ERUDIO student loans help

patanne

Pretend for a moment that you have no involvement with Erudio. You are thinking of having dealings with them so you look at the latest filing of their accounts. (Yes I have done this with cos I have never heard of before, as well as googling etc). I would take one look at their accounts and all I can say is "no way Jose". They make them LOOK like scam merchants. What were BIS thinking? They should be ashamed of themselves. Hope the backhanders were worth it.

missuscolumbo

OK Guys - I really need help because my student loan was a cluster.... *before* any of the Erudio Nonsense.

I started Uni in 1997. At that point my course was validated by University of East London.

Owing to sickness I had to repeat my second year (of the same course with the same institution) HOWEVER during this year, the university that awarded the degree changed to University of Essex.

As far back as 2001 SLC split my 4 loans (1997/98/99/2000) in to two separate accounts (one dated 97 under Uni East London and one dated 98 under Uni of Essex- no idea why, but this is what they did as up until this point it was all held under one reference). From this point on I was required to send back 2 lots of deferments to SLC company each and every time - except in 2004 SLC effed up, and only deferred one of the two accounts (Despite me sending back 2 lots of forms and me arguing if one account was eligible for deferment surely the other one also was, and why oh why would I go to the trouble of sending back one lot of forms but not the other ?)

The account that wasn't deferred fell in to arrears as it was not in deferment (despite being eligible and the evidence being provided)

Long story short SLC pestered me and pestered me, and despite being eligible for deferment I agreed to pay the arrears - except when I phoned up and made payments to clear the arrears as agreed they rather cleverly allocated the payment I made to the loan that was deferred and didn't require payment, and not the one in arrears

As a result of this,The account that was in arrears (despite being paid and allocated to the deferred loan) was then passed to Thesis Servicing, where it remains in "arrears" almost 8 years later. ( I have asked several times for the monies paid and incorrectly allocated by SLC to be transferred to Thesis, but SLC counted them as "voluntary repayments" and refused to re-allocate them, much less to Thesis) Thesis do not collect on the loan in "arrears" unless I exit deferment with SLC. It becomes payable in full if deferment ends.

Each year up until now I have submitted an application for deferment to SLC, they process it, agree the deferment on the 1998 account which they held until May 2014. Thesis accept SLC's deferment of the master 1998 account as deferment on the account 1997 account that they now administer.

Like many others, earlier in 2014 my 1998 loan was sold to Erudio. I've had no contact from them (yet) other than to say they have taken over the loan.

So - I now have one loan in arrears with Thesis Servicing (1997 loan) And another (1998 loan) held by Erudio, which is currently deferred (but has the payments that were intended for the 1997 account held by Thesis included in its balance)

Thesis are going to start to collect on the 97 account in "arrears" in full if I fall out of deferment with SLC, but I have no longer have the means of deferring the account as I did previously as SLC no longer administer the 98 parent account - (Our friends Erudio do !) Effectively I am being forcing to exit deferment making the balance payable.

I've no idea where to even start, and desperately need help/ advice Is anyone able to offer some pointers as I am going to be faced with not one but 2 loan companies as a result of the splitting and subsequent sale of my loan

(Just to stress - this was NOT two separate loans for two separate courses, It was one course over four consecutive years and I had to repeat my second year, during which time the university that awarded the degree changed)

Lungboy

As your loans are split across Thesis and Erudio, it's SLC that should deal with it.

anna2007

Companies House have gone ahead and published the GAZ1, as it's now showing on the Gazette website (wasn't there yesterday):

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/825025/supplement/1438

The notice is shown on page 1416, at the start of the alphabetical list of companies:

"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1000(3) OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2006, THAT AT THE END OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE, THE NAMES OF THE COMPANIES LISTED BELOW WILL, UNLESS CAUSE IS SHOWN TO THE CONTRARY, BE STRUCK OFF THE REGISTER AND THE COMPANIES WILL BE DISSOLVED".

anna2007

@ missuscolumbo I agree with Lungboy, SLC should continue to deal with your deferment, as your loans are split between providers.

When did you last ask SLC to reallocate your payments to the account with arrears, and do you have any evidence? I know it initially happened a long time ago, but it might be worth asking SLC again and if they still refuse, make a formal complaint, then take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service if they won't budge.

It's worth a shot, especially if you can show the amount of arrears on one account and the payments applied to the other deferred account. The cost and hassle to SLC of a FOS complaint might be enough to make them see sense and reallocate your payments.

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

Companies House have gone ahead and published the GAZ1, as it's now showing on the Gazette website (wasn't there yesterday):

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/825025/supplement/1438

The notice is shown on page 1416, at the start of the alphabetical list of companies:

"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1000(3) OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2006, THAT AT THE END OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE, THE NAMES OF THE COMPANIES LISTED BELOW WILL, UNLESS CAUSE IS SHOWN TO THE CONTRARY, BE STRUCK OFF THE REGISTER AND THE COMPANIES WILL BE DISSOLVED".

I assume someone at Wilmington will be shouted at and the accounts will be sent to companies house before the end of the three months?

erudioed

I think its legitimate to show concern and ask all official bodies involved in this, as well as journalists what will happen to our information, details, etc etc if Erudio is dissolved. It would also severely ramp up the pressure on Erudio et all. Ive ramped it up on my twatter page. Until we get a clear answer, i think it is legitimate to ask such a thing, it isnt a joke to us, especially when they have such sensitive info. At what point do you fully withdraw from interacting with them if you have totally lost trust that they will do right by us and our info?

Jonez

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

I assume someone at Wilmington will be shouted at and the accounts will be sent to companies house before the end of the three months?

More likely some influential friends in the right places will assure that the situation is corrected.

Panarchy

The info in this thread has been super helpful, thanks to everyone, and special thanks to Anna2007.

Am about to defer, I'm self employed, and I've decided to fill in the form, with annotations and crossings-out, but am still undecided as to whether I should set up the direct debit mandate. My old mandate with the SLC, from waaaay back is probably either long-dormant, or with a bank I am no longer with. So in theory, I should give new instructions.

My earnings are way below the threshold, and and I am in receipt of NO benefits, so it should be a cut and dried case.

If it weren't for all the money taken 'in error' (!) by Erudio, I wouldn't think twice about giving them bank account details.

So I'm wondering if anyone else here has successfully deferred and NOT given a DD mandate? Apart from Anna2007?

Many thanks to everyone!

anna2007

AReeves wrote: »

In legal terms they do exist and could take legal action. As the company has "cash in the bank", it would probably not be possible to apply for a security of costs order. Where a company, with little or no assets takes legal action, you can get the court to order it to put up a security for costs before continuing with legal action.

@ Anthony Erudio's accounts have a corresponding liability for that cash in the bank, as they are holding it on trust for the "Beneficial Title Holders", and the cash has to be paid to them at a future date.

It also says at the end of the Statement of Cash Flows:
"All withdrawals from the Company's bank accounts are governed by the trust deeds and as such the cash and cash equivalents are not freely available to be used for other purposes".

The notes to the accounts also say:
"All withdrawals from the Company's bank accounts are governed by trust deeds and certain operating expenses of the Company are paid from the bank accounts before paying the remaining amounts monies to the Beneficial Title Holders".

Would this mean you could apply for the security of costs order, as the cash in bank is not available to Erudio? Also, if the borrower brings a successful court action, could Erudio refuse to pay up as they effectively have no assets, they're being held on trust?

Would "certain operating expenses" cover legal costs?

My concern with suing what seems to be no more than a piece of paper, is that Erudio could say they have no assets, so won't pay up if a court decision goes against them. Or would Arrow Global, etc be liable for the court costs?