ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

Ed-1 wrote: »

I'd bet my left arm that it won't. It's statistically almost certain to go up to £27000+ next year.

Completely agree... provided the same methodology in the calculation is used. I think Mr McGuffin mentioned a while back that BIS's hands are most likely tied as far as the threshold goes, because of the 2 previous MS loan sale agreements?

The General Election creates a lot of uncertainty though - the only thing I'd be willing to bet an arm on is that Vince Cable will be clearing his desk in May. With Ukip winning Rochester, it's not impossible that one of Farage's muppets could replace him. If that happens, it probably won't matter what they do with the deferment threshold, as they'll just round us all up and literally (instead of figuratively) throw us to the wolves!!

anna2007

Pluthero wrote: »

You don't need a DD in place for deferment only if you are in repayment!. Someone, Anna I think, has written confirmation of this from erudio.

Yes, they confirmed to me in writing that the DD was no longer a requirement during deferment, even apologised for insisting on it, but even though it's there in black and white, I simply don't trust them to honour it, at least not until it's official on their DAF, website, etc.

Here's hoping the revised DAF will resolve the DD issue once and for all.

anna2007

gardenia101 wrote: »

Weirdly my last "statement" shows that they stopped charging me interest at the end of Feb 14, then the account seems to have stopped as interest isn't then charged again until Aug 14 (& no, the missing 5 months interest isn't shown as a combined figure - its about 3 months worth lumped together, so no idea what they've done there). Anyone else have strange interest transactions for similar timescales?

My statement was the same Gardenia, interest for March to August lumped together as a single transaction (apparently due to a system error which resulted in interest not accruing as it should have during the 6 month period). However, the amount doesn't = 6 months' interest - they've waived it between 7 March and 15 June, as a letter they sent on 16 June showed a current balance excluding interest to that date.

I couldn't care less what their letter showed, but I do want a statement that shows 3.3% added to my opening balance, as that is what's required per the Regulations. So it's going to the FOS, as Erudio haven't bothered to amend the statement to show the correct amount of interest.

I posted last week re Erudio's calculation of the daily interest rate (DIR) - I've checked previous SLC statements and it does now look like the DIR for 2014/15 (the one divided by 365) was wrong. I think it's to do with compound interest - paying interest on the interest - as it's added at the end of each month throughout the year. So the DIR is lower than 365ths, but the APR will still work out at 3.3% (or at least it should, if Erudio applied it for the whole year).

Sorry if that makes no sense... I know in my head what I'm trying to say!

BaffledByErudio

anna2007 wrote: »

Yes, they confirmed to me in writing that the DD was no longer a requirement during deferment, even apologised for insisting on it, but even though it's there in black and white, I simply don't trust them to honour it, at least not until it's official on their DAF, website, etc.

Here's hoping the revised DAF will resolve the DD issue once and for all.

Indeed. Let's hope.

I too received a letter informing me they'd reviewed the set up and had decided loans in deferment no longer required a DD. Yet when you ask on the phone, they say that's wrong and you're in direct breach by not having one. The website is the same. So frankly, until there's concrete clarity with all these maybes, ifs, buts and Erudio mysticism, it's too much of a risk not to toe their line!

gardenia101

psbrett wrote: »

What did you do as I also received one of these. I did nothing as I stated in my letter I would not sign their deferment form.
I now have a chaser now which I have 14 days to contact them or I default and lose the right to defer. I'm so angry Should I sign this deferral form?

What does this chaser say exactly? I had a letter saying I hadn't returned the DAF or signed it (that'll be because they still haven't managed to send me one to complete :wall:), but I haven't had anything saying I need to contact them within 14 days or I lose the right to defer. I've already defaulted as I'm now 3 months in arrears, but I've had nothing from them to say they're calling in the entire loan, or that I've now lost my right to defer.

In fact they still seem unable to correspond at all. They've ignored my "you've gone over the 8/52 timescale to reply yo my official complaint so whats going on" letter.

SLC have replied to my SAR (& in large print too :T) saying they'll send info on within 40 days. So that suggests to me that they do indeed still have a lot of info on us, even when they've claimed not to have anything.

After saying that I hadn't had an increase in c/card applications - I've had 4 this week :rotfl:

Pluthero

AReeves wrote: »

Sarebear78, I just read your post that the FOS say you have to complete their DAF.

I think this sort of confirms my earlier predictions that the FOS would not really understand/consider the Regulations and the impact on completing a DAF or not.

I would suggest you contact me and I can write to Erudio and say if they insist on the DAF, then we will take legal action.

Anthony Reeves
Lawyer

Have had a call from the FOS about DAF required to defer. Left my caseworker in no doubt that I would not be signing it and outlined the unfair nature of the DAF. He is away to write up his ruling. Not hopeful of a positive outcome but I will take it to ombudsman level. Sadly it looks like court is gonna be the only way to go!

rizla_king

Not unexpected from the FOS, but still disappointing that they obviously employ such clueless numpties as adjudicators.

Sarebear78

AReeves wrote: »

Sarebear78, I just read your post that the FOS say you have to complete their DAF.

I think this sort of confirms my earlier predictions that the FOS would not really understand/consider the Regulations and the impact on completing a DAF or not.

I would suggest you contact me and I can write to Erudio and say if they insist on the DAF, then we will take legal action.

Anthony Reeves
Lawyer

Thanks Anthony - I did fill in their form (but amended it) in order to get deferred. I knew the debate would rumble on so my plan was to get deferred then fight on about the unfair form in readiness for next years battle.

I will see what the FOS say then consider my options. Many thanks for your continued interest

Sarebear78

Pluthero wrote: »

Have had a call from the FOS about DAF required to defer. Left my caseworker in no doubt that I would not be signing it and outlined the unfair nature of the DAF. He is away to write up his ruling. Not hopeful of a positive outcome but I will take it to ombudsman level. Sadly it looks like court is gonna be the only way to go!

Yeah - there is still the ombudsman to put it to. Good luck x

ericctheking

Erudio say self-employed people's income for deferment purposes is turnover not profit! Are they insane?
They also say income from rental property is the whole rent and not after expenses. Again insane!