ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

Surely they must be getting close to the 26th chargeable case, just with the DD mandate breeches and DD thefts alone. If everyone can find time on Monday to complain it will send things into overdrive at the ombudsman and Erudio. This could be the !!!!-up that breaks the camels back...although i am still not 100% sure whats going on.
It could be an idea to mail simon read and paul lewis, and others. Targetting folk at xmas is a potential public relations nightmare. Who would have thought that being a student over 15 years ago would lead to this, right now!

fermi

OK dizzybuff.

As you've not been deferred - at least in Erduio's opinion - they are obviously going through the motions of sending the arrears notices they by law must do if that was the case.

As we've seen, those are technicalities that Erudio have to go through.

If they didn't and for some reason your FOS compliant was rejected, then if Erudio hadn't sent these they would be in another mess whereby they would not have been able to charge interest etc during that period again.

Just because they are sending them it doesn't mean that the FOS can't require Erudio to wipe them out and reset things to how they should have been had Erudio defered you straight off. Although must be worrying getting these.

Send the arrears notice is OK technically if they are valid or might be held to be so, but demanding payment of the arrears while your entitlement to defer is under dispute with the FOS would not be OK.

If they do that then you need to complain and report them to the FCA etc.

Honestly I'm not sure if the FOS will uphold your complaint, insofar as you should be deferred anyway.

The whole maintenance and child benefit/CTC etc thing is a mess, where morally/ethically they should be excluded, but strictly legally in a technical sense looks as if that may not be so.

Hope you can manage not to stress and enjoy Xmas. :0

Erudio are not deserving of creating so much worry.

Mr_McGuffin

Is it the case for everyone else that the details on the Notice of Sum in Arrears show Date of Loan Issue as different to Date Loan Issued on the Notice of Assignment in March, and different to the Pay. Date on SLC Annual Statements?

Is it also the case that the Original Loan Amount shown for each loan is different to that shown on the Notice of Assignment for each loan, although the total for the loans added together is similar (1 pence different in my case)?

There is not consistency and continuity between the loans I took out with the SLC and those now represented in the Erudio documentation. Erudio has replaced the details of the loans I took out with Date of Loan Issue and Original Loan Amounts different to those that appeared in the SLC paperwork. On January 1st interest will begin to be applied on these subtly different loans after it had been halted.

Does anyone have an opinion why this is or what it means?

anna2007

@ Mr McGuffin Yes, the date of loan issue is incorrect on my annual statement, and it only shows one loan ref with the total for all of my 3 loans against it.

I raised both of these points in my complaint on the annual statement to Erudio. This is what they had to say in their final response:

"We understand you are dissatisfied the 'First Loan Payment Date (from SLC to you)' stated in your annual statement is incorrect. We can confirm this error was the result of not receiving this information from SLC during the migration of your loan account details. We hope you will understand we are unable to comment on the sequence of events that led to us not receiving this information whilst your account was being administered by SLC. Consequently the date stated in your Erudio annual statement for this section, xx/xx/xxxx, is the date your loan account was established. We are sorry for any confusion this may have caused you, however we can confirm this error has no detriment to you or the way your loan account has been administered by Erudio".

And also this:

"We can confirm that during the migration of your loans from SLC to Erudio the credit amounts for each of your three loan numbers were merged into one loan number [the first loan ref]. As such your annual statement for the period 01/09/13 to 31/08/14 issued by Erudio only detailed loan number xxxxxxxxxxx. We can confirm that there is no detriment or advantage to you with regards to the merging of your loans".

I'm not sure if there are any legal implications in what Erudio have done but the way I see it, the loan details on my annual statement are incorrect - it looks like I took out one loan in 1990 for the full amount of all 3 loans. If Erudio/SLC mucked up the migration of our loan data, that's their problem and it's up to them to sort it out so that the info's accurate. I haven't checked the CCA yet, but would have thought a lender is obliged to detail all of the loans on these annual statements?

I'll be asking for the info to be corrected in my FOS complaint, along with the other issues such as incorrect interest, incorrect monthly repayment amount, incorrect repayment term, etc, etc, etc!!

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

"We can confirm that during the migration of your loans from SLC to Erudio the credit amounts for each of your three loan numbers were merged into one loan number [the first loan ref]. As such your annual statement for the period 01/09/13 to 31/08/14 issued by Erudio only detailed loan number xxxxxxxxxxx. We can confirm that there is no detriment or advantage to you with regards to the merging of your loans".

I'm not sure if there are any legal implications in what Erudio have done but the way I see it, the loan details on my annual statement are incorrect - it looks like I took out one loan in 1990 for the full amount of all 3 loans. If Erudio/SLC mucked up the migration of our loan data, that's their problem and it's up to them to sort it out so that the info's accurate. I haven't checked the CCA yet, but would have thought a lender is obliged to detail all of the loans on these annual statements?

If I recall from the MSE article the main reason for SLC messing up arrears notices in the past requiring some of the re-mediation we see now was that they sent single arrears notices to cover all loans, rather than separate ones as they should under the CCA?

So extrapolating, doing so with annual statements may also be a bit dodgy?

May need to be checked out.....

anna2007

Found the following - The Consumer Credit (Information Requirements and Duration of Licences and Charges) Regulations 2007 - Schedule 1, Part 1 sets out the info that must be included in the periodic statements:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1167/schedule/1/made

Section 3(a) says:
"a description of the agreement sufficient to identify it" - so by merging all 3 loans against one loan agreement number, it's not possible to identify each loan agreement.

Section 3(d) says:
"(i)the date on which the agreement became an executed agreement; or
(ii)the date of first movement on the account" - the date Erudio have put on the statement is neither of these dates, instead they've put the date my loan account was established (which was before the date I signed the agreement and obviously before the loan was paid to me).

From what I've read so far, I think it's ok for more than one agreement to be included on the annual statement, but as stated above, there has to be enough info to identify each agreement (and the amount of credit provided under each agreement). I'm sure that's how the SLC statements showed it - all 3 loan agreement numbers, with the amount borrowed beside each?

Edit: It also states this in the explanatory note:
"Where a debtor has entered into an agreement under which he makes one payment in relation to his indebtedness under a number of fixed-sum credit agreements (at least one of which is a regulated fixed-sum credit agreement) regulations 7 to 9 permit creditors to aggregate certain figures which are required to be shown in the statement (and appropriate adjustment of certain forms of wording), which would otherwise have to be shown separately in relation to each agreement to which the “agreement to aggregate” (as defined in regulation 2) relates".

I had a quick look at Regulation 7, but can't quite get my head around it... and have to make dinner now! It's this bit at 7(e):

"the information required under paragraphs 1, 2, 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e) of Schedule 1 need only be shown once where the information which would otherwise have to be included for the agreements to which the agreement to aggregate relates is the same for each agreement"... ??? Does this mean that if the loan agreement number is different for each agreement, then each loan number has to be shown?

dizzybuff

I've already emailed the ombadsman about it and will seewhat they come back with I don't need arrears I had no idea I had coming to me 9 months later whilst I'm I'm dispute. My mp is so mad about the benefits thing. Because technically I could work 20 hours a week and my benefits would taken me.over the threshold. I actually hate all this. I didn't choose to bes ingle

dizzybuff

@Fermi I know I probly won't get deferred. I'm obviously not happy to pay as it will mean me struggling for another year. My ex will stop his maintainance and me and the kids will be worse off.. I'll apply for deferment again. But all this has been caused by their incompetence at being able to calculate someone's income correctly.. The length of time the ombadsman has taken and the fact erudio cancelled my dd and I refused to give my details over the phone because they already have them. I have a little money put aside and of I do have arrears will use that to pay them off. As I'm going through a divorce as well the ex is bound to try tubule thisbagainst me in court

lazymonkey

I have also received one of these arrears letters today despite the fact my loan was deferred already. They took ages to defer it though as I was about to go on maternity leave and kept requesting more info and the same info again !
They told me the "arrears" had been removed from the account - grrrrr :mad:

Looks like I will be spending Monday on the phone to them to sort it out.

How come I never had to call SLC ? -but since these idiots took over I feel like I have to call them every time I get a letter as it's wrong

erudioed

I agree lazymonkey, i was thinking the same last night. All i ever got from SLC was a deferment form and the gumpf every year, nothing that was confusing and involved me needing to stress and contact them for clarification. It was all clear and written in 'plain english', something these vultures should also be undertaking according to the rules governing their activities. All of this will be causing a wide variety of meetings and conference calls today...lets hope all those affected will be peppering the ombudsman today if they can find the time to make the call during this stressful period. Lets throw it back at Erudio and cause them to take emergency action/panic/bother in these few days before xmas!!!