ERUDIO student loans help

Chadsman

rizla_king wrote: »

I expect Erudio can print out again the parts you missed and staple them in.

I emailed it to them so I have a copy if they should try anything.

erudioed

AReeves wrote: »

An update to an earlier post.

My client has now received deferment without completing the DAF. Erudio tried to dress it up as though they were waiting for confirmation of his gross income (which we disputed) and they also made the point of saying that he will have to complete the current edition of the DAF next time. Below is an extract from their reply:

"Please note that as per our previous e mail, your client’s application has been accepted on the basis of your confirmation as to his gross income. We will require in future that the then current edition of the deferment application form is completed."

I think the words "..the then current edition of the deferment application.." are significant. It implies that the DAF will change.

Anthony Reeves
Lawyer

Thats great news Anthony. I think its clear there will be a new form next time, but only after they have gone the full year getting most people to sign it and complete it, thus getting the info they needed or the signatures for whatever their purpose was (i guess time will tell on that one, or if we get to find out some more details about the Experian Collections Network (and others) and what and who they are passing our info to).
I am sure we are all curious to see what the new form has. Lets hope its a virtually identical one to the SLC form we filled out for 20 odd years and doesn't fish for irrelevant info not pertaining to the deferment, or appear to contain the appearance of signing some right over to them, or should i say, most importantly, doesn't contain the same veiled threat that the last one did. Maybe they will have learnt their lesson on that...after all, i know a few of us have mainly taken up this fight for the long term because of those very threats relating to the CRAs and such things. I wont hold my breath though, we know their lawyers will have been scheming for many hours trying to come up with 'legal' ways to move us towards payment. Maybe they should just offer for us deferers the chance to settle at cost price of their purchase (or less)...after all, if they collect on those who have lost touch with SLC and are in default, they will still be able to collect a very tidy sum indeed, and be rightfully able to contend that Arrow Global does indeed 'treat customers fairly'. Because as it stands right now, the majority of people they 'treat fairly' are those who have complained beyond Arrow's inner circle and drawn attention to the devious ways being exercised by Capita's front line staff, not to mention the scale of the Direct Debit thefts Zach Lewy only admitted to after some of us got the press and BIS involved! There seems to be a culture at Arrow Global of only admitting to errors or changing things when they have been pushed to the edge...maybe that culture comes from the top of Arrow Global and rightfully reflects the personality of its number one culture setter Zach Lewy

anna2007

Zach Lewy:



Christian Bale in American Psycho:



I rest my case

Rosskie

Not checked the thread in ages, times a luxury nowadays and wayyyyy behind.

So, quick recap for you on me, refused to sign new daf, applied to defer, went 3 months behind before being told the "new terms are optional", used the form with only relevant bits filled, and scored out all terms and clearly marked the document as such, no DD given. def approved but was 4 months behind so I paid the 1 month shortfall.

Ombudsman has found in my favour and I have a written offer that Erudio have agreed with - refund of arrears paid, 8% interest on that amount, credit file to be cleared of arrears marker (actually don't know if they marked it!) and £100 for distress.

I expect they have probably processed me as if I did sign the full T and C's though, but don't have the time or energy to deal with it anymore, and £100 is barely worth it.

Good luck with your fight guys

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

Zach Lewy:



Christian Bale in American Psycho:



I rest my case

I knew he looked familiar. :rotfl:

fermi

Rosskie wrote: »

Not checked the thread in ages, times a luxury nowadays and wayyyyy behind.

So, quick recap for you on me, refused to sign new daf, applied to defer, went 3 months behind before being told the "new terms are optional", used the form with only relevant bits filled, and scored out all terms and clearly marked the document as such, no DD given. def approved but was 4 months behind so I paid the 1 month shortfall.

Ombudsman has found in my favour and I have a written offer that Erudio have agreed with - refund of arrears paid, 8% interest on that amount, credit file to be cleared of arrears marker (actually don't know if they marked it!) and £100 for distress.

I expect they have probably processed me as if I did sign the full T and C's though, but don't have the time or energy to deal with it anymore, and £100 is barely worth it.

Good luck with your fight guys

Good to hear.

And that the ombudsman is being sensible in some cases.

erudioed

Great news Rosskie that they have found in your favour. The compensation is paltry considering the amount of time and stress i know it must have caused but only financial penalties and bad press will make Arrow change anything, so thank you very much for seeing it through. You can retire from all this now after doing us a great service, and getting a result...well retire until next year anyway (sorry for the bad joke).

datlex

AReeves wrote: »

datlex, if you have evidence to show your income falls below the threshold level then you would have good grounds to argue a breach of contract. If a court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your income was below the threshold, then it could order specific performance of the contract (ie force it to grant the deferment).

Anthony Reeves
Lawyer

thanks for answering much appreciated

Pluthero

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Thanks Anna... clears that one up. Mine is the 15th and I'm sure I had read elsewhere that others had put the 15th but hey ho, makes complete sense that they would want a payment as soon as your time was up!

This is my complaint letter to ESL if it interests anyone. I know that the DD issue has been resolved some time ago but included it in my complaint because they are still trying to get people to use the old DAF.

a) In your cover letter you state that 'Under the terms and conditions of your agreement, your loan(s) needs to be repaid by Direct Debit.' Elsewhere in the application pack itself, it states 'You are required to maintain a direct debit mandate for your repayments regardless as to whether your repayments are deferred. Failure to do this constitutes a breach of your agreement.' Does ESL ltd stand by these statements? If not, please explain why they are made in my application pack sent on 19th November 2014.

b) Can you confirm the legal position as ESL ltd defines the legislation relating to applications for deferment? I can find no reference or legal basis for an application for deferment to be refused on the grounds that the borrower must submit a standard form. Requirement and authorisation for contact with third parties does not exist in the Education (Student Loan) Regulations 1998 or in the original loan agreements. As far as I am aware, no agreement for contact with third parties to 'check' or 'verify' anything in relation to a request for deferment exists outside the 'Deferment Application Form' which in itself has no legal basis.

c) There are several questions asked in the application form which are not relevant to the deferment conditions as set out by the legislation. Are ESL ltd aware of this and working to correct and clarify the situation?

d) In the application pack it states under the Fair Processing Notice (FPN) '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' Does the act of just submitting a form for deferral imply that the borrower gives informed consent to changes in the original terms and conditions?

---

I am still waiting to hear from them having now sent two copies. It seems that they just want to hold up applications
that won't use the forms in order to stick us in arrears!

Erudio won't take your complaints seriously until you get the FOS or a Lawyer involved as posts on this forum have shown. So could I ask everyone who has had a resolution or ongoing complaint to fire off a email to the FCA (consumer.queries@fca.org.uk) about how badly Erudio have handled their deferment and the contempt they have shown. Hopefully they will impose some kind of sanction and make deferment in the coming years that much easier for us all. Erudio/Arrow Global have shown that they need to challenged in order to TREAT US FAIRLY. In fact call them Erudio/Arrow Global in any complaints as big brands/corporations hate bad publicity

BorderReiver14

AReeves wrote: »

An update to an earlier post.

My client has now received deferment without completing the DAF. Erudio tried to dress it up as though they were waiting for confirmation of his gross income (which we disputed) and they also made the point of saying that he will have to complete the current edition of the DAF next time. Below is an extract from their reply:

"Please note that as per our previous e mail, your client’s application has been accepted on the basis of your confirmation as to his gross income. We will require in future that the then current edition of the deferment application form is completed."

I think the words "..the then current edition of the deferment application.." are significant. It implies that the DAF will change.

Anthony Reeves
Lawyer

Fantastic news.... I'm sure many of us would be happy to use a DAF in future if it does not contain threats or changes to T&Cs, however it is worth noting (and I suspect ESL are catching on to the fact) that if you can show you meet requirements for deferment (wage slips etc) there is no reason to use a DAF at all. Does the fact that they are saying in your case, that they require completion of a DAF in the future significant? It isn't a requirement is it?

Still, it is fantastic news and its made me happy tonight :T