ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

@HJA
Contact Erudio immediately and them about it in detail...if they dont side with you, tell them you will contact the ombudsman and tell them what has happened and ask them to file the complaint for you because it is an injustice etc and a consequence of the confusion surrounding the hand over of personal info by SLC to Erudio. But, that that should not mean adverse consequences for you because of confusion their end. As such, they should accept/look into your situation. They have obviously mucked it up. As long as your story is accurate, they cant do anything about it, even if they will try by threatening you!

ericctheking

chiefdave wrote: »

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.

If you are self-employed why don't pay yourself nothing in the relevant (4 should do it) months under the threshold and more in the remaining months of the year?
That is in the terms and conditions, even if you earn well over the threshold for the year it doesn't matter! Everyone can defer until the loans are written off then! Even billionaires!
Means Erudio get nothing because of this loophole :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

ericctheking

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

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 has no right to verify the accuracy of the data.
According to the terms and conditions the borrower just has to "show" not "satisfy" (this term was changed in the legislation) that they are under the threshold.
Erudio has no right to even grant deferment! If you are under and you show it you are deferred end of!

Mr_McGuffin

eroneo wrote: »

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.

As you say there are a lot of aspects to all this and many different rabbit holes to go down. There is a lot of information on this thread about many of the things you mention. It is a live issue and where it will end up is not certain, clear conclusions from the organisations you list are conspicuously absent and this will surely in any case end up in court.

Just to make a point I’ve made often on here, but as I understand it Erudio does not legitimately have the rights for 'verification' of deferment that you describe.

The original loan agreements and legislation governing the terms of the loans give no right whatsoever for contact with third parties for 'verification' of any information relating to a request for deferment. When the loans were introduced in 1990 the possibility of third party 'checks' being authorised by the terms was considered and rejected. There is no permission for this in the loan terms themselves, despite what any 'Deferment Application Form' may suggest. According to the loan terms the only information 'necessary' for granting deferment is the information the borrower himself 'can show'. The loans were introduced and the terms written on the basis of 'self-certification'. Erudio says it has the right to perform 'checks' and 'verification' related to requests for deferment and demands consent to this as a condition for deferment. I do not accept it has any such rights.

This is a somewhat separate issue to the use of data use, although clearly related.

eroneo

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

As you mention there a lot of aspects to all this and many different rabbit holes to go down. There is a lot of information on this thread about many of the things you mention. It is a live issue and where it will end up is not certain, clear conclusions from the organisations you mention are conspicuously absent and this will surely in any case end up in court.

Just to make a point I’ve made often on here, but as I understand it Erudio does not legitimately have the rights for 'verification' of deferment that you describe.

The original loan agreements and legislation governing the terms of the loans give no right whatsoever for contact with third parties for 'verification' of any information relating to a request for deferment. When the loans were introduced in 1990 the possibility of third party 'checks' being authorised by the terms was considered and rejected. There is no permission for this in the loan terms themselves, despite what any 'Deferment Application Form' may suggest. According to the loan terms the only information 'necessary' for granting deferment is the information the borrower himself 'can show'. The loans were introduced and the terms written on the basis of 'self-certification'. Erudio says it has the right to perform 'checks' and 'verification' related to requests for deferment and demands consent to this as a condition for deferment. I do not accept it has any such rights.

This is a somewhat separate issue to the use of data use, although clearly related.

If it's not too much trouble, could you please provide a link to the decision about it being self cert? If the MPs rejected there being a need for verification then evidence of that is very powerful. If you don't have the source at least give an idea where to look. Thanks

@ChiefDave
What happened in the end? Did you have to repay?
see this:

ggogle:slc deferment manual

It is the deferment manual from SLC. They deduct expenses and assess only profit.

gardenia101

Had my final response from Erudio to my formal complaint - a few weeks after the 8 week timescale that they say they'll stick to, no apology or reason for it taking more than 8 weeks....

So I've finally been sent a large print DAF & can therefore now apply for deferment. Its only taken almost 4 months & numerous requests. Shame they didn't send the instruction booklet that the DAF refers to at the same time....

chiefdave wrote: »

I didn't get one, mentioned that in my complaint to them but they've completely ignored that part.

They ignored most of my questions too about missing/unsuitable paperwork, or questions about why I need to supply my NI number etc. They even said they couldn't find a record of my request for an annual statement in large print - odd because it was clearly stated on my formal complaint :mad:

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

I have never read of any such letter on any forum, though yes, the sentence you describe certainly appears in the Deferment Application Form. If you go through Erudio material you will find many alarming and inconsistent statements and much that is false and misleading.

I don’t think you need to worry in particular about the letter in January. I think you can be sure it doesn’t exist. Unfortunately though that is not any real help as Erudio claims the rights it wants and describes in its forms, letters and Fair Processing Notices irrespective of that non-existent letter.

Erudio have claimed they've sent me all kinds of correspondence, in large print too - which is either a whopper of a lie or I have a selective postie who is destroying almost every letter they send me :rotfl: Bank statements, magazine subscriptions, hospital letters all get through to me but somehow the Erudio post goes missing. The trouble is who is going to believe me (apart from you lot obviously) when they state they have corresponded with me & I have chosen not to complete the previous DAFs. The fact that they were unsuitable for me has been ignored.

They've also said that I can only have a maximum of 3 months of arrears wiped off - even though they've taken longer than that to send me a suitable DAF

I spoke to FOS about it who were quite vague, but asked for a copy of it. I then asked when they'd written to Erudio as I knew they'd received my official complaint form on 12/11. They confirmed they hadn't even scanned it yet as they were still dealing with post received on 5/11. If I'm lucky I may get a reply within 3 months :eek: by which time I'll be 8 months in arrears.

Not sure what to do really - I'll fill in the form as best I can (& have found the DAF guide online which I assume is the latest copy). Very fed up & I haven't even really thought about the FPN shenanigans - although I think someone on here has said that FOS have said that all pre-98 loans don't have a case about reporting.

eroneo wrote: »

Thanks for replying.


Pluthero: I received the info pack with the 'notice of assignment', the FAQ, the first 'Fair processing notice' and letter from SLC saying the loans were sold but that was at the end of March. I did not get anything in January.

The other 'Fair processing notice' on the deferment form clearly refers to a letter in January. Please look at the FPN on the deferment form and see what I mean.

ChiefDave: so you spotted it as well but did not get a letter in January?

It may be that there was no letter or it could be that everyone else got one but me, ChiefDave and Gardenia. I'm still worried.


(Gardenia:Seek advice if you did not recieve a 'notice of assignement'. )

@Eroneo - I have seen the reference to the January letter, but am a bit baffled about the timing of it. My loans were acquired by Erudio in March, so how would they have known to send me a letter in January? Must be why I didn't get that correspondence either

rizla_king

gardenia101 wrote: »

They've also said that I can only have a maximum of 3 months of arrears wiped off - even though they've taken longer than that to send me a suitable DAF

Lying bstards. Basically.

chiefdave

eroneo wrote: »

@ChiefDave
What happened in the end? Did you have to repay?
see this:

ggogle:slc deferment manual

It is the deferment manual from SLC. They deduct expenses and assess only profit.

Not much to report, I've logged a complaint with the ombudsman and will be letting Erudio know this and telling them I expect no collection activity while the complaint is with the ombudsman.

That's manual is incredibly useful, I will be sending a copy to Erudio and asking why they are not applying the criteria in the same way SLC were.

erudioed

chiefdave wrote: »

That's manual is incredibly useful, I will be sending a copy to Erudio and asking why they are not applying the criteria in the same way SLC were.

I think BIS have a lot to answer for in this regard, seemingly giving Arrow extra powers, whilst still pushing out the 'they havent changed the T&Cs' line when asked, then refusing to clarify on any issue that has arisen since Arrow Global took over. Something has happened that we havent been told about/no journalist has yet investigated, with quite a few of the FOI requests probing the general area all coming back with a non-specific, standard answer. However, when other FOI request have been asked that dont probe such specifics about the deal, BIS reply with very detailed answers!

gardenia101

rizla_king wrote: »

Lying bstards. Basically.

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment (with apologies to Michale Dobbs).

chiefdave wrote: »

Not much to report, I've logged a complaint with the ombudsman and will be letting Erudio know this and telling them I expect no collection activity while the complaint is with the ombudsman.

That's manual is incredibly useful, I will be sending a copy to Erudio and asking why they are not applying the criteria in the same way SLC were.

But your loans will still continue to accumulate interest & your payments will still become due - & while it's taking them well over the 8/52 complaint timescale to reply & while FOS have such a backlog, then you may find yourself in the same situation as me with more than 3/12 arrears on the account, of which only 3/12 will be wiped. So they'll get some money after all :mad:

I expect they'll say that the SLC were wrong in how they handled deferment - that's what others have posted on here &what I was told on the phone, & was discussed here some pages back.

So many months later down the line & I'm well under the threshold - what are the chance of my deferral going smoothly when they finally receive it? :rotfl: