with SLC in that period (2008 onwards?). They also stated on the original annual statement that they had waived part of the interest because correspondence sent in June showed the wrong outstanding balance, so nothing to do with a 'remedy of account' letter.

Re their statement only showing one of my loan account numbers (but the total of all 3 loans), they say that during migration of my loans from SLC to Erudio, the credit amounts for each of the my 3 loan numbers were merged into one loan number. They confirm that there is no detriment or advantage to me with regards to the merging of my loans. I suppose that's fair enough, seeing as I have that confirmed in writing?

I also queried why the statement number showed '10', when this was the first annual statement from Erudio. They say "during the migration of your loan account details from SLC to Erudio, SLC provided 9 years of historical data associated with your loans", which is why it shows the statement no. as '10'. Not sure what this means for the historical data prior to the last 9 years... does that no longer exist?!

Will be going to the FOS/FCA with a new complaint on the daily interest rate calculation, waiving of interest, monthly repayment amount/number of repayments and the loan 'maturity date'... basically most of my complaint hasn't been resolved, which I suppose is to be expected where Erudio are concerned...

anna2007

Found this in the FCA handbook, under MCOB 10.3 Formula and assumptions for calculating the APR -

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/MCOB/10/3

MCOB 10.3.5 - APR calculation: the calculation of any period:

"For the purposes of calculations under this chapter, the length of any period must be calculated as follows:

(5) a day may be taken to be either:

(a) one three hundred and sixty-fifth part of a year or, if it is a leap year, one three hundred and sixty-sixth part of a year; or

(b) one three hundred and sixty fifth and a quarter part of a year.

So Erudio's convoluted formula is a pile of sh!te.

StudentLoansSuck

gardenia101 wrote: »

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:

You should receive from Erudio:

• a microfiche copy of your student loan credit agreement
• as some of these are unreadable, you might also receive a reconstructed copy (minus signatures)
• a statement of account provided by SLC going all the way back before 2005 up until Erudio took over the account in March?
• and another statement of account from March onwards provided by Erudio.

However this may take some time as I think they (Erudio) are still gathering all this information from SLC. And I also think, could be wrong, it might have something to do with the way you asked for the information. A CCA request with a fee produced the above results regarding statements and credit agreements.

BaffledByErudio

Just seeking a bit of advice today.
It's becoming obvious now that due to workload, I'm going to end up earning about £2,500 gross for a couple of months in the key period where I'll have to provide payslips for next year's deferment.
My gross basic salary is £18,000 for the year and these months are the only ones where we are expected to put in the hours. Typical sod's law!
Now I'm really fretting because I'm worried Erudio will say I'm not earning below the threshold for the three months prior to deferment application. Clearly, when averaged out across the year, the overtime takes me nowhere near the threshold when combined with my salary, and SLC were always fine with a letter from my employer confirming this was the ONLY overtime I will do during that 12 month period.
What do people think? Would Erudio be within their rights to refuse deferment?

Pluthero

BaffledByErudio wrote: »

Just seeking a bit of advice today.
It's becoming obvious now that due to workload, I'm going to end up earning about £2,500 gross for a couple of months in the key period where I'll have to provide payslips for next year's deferment.
My gross basic salary is £18,000 for the year and these months are the only ones where we are expected to put in the hours. Typical sod's law!
Now I'm really fretting because I'm worried Erudio will say I'm not earning below the threshold for the three months prior to deferment application. Clearly, when averaged out across the year, the overtime takes me nowhere near the threshold when combined with my salary, and SLC were always fine with a letter from my employer confirming this was the ONLY overtime I will do during that 12 month period.
What do people think? Would Erudio be within their rights to refuse deferment?

Is it not one months earnings prior to deferment date and then three months after for earnings to be below threshold? Thats what you sign up to in the agreement? Not sure about that but someone will know???

anna2007

BaffledByErudio wrote: »

Just seeking a bit of advice today.
It's becoming obvious now that due to workload, I'm going to end up earning about £2,500 gross for a couple of months in the key period where I'll have to provide payslips for next year's deferment.
My gross basic salary is £18,000 for the year and these months are the only ones where we are expected to put in the hours. Typical sod's law!
Now I'm really fretting because I'm worried Erudio will say I'm not earning below the threshold for the three months prior to deferment application. Clearly, when averaged out across the year, the overtime takes me nowhere near the threshold when combined with my salary, and SLC were always fine with a letter from my employer confirming this was the ONLY overtime I will do during that 12 month period.
What do people think? Would Erudio be within their rights to refuse deferment?

This really is the law of sod

I think the reason SLC always asked for 3 months' worth of payslips (and Erudio have continued, with the addition of the P60), is to do with the part of the declaration that earnings for the following 3 months after the "relevant month" are unlikely to be over the threshold - there's obviously no way we can prove future earnings, so they take the previous 3 months as an indication?

If your overtime falls in those 3 previous months, and that's the only time in the previous year your earnings spike, it obviously doesn't give an accurate reflection of your actual income. As far as the Regulations go, it's the income in the relevant month (the month before you apply) that counts. If that month excludes overtime, and you can show your income in the previous year, IMO that's a reasonable way to "show" you're below the threshold (and likely to be in the following 3 months). There's nothing in the regs or agreement to say that your last 3 month's payslips is the way to prove you're unlikely to go over the threshold. Knowing Erudio, they won't entertain it, and will insist it's the income in those previous 3 months that counts, so you would have to be prepared to fight them on it, go to FOS, etc.

If the extra overtime showed on only one of your payslips, would the average over the 3 months keep you below the threshold? That might be a way to get around it, try to time the overtime so most is done outside of those 3 months (although I'm sure you've thought of that already and I think you posted previously that your boss isn't exactly understanding about your problems with Erudio, so maybe that's not an option?).

There is another option, my least favourite as it means paying money over to these barstewards, but you could delay your deferment application until you have 3 months worth of 'normal' payslips... it would mean making one or two repayments, so it really has to be a last resort!

anna2007

StudentLoansSuck wrote: »

You should receive from Erudio:

• a microfiche copy of your student loan credit agreement
• as some of these are unreadable, you might also receive a reconstructed copy (minus signatures)
• a statement of account provided by SLC going all the way back before 2005 up until Erudio took over the account in March?
• and another statement of account from March onwards provided by Erudio.

However this may take some time as I think they (Erudio) are still gathering all this information from SLC. And I also think, could be wrong, it might have something to do with the way you asked for the information. A CCA request with a fee produced the above results regarding statements and credit agreements.

A SAR's the way to go if you want everything Erudio has on you.

I made a CCA request to Erudio and received crap in return - no statements of account - only illegible copies of the agreements, along with template agreements which weren't true copies (e.g. the 1990 agreement only had 12 clauses, but the 'true copy' had the usual 16). I've asked for what should have been provided via a FOS complaint, so 5 months past my CCA request, I'm still waiting.

Erudio also confirmed in a letter to me today that they only hold our info for the previous 9 years, this is all that was migrated over from SLC. However, I would have thought it's Erudio who are legally obliged to provide the account statements from loan start date under a CCA request, and not SLC?

fermi

If they have not provided correct CCA copies, then arguably they are still in default of your request.

Also a CCA request does not require a full set of statements to be provided.

The "statement of account" required under a CCA request is actually a statement by them showing the state of the account. e.g what is left to pay, how it is made up etc.

For some reason on various forums it has been misconstrued as meaning they have to provide a set of back statements.

77 Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement.

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [F1£1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor;

(b) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due; and

(c) the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due.

(2) If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amounts and dates mentioned in subsection (1)(c), he shall be taken to comply with that paragraph if his statement under subsection (1) gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained.