ERUDIO student loans help

Brooker_Dave

erudioed wrote: »

The more i think about out and come across, the more perfect the term shell company is. I am just amazed they are allowed considering how clearly dodgy the whole idea is and how it allows these companies to conduct business behind a wall of invisibility.

It's amazing that a company director does not actually have to be a person.

Pluthero

This has all happened before: See HSL Honours Student Loans :

http://www.honoursstudentloans.co.uk/Application/Home/Default.aspx

Just like the Erudio Website.

Note the address at the bottom! and here is the owners:

go here : http://www.dellam.com/cgi-bin/main.pl

Type : Honours Student Loans and click on

Honours trustee LTD

That company directors name look familiar?

Now the CAG website and others are full of very similar sounding stories of people being hounded for student loans by LINK/THESIS etc not so very long ago. It must be a very profitable business model chasing ex students for money.

BUT they cannot change the Original terms of OUR loans. So don't sign their DAF. Don't use even their NEW DAF if it ever appears because you do not have to. Send the same evidence you sent the SLC in the past, hell even use the old SLC form or your own cover letter.

There is no point arguing with Erudio over the use of the DAF, and god knows I have tried!

They will continue to send you THREAT O GRAMS threatening all sorts of DIRE consequences. They will ignore your complaints. But they will not take you to court Because they WOULD LOSE and don't have a legal leg to stand on. They make enough money from people caving in and paying them.

I am Sick to death of them personally and will only deal with them in future via the FOS or a Lawyer.

And shame on the Govt for letting this happen AGAIN. They sold to the same people so must have known the outcome and did not give a damn. So remember who to VOTE for COME MAY.

anna2007

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

Thank you very much all for finding and posting all the info today.

What about this in the Strategic Report of the Annual Report:

'Capita Customer Management Limited was appointed by the parties to act as the Primary Servicer of the Loan Portfolio with Arrow Global overseeing Capita Customer Management Limited with respect to those loans in arrears.'

As far as I can see it doesn't say Arrow oversee Capita for the 'loans for which repayments have been deferred' that it mentions earlier. Does someone else oversee those? Or is it an error or omission? Why then does it specify Arrow oversee the loans in arrears, when it could just say Arrow oversee Capita for all the loans? Or is just Capita who handle deferred loans, with nobody else 'overseeing' it?

As Arrow Global are the DCA specialists, I'm guessing they have some input into chasing the defaulted debt (possibly do all of it) and leave Crapita to mismanage our deferments and everyone's annual statements?

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

"Small and medium-sized companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) can benefit from relaxation of the general requirement to supply full, audited accounts to Companies House.
In many cases they can prepare and file shortened versions of their accounts."

But will they get away with that for the next financial year?

They only have to meet 2 of the 3 qualifying conditions - they apparently have no turnover (any money collected is held in trust, in Erudio's bank as an asset, probably until Erudio is wound up), and they have no employees.

It looks like they'll get away with it every financial year, and the accounts will never have to be audited, no matter how much is held in the bank account (as long as turnover is under £6.5m and they have no more than 50 employees).

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

I think the 2013 accounts said Capita handle all the money and pass it on to Arrow Global and Harrogate Holdings LP, after taking their own cut, and that Erudio doesnt see any of the money, other than its cut for setting up the company and giving a business address etc. The more i think about out and come across, the more perfect the term shell company is. I am just amazed they are allowed considering how clearly dodgy the whole idea is and how it allows these companies to conduct business behind a wall of invisibility.

From the notes to the accounts:

"The money held in the bank account is held on trust for the Benenficial Title Holders [Arrow Global and Harrogate Holdings] and represents primarily the money collected by the Primary Servicer [Crapita] after payment of the expenses of the Company".

So Crapita deposit all money collected from our loans into Erudio's bank account and as it's being held on trust, no tax is paid.

anna2007

Thinking about the lack of scrutiny of Erudio's financial accounts, I have a feeling that what was so attractive about our loans portfolio was the high face value of the loans. We all know that a large proportion of the loans will eventually be written off, provided Arrow Global/Capita haven't harassed and pressured the deferrer into paying up. We should probably stop calling them Erudio, which is nothing more than a "Special Purpose Vehicle" to stash the cash.

We don't know how much Arrow Global/Capita will actually collect on our loans, and neither will Companies House, HMRC, the auditors or anyone else, other than the companies that own our loans.

Technically speaking, there's nothing to stop the full face value of our loans, close to £1 billion, being deposited in Erudio's bank account, and them claiming a 100% collection rate. I'm not saying that will happen, the point is there are no external checks and balances, no scrutiny whatsoever, to confirm that the amount deposited is the amount that's actually been collected.

What's to stop big business pouring money into these shell companies, transferring the money to some tax haven when the shell company's wound up, and avoiding huge amounts of corporation tax? Nothing by the looks of it, which is the whole point of setting up the shell company... I'm not surprised they're so popular.

Maybe the real reason Arrow Global/Capita are making it such a royal PITA to defer has little to do with harassing legitimate deferrers into paying (although every little helps, obviously), and more to do with making it look like they might have collected far more than is actually the case?

ericctheking

Don't forget your loans and financial details can be past around all the murky shell companies they own! From Jersey to Delaware to the Caymans! Complete with tricks at every turn to get you to sign rights away.
Those nice safe government loans look a bit different now!

ericctheking

The problem is (and this is way the Eruido people haven't got the sympathy they deserve) that a lot of people see student loans as something that must be payed back at any costs because these idiots think it is the moral thing to do and people borrowed the money so they should pay it back type of hand wringing.
What these absolute idiots do not realize is how the loans were sold. They were not sold as regular loans! They have basically been miss-sold on a huge scale if the money must be re-payed to the last penny by everyone who took out the loans (this is what the idiots want!)
You can see the propaganda from the government about default rates etc in the press (these aren't real defaults these are poeople who fulfill their contract by not paying or paying very little because they don't earn enough. The aim of this is to turn the public against anyone with a student loan and make people see people who took student loans and haven't paid it all back as immoral.
Added to this is the privatisation of the loans. The idiots still thing that these private companies that are owned by Americans and have structured there affairs in such away to avoid paying tax deserve this money!

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

They only have to meet 2 of the 3 qualifying conditions - they apparently have no turnover (any money collected is held in trust, in Erudio's bank as an asset, probably until Erudio is wound up), and they have no employees.

Given they don't actually exist, could Erudio take anyone to court for not paying?

Brooker_Dave

It just seems odd that a company which claims to have no employees could sue someone, or even legally exist?