ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

chiefdave wrote: »

Or they are aware of what they are doing and trying to force payment when none is due, again not fit for purpose.

Exactly that.

PoppyR_2

chiefdave wrote: »

Or they are aware of what they are doing and trying to force payment when none is due, again not fit for purpose.

Yep.

Definitely get the FOS involved.

rizla_king

Erudio know they are in the wrong there. They are just trying to con people out of deferments they are entitled to. Report to FCA, take them to the FOS, tweet it, write to your MP and whatever else you can think of.

gardenia101

Still no reply from Erudio about not replying to my complaint in the 8/52 timescale. Nothing from FOS about it all either so I gave in & rang Erudio last week....

Spoke to a very polite lady who apologised profusely & didn't even mention making a payment even though I'm now at least 4/12 in arrears. She assured me that on the 24th the system said "something" was coming out to me in addition to the Welcome Pack & statement that I've now requested 3 times since August (deferral ended in July) - but it still hasn't turned up :wall: Also told me that my case was with Erudio's legal department, presumably to draft their final response letter to me.

I have every confidence that they'll be able to get it right :whistle:

I wonder if they feel they have a case against BIS for mis-selling these loans as I can't help feeling this isn't working how they expected it all to.

There are still a huge number of former students who could be deferring yet most of them don't seem to be appearing on this thread - I hope they haven't all been bullied into making payments.

erudioed

I think its something like 1% who check out forums and then an even lower percentage who comment. If only 10% checked the forums, the whole sale and issues revolving around it would have been thoroughly outed by now! I am sure the reasons for such vagueness in replies about T&Cs, lack of things appearing like the due diligence report and the non-offering by SLC or BIS to clear the deferments for 25% of the face value would have made heads role and many more people throughout the UK understanding that the government's chosen approach is privatising everything they can on the sly...including, rather ridiculously, student debt (or should i say previously given student loans). Pathetic really, such is the climate about turning the UK into the UK plc, and these continually increasing transfers of wealth that everyone should be outraged by!

Mr_McGuffin

Sarebear78 wrote: »

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.

How can the FOS seriously believe that makes sense?

Erudio claims this about its 'FPN’:

'How/ why will my data be verified?
Erudio Student Loans will use credit bureau and fraud prevention agency data for data verification and fraud prevention purposes. You have already given consents for this in the original credit agreements you entered into, and the Fair Processing Notice included here is to formalise that, as new owners of your account, Erudio will now be responsible for such checks.'

And says in its 'DAF' [Erudio caps]:

'IN ORDER TO CHECK YOUR APPLICATION TO DEFER REPAYMENT ON YOUR STUDENT LOAN AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS SET OUT IN THE ORIGINAL CREDIT AGREEMENT, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNDETAKE [sic] CHECKS TO CONFIRM THAT YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEFERMENT.
ACCORDINGLY THEREFORE BY SUBMITTING THIS APPLICATION YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU CONSENT FOR ERUDIO TO PERFORM RELEVANT CHECKS AT CREDIT REFERENCE AND FRAUD PREVENTION AGENCIES. IF YOUR APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL IS ACCEPTED, INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE A DEFERRED LOAN WILL BE REGISTERED WITH CREDIT REFERENCE AGENCIES'

And it threatens:

'Omissions or misstatements may result in civil proceedings against you.'

The 'Certificate and Warranty' includes agreement that there are no 'omissions'.Erudio threatens civil proceedings 'may result' if there are any 'omissions'.

Not only does Erudio claim consent to the 'checks' it describes is given by the very submission of the DAF, Erudio makes clear that it considers it already has these rights 'and the Fair Processing Notice included here is to formalise that, as new owners of your account, Erudio will now be responsible for such checks.'

How can that be optional?

And what exactly does the FOS mean if it is saying consent to the Fair Processing Notice is optional?
Does the FOS consider the 'WARNING' in block capitals in the DAF to be part of the 'Fair Processing Notice', or is it something else? What are the boundaries of this now optional agreement? What is optional and what is not?

And which Fair Processing Notice is it referring to? There are two different versions. For instance only the first issued with the Notice of Assignment contains this very wide-ranging authorisation:

'In order to manage your account your personal data may also be combined with other data relating to you which we may obtain from third parties, where it is deemed necessary for verifying the accuracy of the data and/or for the purposes of collecting the outstanding balance. In this respect, we may access third party data sources and combine and process data from those sources with your personal data. Such third party data sources may include…’

That is a statement, not a request. I do not understand how the FOS can say that is 'optional', it is certainly not presented as an option in any way.

This response from the FOS indicates that its adjudicator considers this is all quite fine and perfectly acceptable.

'Getting your deferment application form right' also says:

'These notes are for guidance only and reflect the position at the time of writing. They do not affect any right of appeal.'

What does that mean? This is material produced by Erudio itself that is essential for its own sole purpose. Why would there be any change from 'the position at the time of writing'? Does this mean that these notes and the Deferment Application Form are in some sense provisional and unresolved? Does some temporary arrangement apply to them? They are however the basis for taking real money from real people.

If this is the best the FOS can do it is clearly no help or use whatsoever.

Jonez

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.

It may be worth asking them a very simple question - do you realise that you are counting expenditure as income? If they reply yes - ask them to explain to you exactly how that works - in writing preferably.

ericctheking

Erudio are just a DCA.
Is it true only the original creditor can default you and take you to court?
Therefore if you sign nothing Erudio presents you with (which might make a new agreement with them) then you can just ignore them and they can't do anything except send you letters?

fermi

ericctheking wrote: »

Is it true only the original creditor can default you and take you to court?

No. That is a myth I'm afraid.

Where a debt has been properly and legally assigned as had been done in this case, then the buyer can do both of those.

ericctheking

But they can't take non-uk residents to court :rotfl:
(Well not realistically for the amounts of money we are talking about)