ERUDIO student loans help

Sarebear78

Hi all - I have got a further reply from my FOS adjudicator. She hasn't changed her mind on her original assessment.

Most hilarious (and also the most useful) part of it is that ESL have confirmed to them that the Fair Processing Notice as part of the DAF is optional!! Lmao. Nice to know that was so clear on the DAF.
Apparently in future I can opt out of agreeing to the Fair Processing notice. This, in essence, was what my complaint was about (changing the t & c) so that is great.

I hope anyone who has not completed the form already has success x

rizla_king

Reject her assessment then and insist it goes to an actual ombudsman.

Adjudicators will try to put you off doing that, or even try to make you think you cant, as they dont want to be made to look the idiots they are by having their decision overturned.

You have the right to insist though.

Sarebear78

rizla_king wrote: »

Reject her assessment then and insist it goes to an actual ombudsman.

Adjudicators will try to put you off doing that, or even try to make you think you cant, as they dont want to be made to look the idiots they are by having their decision overturned.

You have the right to insist though.

I could do but it is not really going to achieve any more than I wanted, I don't think. The line she has put in about the FPN gives me the answer I need really. Besides if they go against what they have told FOS, in future, surely that is pretty bad if I complained to the FOS again and they would incur more charges too!

chiefdave

I've had a reply to my complaint from Erudio and it's not good news.

Quick recap first, I'm self employed and do a self assessment tax return. SLC have always accepted that total income minus allowable expenses is the equivalent of a salaried persons gross income, which is correct, HMRC work on the same basis.

Of course Erudio don't agree and rejected my initial deferment application saying my in come was above the threshold. So I put in an appeal and explained to them how self assessment actually worked as they seemed to have no understanding of it.

The response to the complaint is "we have reviewed your supporting documents and can confirm our decision to reject your application is correct". They then go on to say my gross income is £30,150 so they are still insisting that if you are self employed they are using the total income figure and not accounting for any expenses or losses.

Theoretically you could have made a loss and still have Erudio say you are over the income threshold for paying, unbelievable. I can't decide if it's an incredible level of incompetence or them trying to pressure people who shouldn't be paying into paying.

With no hint of irony the phrase "we are committed to delivering excellent customer service and treating customers fairly" appears more than once in the letter!

There's no mention of any appeals process in their response so I'm not too sure what to do now.

fermi

As said here, next stop is the Financial Ombudsman, as that is patently absurd.

http://www.erudiostudentloans.co.uk/services/complaints-procedure.htm

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

chiefdave

fermi wrote: »

As said here, next stop is the Financial Ombudsman, as that is patently absurd.

http://www.erudiostudentloans.co.uk/services/complaints-procedure.htm

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

I shall be firing something off to them. What happens to the account in the meantime, is it still a case of being in dispute so payments are on hold or will Erudio be 'entitled' to payments?

Mr_McGuffin

anna2007 wrote: »

I've had a response from SLC to the FOI request where I picked up some of Mr Wild' refused requests, they initially refused mine too on cost grounds, but have answered most now at Appendix 1 of their latest response here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/deferment_of_mortgage_style_stud?nocache=incoming-589812#incoming-589812

Thanks Anna. This is all most interesting.

Q4: How many borrowers have had an application for deferment accepted without using a Deferment Application Form?

Answer - In order for a customer to be accepted for deferment they would need to provide a deferment application form. There may have been some cases where deferment has been accepted due to specific customer circumstances, but this would have been noted on those customers accounts, but we wouldn't keep a specific record of such cases.

I would like to hear the SLC give a clear and unambiguous answer to that question. The answer given here seems to me garbled and unclear. It does not say none and never.

The SLC says:

'There may have been some cases where deferment has been accepted due to specific customer circumstances.'

Is the SLC saying this did not happen, that it was impossible? Is the SLC saying that deferment could not be obtained without completion of the SLC 'Deferment Application Form ("DAF")'? No, it is not. The Regulations do not prescribe the completion of any form or apparent consent to 'warrant' contact with third parties.

The SLC avoids giving an unequivocal answer. It seems to say deferment without this form was perhaps possible, depending on 'specific customer circumstances.' I believe such a circumstance would be if borrowers refused to sign the 'Certificate and Warranty', while being otherwise entitled to deferment.

The SLC says there 'may have been' such cases. Therefore somebody at the SLC 'may have' had authority to approve this, but it does not seem sure. Any such instances 'would have been noted on those customers accounts.' The SLC can helpfully imagine the procedure it would adopt for recording events it is not sure ever happened. Somehow it considers that while this would be 'noted on those customers accounts', this would not constitute 'a specific record'. Perhaps the SLC means that it does not keep a separate record of the total number of such cases, if any did indeed occur.

The question asks about any cases of deferment 'accepted without using a Deferment Application Form'.

The SLC answer is:
'In order for a customer to be accepted for deferment they would need to provide a deferment application form.'

In Q3 the SLC seem to refer to the 'Deferment Application Form ("DAF")' as something like a defined term, and subsequently refer to the 'DAF' throughout 'Appendix 1', except in answer to Q4, when it refers to a 'deferment application form'.

The question relates to the SLC 'DAF', and asks about 'using a Deferment Application Form', capital D, A, F. The answer however relates to the 'need to provide a deferment application form', all lower case. These are not necessarily the same thing.

This resembles the construction in the agreement for the 1998 sale of loans to Finance for Higher Education, where the SLC agrees to process deferment applications, but does not make deferment conditional on completion of any Deferment Application Form. In that sale agreement, Deferment Application Form is defined in the Master Definitions Schedule, but an application for deferment, no capitals, is not.

For a borrower to obtain deferment under the Regulations he would have to make some form of request to do so. There is no automatic renewal of deferment and anyone wishing to obtain this would have to make a request, send an application, provide a form of self-certification, however one might choose to phrase it. He would not need to provide a specified 'Deferment Application Form' because no-one ever agreed to do this. In 1990 deferment was originally intended to be on the basis of self-certification. A sample survey was proposed in the form of retrospective spot-checking of actual earned income against P60s and self-employed accounts. That was the original plan and that is what the regulations were originally drafted to accommodate.

Until proved otherwise, I can only see that according to the 1998 Regulations no completion of a prescribed 'Deferment Application Form' is mandatory for deferment. No form is prescribed in the 1998 Regulations, and certainly not a form that appears to give consent to contact with third parties to 'verify' information, when no such right is given by the loan agreements or regulations.

As far as I can see, this SLC answer does not contradict this.

PoppyR_2

@chiefdave - I'm astonished. Surely they have to use the taxable income figure HMRC use, i.e. gross income after costs and expenditure has been deducted? Am I missing the point? Who are they to decide what your gross income figure is? Are they now more of an authority on these matters than HMRC? They are disgusting.

chiefdave

PoppyR wrote: »

@chiefdave - I'm astonished. Surely they have to use the taxable income figure HMRC use, i.e. gross income after costs and expenditure has been deducted? Am I missing the point? Who are they to decide what your gross income figure is? Are they now more of an authority on these matters than HMRC? They are disgusting.

You're not missing the point unless I am. That's exactly what they are doing. They haven't even given a justification for this, their response is basically we're right, start paying.

They are, to all intents and purposes, saying the way every self employed person in the county has their tax assessed by HMRC is incorrect! That's before you even consider the precedent set by SLC for 20 years.

How anyone in government can claim there is no chance with Erudio taking over when there are fundamental issues like this is beyond me.

To me there's only two options. Either they have a complete and utter lack of understanding of how the system works, and therefore aren't fit for purpose. Or they are aware of what they are doing and trying to force payment when none is due, again not fit for purpose.

Pluthero

chiefdave wrote: »

You're not missing the point unless I am. That's exactly what they are doing. They haven't even given a justification for this, their response is basically we're right, start paying.

They are, to all intents and purposes, saying the way every self employed person in the county has their tax assessed by HMRC is incorrect! That's before you even consider the precedent set by SLC for 20 years.

How anyone in government can claim there is no chance with Erudio taking over when there are fundamental issues like this is beyond me.

To me there's only two options. Either they have a complete and utter lack of understanding of how the system works, and therefore aren't fit for purpose. Or they are aware of what they are doing and trying to force payment when none is due, again not fit for purpose.

They are not fit for purpose. Erudio Student Loans ARE A DCA (debt collection Agency) that exist to collect debts. They are supposed to be in charge of the deferment process but are really in the business of making money.

You must consider this when dealing with them.

Chiefdave, complain to Erudio, the FOS, copy in the FCA to all complaints. All collection activity should cease whilst you are in dispute with these chancers.

If you have been deferred for x number of years by the SLC then Erudio cannot NOT defer you if you are using the same criteria.

Keep fighting. If you are below the threshold you have nothing to worry about. Keep a good paper trail of all your actions and Erudios.

ATB