ERUDIO student loans help

PoppyR_2

I received a letter from them stating they'd bought my loan. Can't remember when exactly but it was definitely post January. I think it was around June/July time. I'll try and find the pack they sent and look at the date.

Sarebear78

eroneo wrote: »

Hello, I'm new here.

I have seen that many folks have crossed out the FPN.

The problem is that when the form arrives at the form processing centre, it goes into a machine. The machine is only programmed to collect the answers from each box on the form it is expecting. If you have written anything on the form that the machine has not been programmed to expect, it will be ignored. The machine will register the form automatically and the database will record that the form has been processed successfully. The software will assume you have agreed to the FPN becuase it has not been programmed for any other possibility. Another machine will now spring into life and collect data about you from many sources and process and share your data as if you have consented to the FPN.

This is just me guessing. I do not have any factual information on their internal processes.

Has anyone so far been deferred without the offical form? Has the FOS ever made them accept deferment without the form?

Well in my covering letter with the form, subsequent complaint and FOS complaint I have made it very clear that I do not agree and that I was forced to sign as I had already tried to apply for deferral without a form but they said I wasn't allowed to. The FOS have told me to make another complaint if my 1998 loan is reported so I will do just that if that is the case. There is nothing more I can do at the moment.

The CRA issue doesn't really affect me but to me it is the principle. I think it is a threat tbh so I'd be surprised if they followed through on it.

Only a few months until the next deferral excitement - at least I know the total complaints procedure if they pull anything else

I am pretty sure that no one has been deferred without using the form but a lot of people have complaints with the FOS regarding this.

Regarding the letter in January stuff - pretty sure the only letter I got was the letter from SLC about the transfer, which included a letter from Erudio.

Sarebear78

Pluthero wrote: »

I doubt these forms are machine read. If it is a machine I imagine it be like a really old photo copier that a bored admin assistant is hand feeding a single page at a time, the machine jams every third form and the assistant rips the form out and bins it or uses it as fuel for the office basketball tournament...

Unfortunately this sounds more like the processing I am imagining too.....

Or a machine that looks exactly the same as the shredder, hence the confusion. These options can only explain how so much stuff is, conveniently, 'not received' by Erudio.

eroneo

Re: the 'machine'
I meant it as a 'black box'. The form goes into the black box and your data is shared and processed far and wide. As soon as the form goes in, nothing can stop the flood of data in and out.

If the form is processed manually by a human there is no difference. The clerk will follow instructions from their boss just like a computer. If there is no option programmed into the boss or the clerk to treat you differently, your data will be shared regardless.

Crossing out the FPN will not reprogram the staff/machine/black box.

So, not a single person has insisted on not using the form and refused to back down and succeded?

Also, has any authority, FOS FCA ICO acknowledged that the extra terms are a variation of contract which is not allowed without the borrowers consent?

erudioed

I find this notion of a 'black box' mystifying. Hypothetically something similar could exist, but as you have written it, i find it grounded on not much fact, so whats the point in discussing it like it is real until we have some solid evidence this is indeed the process being employed by these clowns at Capita. I would say a huge internal database that certain companies have access to to be much more realistic and frightening personally.
I think you will find examples in this very forum of certain people fighting on that front, you should be able to find them pretty easily if you read back, and not too far at that. You will also find a rather lot of references to your final point as well, with many people trying to get an answer to that exact question.
Also, concerning the forms sent out, there is only the notification of sale (feb/march sent out, probably printed in january, who knows) and then the deferment form, and then more recently the interest for the year that we have all got. If your letter says january, it is another one of their errors!

eroneo

You are absolutely right. How their system works is entirey speculation and not fact. The point I was trying to make was that one cannot assume crossing out the FPN will make any difference to what they actually do with your data. It may be useful as evidence later if they break the Data Protection Act. It does say on the FPN that their systems are 'automated'. It is very common for such systems to lack flexibility. It is as you say frightening because we have no idea what they might do with their 'big data' or who is in their sharing club. There is interesting info on Experins website about their big data projects and listed data sources. This is much more than just your credit report. They may share data with recruitment agencies for example. Could they even get hold of your CV? We don't know, but the FPN and the big data are over the top. It is hard to tell what harm it may do later in life.Who wants a bad employment score?

The FPN is too wide for the purposes they need. The original agreement may be too narrow to be useful in tracking down defaulters. So, they make their problem our problem instead.

I have entered this very much later than most, so I need to catch up fast. I have read many forum posts already but still have many questions.

I know some of you have submitted deferment by signed letter and been turned down. It may be easier to just give in and use their form to avoid arrears. I was hoping someone out there stuck to their guns until victory given there is no requirement to use a prescribed form.

Thanks for the info about the January letter not existing and the wealth of information that has been made available here.

erudioed

I have no doubt our data is like a cash cow to these bottom feeders. Luckily thus far, for them rather than us actually, no one has reported a loan registered on their CRA file. No one is certain what we have actually signed away, if crossing things out makes a difference, or if the suggested cover letter rescinding anything extra we may have signed away by signing the DAF means anything. What we do know is that this company specialises in data, and that includes its own internal, and pay to join, CRA based Experian Collections Network to name one of a few. Until we find out something for certain though, we have no way of knowing or much of a footing to do anything about it. We can only be vigiliant and wait for Arrows next faux-pas, and i doubt it will be very long before it surfaces. Other than than, all we can do is complain about those issues that personally concern us to the bodies you list and anyone who will listen, and tell everyone we know about how badly this second stage of privatising student loans is going...with the general election coming up, MPs should be interested to know what is actually happening and how this company is acting (i spoke to someone who'll be running in it somewhere and he was shocked at what has happened/been happening).
Theres some excellent stuff within this forum, it will be well worth speed reading some to get to the meat. You will also find links to articles written by people who work for this site as well for an outside view on certain problems some of us have encountered.

Mr_McGuffin

eroneo wrote: »

Re: the 'machine'
I meant it as a 'black box'. The form goes into the black box and your data is shared and processed far and wide. As soon as the form goes in, nothing can stop the flood of data in and out.

If the form is processed manually by a human there is no difference. The clerk will follow instructions from their boss just like a computer. If there is no option programmed into the boss or the clerk to treat you differently, your data will be shared regardless.

Crossing out the FPN will not reprogram the staff/machine/black box.

There was a lot of debate here and on mumsnet earlier in the year and as I understand it many took the view that customising the DAF and stating clearly what was not agreed to would be considered by a court to define the limits of an agreement.

Personally I agree that there is no reason to assume this will make any difference to what is done with the data. Apart from recent news on here via an FOS adjudicator that the FPN is 'optional' there is no indication that consent to the use of data proposed by Erudio can be withheld. (I think someone else on here was told something similar via the FOS too a while ago?) Besides being totally inconsistent with what Erudio itself has previously written, it is then completely unclear what is and what is not 'optional'. Some fundamental features of the proposed use of data are only stated in the first small print FPN and not in that incorporated in the DAF.

How this optionality can be guaranteed or enforced or any breach known about, there is no apparent way of knowing. Precisely what Erudio proposes to do with personal data is vey unclear from the Fair Processing Notices. See this passage in the first FPN only:

'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…'

Erudio unilaterally gives itself open-ended permission to use and combine data in any way 'where it is deemed necessary for verifying the accuracy of the data and/or for the purposes of collecting the outstanding balance.' Erudio gives itself permission to do whatever it likes in pursuit of its profit. It will combine, synthesise and share data however it wishes and is unilaterally 'deemed necessary'. Of course there is no legitimate purpose of 'collecting the sums outstanding from you' in relation to those who earn below the deferment threshold.

This is a business model that the ICO apparently permits and does not disagree with in any way. There was absolutely no permission given for such use of personal information when these loans were made, and it is a profound change of purpose. The business of the non-profit SLC was as much to grant deferment as to obtain repayment. The purpose of the loans was as much to be deferred and cancelled as it was for them to be repaid. This idea that nothing bad has happened yet if you haven’t been publicly reported to CRAs is not the point, because the true use of our data may not be known or visible if it is incorporated and shared with other data in the manner and for the purposes stated, not requested, by Erudio.

Both the FPN issued with the Notice of Assignment and that included in the DAF share with slight variation this warning of what Erudio can do with its processed data synthesised from multiple sources:

'We may make periodic searches of our own group records and at CRAs to manage your account with us, including whether to permit deferment of credit outstanding.'

This 'we' extends to a larger and completely unspecified 'group' of which Erudio is evidently part. Although we have been given no information about this and cannot know what this 'group' consists of, Erudio seems to be stating that its self-given rights will also extend to these other parties included but not specified within this 'we'. This 'we' is perhaps the totality of this 'group' referred to, or may in fact be something else. It must mean whatever Erudio wants it to mean, but this is not specified or defined.

The ICO appears to be perfectly happy and satisfied with all this, and of course it is the ICO that is guardian of the Data Protection Act.

HJA

I was dealing with SLC and had a direct debit set up. They stopped taking payments in 2013 so I cancelled the direct debit in the summer when I switched bank accounts. At the same time my parents contacted me to say SLC had been in contact so I phone the number my dad gave me. Anyway after an hour on the phone SLC and Erudio had no record of my loan. Today I've received mail from erudio via a previous address demanding 14 months worth of arrears!

So erudio seem to have the wrong contact details for me yet despite phoning my parents last April they haven't called them since. When I spoke to erudio in May the operator searched using all combination of my details including previous addresses and agreement number and couldn't find no record of my loan. My loan in her words must of been paid off. So what do I do now, seems to be the biggest !!!! up ever.

eroneo

The data protection act was probably created to provide a legal framework to enable the exploitation of personal data rather than protection. The act forbids only the most extreme violations such as selling medical records or publishing private information that could physically endanger a person. All the rest of the non consensual use is permitted with the excuse that it is allowed under the data protection act. If it is true that the ICO thinks what you have described above is acceptable then the ICO is useless. Without knowing the facts of a complaint, it is impossible to know if it was the ICO, bad luck or the complaint not being made very well.

The second option may be to challenge the data use in court. Not an option for the little guy. The judge will want to know what the ICO had to say about it or why you did not use the ICO. Again, it will come down to whether the use of the data is 'necessary' in the pursuance of 'legitimate aims' and whether there is any extreme harm to the individual that can be proved. Just not liking it isn't enough.

If the DPA is no help, what does the contract say? Is the contract is more restricive than the DPA? At least the DPA requires the borrower to be told what his/her data will be used for before he signs. If it is not in the contract then it may not be allowed. I am not a lawyer. Even though it does not say in the contract, the argument will be that they have an implied right to share our data because they might want to verify the accuracy of the evidence we suppply for deferment. The question is how far is it reasonable for them to go? Who are these third parties and what justification do they have for processing our data? Can the borrower insist on only providing the bare minimum of data and only allowing the bare minimum of 'verification' that is necessary to grant a deferment? It's all very unclear so they will interpret it as it suits them.

One thing is that what they do after the have granted deferment is no longer justified by verification.

I think we need to share data on our complaints via a website or something. Actually seeing what the ICO/FCA/FOS have ruled in previous complaints would help with bringing better arguments.

How about a new thread where people can ONLY post their complaints and the responses they got? And another for resources such as links to information, FOIs, laws, cases and articles? It's really hard to extract that information if it is hidden amongst 1000s of other forum posts.