ERUDIO student loans help

gardenia101

erudioed wrote: »

The Traders in Personal Data seems very worrying to me on the surface.

Me too.

dizzybuff wrote: »

I pay the money out of my salary. Therefore they should have used my gross salary as I don't earn them. They are a deduction.does that make sense. I don't earn them. They have added the amount on my salary. So in essence they have taken my salary and added a deduction on again. Making my salary 2400 more than I actually earn gross. That's before the deduction.

I get what you're saying Dizzybuff - again I can't decide if they're thick & incompetent & genuinely don't understand the salary sacrifice principle, or if they have an agenda.

dizzybuff wrote: »

Infact they have also got my maintainance amount incorrect.

I really don't see how they can get that wrong - unless they've assumed you get it net & they want to use the gross figure (like they do for savings). If you multiply your actual correct maintenance figure by 0.8 do you get the same figure that they have?

If they have done that then I'd say they are wrong (if we ignore they whole CM is your income argument that penalises single parents for a moment ). That CM will most likely have been taxed at source (i.e. your ex will have already paid tax on that money) & therefore that same money cannot be taxed again (hence why HMRC aren't interested in CM on tax returns or on TC forms).

I don't know what the situation would be if an ex wasn't a tax payer, but assuming yours is at least a BR tax payer.

But then seeing how Erudio are treating the self employed regarding profit & loss, its evident they know far more about taxation than HMRC.

dizzybuff

I sat there when I received their calculation and calculated it myself. I've told the adjudicator this information which she hadn't noticed. All she's done is quote a load of erudios crap. I'll post it in a bit when I'm on the laptop.

dizzybuff

Maintenance isn't not my incomy mp agrees and he's said he will fight this one for me not that it will make much diffrrence.

gardenia101

dizzybuff wrote: »

I sat there when I received their calculation and calculated it myself. I've told the adjudicator this information which she hadn't noticed. All she's done is quote a load of erudios crap. I'll post it in a bit when I'm on the laptop.

They did sound really pushed & "waffley" when I spoke to them earlier this week - don't think anyone wants to make a decision on this.

dizzybuff wrote: »

Maintenance isn't not my incomy mp agrees and he's said he will fight this one for me not that it will make much diffrrence.

Glad it isn't just MP that thinks this - it may make a difference if enough of us target our MPs. And it should be fought as its just outrageous :mad:

dizzybuff

I even highlighted my maintaince amount. they still got it 10 quid less . idiots.

gardenia101

OK - the next hurdle to jump over.

DAF section 8a says - you should complete this if you currently suppor {seems they can't spell either } yourself using savings accumulated in other years.

So to me that is capital since interest earned from savings in dealt with in section 5. I don't like the fact that they've insisted we report annual interest/12 rather than interest received in the relevant month etc as per the regulations. But neither method of reporting puts me over the threshold.

Capital reported in section 8 doesn't need to be included in the total gross monthly income, so I'm still well under the threshold.

But they want to see proof of savings too - I have more than enough capital accumulated in previous years to pay off the balance, but I don't have to repay as I earn less than the threshold, & shall do since I'm not well enough to work full time (& in my current job even if I did work f/t I'd still be under the threshold). Hence why I get low rate DLA.

If I provide this info, how long will it be before they fudge the T&C to include capital as "earnings"? After all they include other things which aren't earnings. I'm sure I'm not the only one with savings, & when they see that some of us do then they're bound to persue it.

I did discuss this with SLC when I received an inheritance, but as it wasn't within the relevant month or 3 months after that, then I was told it wouldn't affect deferment (which is how I thought it would be from the regulations). I was just reminded to include any interest earned on the inheritance on the next years deferral form. Sadly I don't have that in writing.

Or am I being too cynical?

Have any of you that reported savings capital been granted deferment?

rizla_king

Unless you are using the capital to support yourself as income you dont have to report it in section 8. Full stop.

gardenia101

rizla_king wrote: »

Unless you are using the capital to support yourself as income you dont have to report it in section 8. Full stop.

I've been using a small amount of it to support myself & fund my recent drop in hours since I've been struggling to cope at work health wise for months. I feel much better for being able to do this & hopefully my health will hold out for longer than if I were still working those extra hours. I'm sure I won't be able to work even at this level until retirement, so assume my savings will be used up in the not too distant future.

They'll see from my bank statements & from my interest earned that I have savings, & I was going to send a tax return copy to prove my annual savings. I'm still sure on the one hand that as its not earnings then they can't count it & I'm worrying over nothing - but when they see I do have some savings, well they'll try & find a way to force me into paying.

Brooker_Dave

dizzybuff wrote: »

Just had my for complaint decision. The adjudicator is a nupty. She hasn't even acknowledged that they miscalculated my pay adding my childcare vouchers onto my pay. I don't earn that money I pay it out. I appreciate but they should have used my gross earnings. I'm fuming. I'm earning less than 17k and they have added my maintainance as well as my benefits ( that's Normal) meaning I noe have to pay. My maintainance isn't mine it's my kids. I'm sat here crying. My mp npw has a copy and I have complained she hasn't looked at the issue of the miscalculation.

Forget about the ombudsman, just take them to court, there's a solicitor who will help you, the call will cost you nothing.

Brooker_Dave

dizzybuff wrote: »

I have a feeling I'm going to have to pay this.

This is how a DCA works, they bully you in to paying when you have no need to.

Stand firm and use the courts to enforce the agreement you signed.