ERUDIO student loans help

ericctheking

anna2007 wrote: »

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?

Capita and the BIS (for the rest of the money as they seem to have got the loans on the never never) better watch out too!
Capita might not get paid for the so called service they provided for Eruidio.
I bet that you won't be dealing with a company called Erudio in the future. They might even split your loans again to different shell companies to make deferral an even bigger pain in the backside!

Brooker_Dave

ericctheking wrote: »

I bet that you won't be dealing with a company called Erudio in the future. They might even split your loans again to different shell companies to make deferral an even bigger pain in the backside!

But if they fold up Erudio would they not need to get a new licence from the FSA and a spend a fortune on new paperwork?

Surely the GAZ1 thing is just something caused by slack accounting rather than part of a wider plan?

fermi

https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/555333098616131586

Brooker_Dave

fermi wrote: »

https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/555333098616131586

Given Erudio has no employees, where does Mr Lewis get these statements from, could you ask him?

anna2007

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?

There could be more to this than just Erudio failing to file the accounts? Section 1000 of the Companies Act gives Companies House the "power to strike off a company not carrying on business or in operation". It's clear from the accounts that Erudio don't actually do anything, employ anybody or own anything, they're a legal entity on paper only. That legal entity is supposed to be the legitimate buyer of student loans from the Government, turns out they're nothing more than a shell company. Seems a bit of an embarrassing situation for the Government, seeing as they're meant to be clamping down on these shell companies.

Companies House have given notice under section 1000(3), so this has been going on a while, and either Erudio have confirmed they're not carrying on business or in operation, or they've ignored CH's previous letters. It does look like the recently submitted accounts don't cut the mustard with CH, otherwise why go ahead with the GAZ1?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1000

Edit: Posted, then read Fermi's post!

erudioed

Nice one fermi. That answers that confusion then. That explains why we have the Erudio accounts for 2013 (although 3 months late) that Anna purchased and why Companies House is still going through its process like an automaton.

ericctheking

It's beyond a joke now.
Where was BIS's due diligence?

anna2007

Panarchy wrote: »

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!

Hi Panarchy. I'm pretty sure others have deferred without the DD. Erudio have happily told some to go ahead and cancel the DD, which clearly contradicts everything they say on the DAF, website, etc. Sometimes Erudio cancel the DD their end without any notice. It's a bit of a grey area still and possibly won't change with the revised DAF, as it was still on the draft version posted up by MSE for customer feedback.

I did complete the DD mandate when I applied for deferment, but scored out the statement at the top about it being a legal requirement, and stated under the declaration that I didn't agree to any new terms. I then made a formal complaint and Erudio backed down on the DD requirement in their final response, but nothing's changed officially and until it does, I just don't believe anything they say!

If you do set up the DD and they take a payment they're not entitled to, there's the DD guarantee to rely on. Better still, ask Erudio to sort it, and pay you an additional £100 for the inconvenience. If they won't, take it FOS, which costs Erudio another £550 on top... they'll probably leave your account alone after that!

Did you receive your deferment application pack recently, do you know if the DAF's different to last year's? I can post the old one on here, if you're not sure.

JeLaw

I haven't had a chance to check out this thread for a while and have only just skimmed through the last page or so. Hope to get a chance to read through properly later. In the meantime, I echo my thanks to everyone here for continuing the fight!

Panarchy, I deferred without completing a DD mandate. I never cancelled the original with SLC and still have the same bank account but I've checked with my bank and the DD no longer seems to exist.

I included a line in my cover letter saying something about noting there was no legal requirement (according to the original credit agreement) for me to have a DD set-up whilst in deferment.

They deferred me and the letter confirming deferment did not mention DD.

Panarchy wrote: »

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

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

AReeves wrote: »

If anybody receives the new styled DAF, then I would like to have a copy. The DD mandate, in my opinion, is not a legal requirement and it cannot be argued as being necessary in order to consider a deferment application.

Many thanks.

Anthony Reeves
Lawyer

BorderReiver14

Every email I have had from them thus far has always included a DAF and I have checked it each time and they appear to still be dishing out the old ones. I had an email from them this morning with the old DAF but will keep an eye out.