ERUDIO student loans help

Pluthero

eroneo wrote: »

Where did you consent to this? Were ALL your loans taken before 98? The credit agreements changed from 98 onwards. The old type had clause 16 "we may however, if we judge appropriate, disclose to any person..."

But the post 98 ones had clause 12. which limited CRA dislosure to only happen if you breach the agreement.

I'm interested in exactly what grounds the FOS said you gave consent? Neither 12 nor 16 give consent. The lender can supposedly do those things without your consent. 16 is too wide to be fair and is not specific enough to comply with the fair processing requirements of the Data Protection Act.

Neither 16 nor 12 authorise credit checks.

I have a complaint with the ICO over EXACTLY this point. Clause 16 in the PRE 98 loans is not specific enough to comply with the DPA. And Erudio trying to add it to their DAF IS a change in terms and conditions of the pre 98 loans; AND because they will not defer me without signing their DAF it is coercion which both: Goes against section 140a of the consumer credit act; AND also the DPA which states information must be collected FAIRLY.

I copied my ICO complaint into my FOS complaint and am still awaiting to hear how AWESOME and FAIR Erudio are treating me :mad:

eroneo

Pluthero wrote: »

I have a complaint with the ICO over EXACTLY this point. Clause 16 in the PRE 98 loans is not specific enough to comply with the DPA. And Erudio trying to add it to their DAF IS a change in terms and conditions of the pre 98 loans; AND because they will not defer me without signing their DAF it is coercion which both: Goes against section 140a of the consumer credit act; AND also the DPA which states information must be collected FAIRLY.

I copied my ICO complaint into my FOS complaint and am still awaiting to hear how AWESOME and FAIR Erudio are treating me :mad:

If you haven't already, read Schedule I and II of the Data Protection Act:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/1

For the processing to be 'Fair', the SLC should have given you a fair processing notice from the outset in the '90's that complied with Sch II paragraph 3.

In particular, on the point of 16 not being specific:
"
(c)the purpose or purposes for which the data are intended to be processed, and(d)any further information which is necessary, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the data are or are to be processed, to enable processing in respect of the data subject to be fair.
"
If the above has not been complied with, schedule 2 does not even apply.

With respect to what Martin Lewis said that the original terms allowed the data sharing but the SLC chose not to do it - I disagree.

rizla_king

And if you lose your case that could not be good for all of us.

Erudio will have the backing of Arrow on this and will probably throw some very expensive barristers at it. No offence but are you good enough to combat them? What evidence do we really have that you are impartial on this? A legal challenge where the students lose would be GOLD for Erudio.

erudioed

I think anyone can launch a legal case, and one of us has clearly decided its the right thing to do. I for one am curious what happens, and if it doesnt work out, we are in no worse a position as we are now. In fact, we will know the landscape better. Any challenge to their dominance is welcome in my opinion.

anna2007

I agree with erudioed, there are no guarantees with this, but I'd much rather it was tested in court than not at all.

As these are claims via the Small Claims track, most of us will be representing ourselves... I for one would rather have Anthony making my case for me, than doing it myself.

With the help Anthony's given on the forum and outside of it, I'm happy to vouch for his impartiality and have found his advice invaluable. The subject of the books he's written give a little clue too!

As for Arrow Global sending up the expensive Barristers to the wee sheriff court in Scotland where my own case would be heard... wouldn't they look a little bit silly? And a little bit desperate too.

dizzybuff

All I want is for them to be able to do maths.

fermi

dizzybuff wrote: »

All I want is for them to be able to do maths.

Sadly that seems to be beyond some FOS adjudicators.

JeLaw

erudioed wrote: »

....I for one am curious what happens, and if it doesnt work out, we are in no worse a position as we are now. In fact, we will know the landscape better. Any challenge to their dominance is welcome in my opinion.

I'm very grateful to those here (and anywhere else) continuing the fight - especially those taking it to court. I've got too much else going on including health issues to fully focus on this although I'm trying to keep up with this thread.

I hope it does go our way (I have a pre-97 loan) but if it doesn't I feel that makes a mis-selling case even stronger. I know some people will say we should have read all the tiny small print - but in that case why are so many people able to make mis-selling claims for PPI for example? One of the reasons someone can claim mis-selling for PPI is that pertinent information was not made clear to them when they signed up (despite the information being there - but buried in the small print).

Additionally even if a court case does rule against us, should Erudio be able to record these loans as a "payment holiday"? That isn't really an accurate description. A deferred student loan is, in my opinion, completely different from a payment holiday.

Forever

Thanks to everyone's comments from my previous posting regarding the FOS not upholding my complaints regarding reporting to CRAs.

Unfortunately, I took my loan out in 1996.

I did mention to the FOS that there are later data protection acts to offset the original contract that briefly mentions that they may contact other CRAs. I couldn't go into more detail as I didn't have a copy of my original loan contract at the time, so I didn't know exactly what my original contract said. Neither am I a legal person, so I don't know how the later data protection acts affect the original contract.

The FOS adjudicator said:

"I have reviewed **my name** loan agreement, which was taken out in 1996, I understand from Erudio's letter dated 17 June 2014 that the terms and conditions of this loan, specifically section 16, permit Erudio to report information to credit reference agencies, unlike loans taken out in 1998, where information can only be reported if the agreement has been broken. In this instance, I do not believe an error has been made by Erudio."

Any legal advice would, of course, be welcome

dizzybuff

I actually thinkbshebhas just asked them if they have calculated it correctly. They have said yes so that's the answer she's given me. I'm filling out a daf again tonight.my pay has gone down 2k but I can guarantee you they won't defer me.I'm very closest giving up. I have more other important things to fight.