ERUDIO student loans help

Pluthero

Namechanger wrote: »

Is this 100% correct then, I have done exactly the above even though it says on the form you will be in breach if you don`t fill in the DD.

Just want to double check before I send it off.

Yes it does say that on the Erudio DAF and even on their NEW DAF apparently. But as I said they have told Anna a DD is not required as indeed it is not IF you are under the repayment threshold. However due to Erudio being UNTRUSTWORTHY in certain matters and if you want total assurance fill in the DD by all means. If they do STEAL any money from your account just use the DD guarantee and claim it back VIA your bank. AND report them to the FCA if this happens.

HTH

Pluthero

once_bitten_twice_shy wrote: »

Moved from my own post....
Hi everyone, just wanted to share my experiences of my upheld Erudio complaint.

I applied to defer as normal last year and sent my payslips and form back as required. I received a letter stating I would begin repaying and the terms and amounts. I contacted them and they claimed not to have received my info so I sent it again via email. I then received another email saying they couldn't read the dates on one of my payslips so I again, sent this as an electronic copy.

I then received another email asking for my security details but I didn't reply as I assumed after all the correspondence they would know who I was.

Fast forward to October and I get a letter stating my deferment has been approved but I am 3 months in arrears! I call the number and the service agent tried to get me to pay the whole amount. I try to speak to a supervisor and got nowhere then he says my deferment might not be safe if I don't pay something, I was worried as I just can't afford to pay my loan back yet so stupidly I paid a months arrears with my debit card and agreed 2 more payments.

After coming on here and reading through the forums I was so angry, I complained to Erudio and to the Financial Ombudsman. I recieved to letters from Erudio stating the arrears again and asking me to pay what I had agreed.

Erudio aknowledged my complaint before christmas and I have also had a further 2 letters to say they are still investigating but I will have a decision before the 8 weeks expires for the Financial Ombudsman.

Today I recieved a letter and they have uphold my complaint - all arrears, even the ones I didn't know about that have since been discovered (another 3 months worth) have been scrapped and I am getting my debit card payment refunded.

Just wanted to share this as I know how many peolpe are in dispute! I 've never had any issues with the SLC, dreading next April already incase I have to go through all the hassle again!

Good luck to everyone.

x

Good news indeed! Me thinks someone in authority has given Erudio a talking too about all their DCA tactics being employed upon Honest deferers!
:beer:

gardenia101

AReeves wrote: »

gardenia101,

That is good news.

I would like to know on what basis they say they can only wipe a certain amount of arrears. If you were entitled to a deferment then there should never have been arrears. Perhaps you can ask them to state the authority for saying only a certain amount of arrears can be wiped.

Anthony Reeves

Have emailed you some further info. Thanks again.

fermi wrote: »

They are trying to falsely rely on the 3 month rule in the agreement terms in part 6 here

http://www.slc.co.uk/media/758487/post_98_ms_credit_agreement.pdf



Obviously if your deferment has taken longer than that due to Erudio's fault, then then they cannot rely on that clause.

Yep, that's going to be my argument in yet another letter to them that they'll ignore....

once_bitten_twice_shy wrote: »

Moved from my own post....
Hi everyone, just wanted to share my experiences of my upheld Erudio complaint.

I applied to defer as normal last year and sent my payslips and form back as required. I received a letter stating I would begin repaying and the terms and amounts. I contacted them and they claimed not to have received my info so I sent it again via email. I then received another email saying they couldn't read the dates on one of my payslips so I again, sent this as an electronic copy.

I then received another email asking for my security details but I didn't reply as I assumed after all the correspondence they would know who I was.

Fast forward to October and I get a letter stating my deferment has been approved but I am 3 months in arrears! I call the number and the service agent tried to get me to pay the whole amount. I try to speak to a supervisor and got nowhere then he says my deferment might not be safe if I don't pay something, I was worried as I just can't afford to pay my loan back yet so stupidly I paid a months arrears with my debit card and agreed 2 more payments.

After coming on here and reading through the forums I was so angry, I complained to Erudio and to the Financial Ombudsman. I recieved to letters from Erudio stating the arrears again and asking me to pay what I had agreed.

Erudio aknowledged my complaint before christmas and I have also had a further 2 letters to say they are still investigating but I will have a decision before the 8 weeks expires for the Financial Ombudsman.

Today I recieved a letter and they have uphold my complaint - all arrears, even the ones I didn't know about that have since been discovered (another 3 months worth) have been scrapped and I am getting my debit card payment refunded.

Just wanted to share this as I know how many peolpe are in dispute! I 've never had any issues with the SLC, dreading next April already incase I have to go through all the hassle again!

Good luck to everyone.

x

That is good news. Is that Erudio who have upheld your complaint, even before FOS did their investigation? Or FOS that have upheld it? I'm reading your post as Erudio, but just wanted to clarify.

Maybe Erudio are getting a little fed up with having to pay for all these FOS investigations so are settling before FOS get too involved.

erudioed

A quick heads up on a FOI request answer that is very illuminating and i think highlights the key problem we are having. Its about the way SLC processes DAFs and time schedule etc:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/minimum_service_standards#incoming-605043

Here is a choice chunk:
Response - Borrowers were not to be adversely affected by the sale of
accounts to the new purchaser, and the standards for the processing of DAFs
are the same for whichever party is processing the DAFs (this would depend
on the owner of the debt). Borrowers would still be entitled to the same
terms and conditions under the new owners, i.e. deferment would be
available, same deferment threshold, interest rates would be the same.
However, although deferment is still offered and the threshold is the same,
for the most recent debt sale, the new owner, Erudio, has a new DAF
designed for their processing requirements, and SLC has no control over the
design or content of this document.

teffers

Ok, thanks for all the input into this thread, it's a brilliant resource.

Here's my situation (and my sincere apologies if it's information in reply to a question that's already been provided):

I have a 1998 loan that was deferred up until the early 2000s (2003/4 I think). No contact or payment (or acknowledgement) was made since. No CCJ was issued and nothing currently appears on my CRF.

I contacted the SLC a couple of years ago and they have confirmed in writing that the loan is now Statute Barred.

A few months ago I start getting pages and pages of information through the post from Erudio. I reply with the standard, this loan is Statute Barred, letter.

I've had no reply or acknowledgement of that letter, however I did get another couple of tree's worth of papers listing years of data from Erudio.

My only concern is can Erudio now list this Statute barred student loan on my Credit File ?

Pluthero

teffers wrote: »

Ok, thanks for all the input into this thread, it's a brilliant resource.

Here's my situation (and my sincere apologies if it's information that's already been provided):

I have a 1998 loan that was deferred up until the early 2000s (2003/4 I think). No contact or payment (or acknowledgement) was made since. No CCJ was issued and nothing currently appears on my CRF.

I contacted the SLC a couple of years ago and they have confirmed in writing that the loan is now Statute Barred.

A few months ago I start getting pages and pages of information through the post from Erudio. I reply with the standard, this loan is Statute Barred, letter.

I've had no reply or acknowledgement of that letter, however I did get another couple of tree's worth of papers listing years of data from Erudio.

My only concern is can Erudio now list this Statute barred student loan on my Credit File ?

I believe they are trying it on with you! Standard DCA tactics to instill fear and confusion! Head over to CAG (consumer action group) and ask them for a definitive opinion: Some very knowledgeable people that deal with these sharks daily.

HTH

fermi

teffers wrote: »

My only concern is can Erudio now list this Statute barred student loan on my Credit File ?

No they shouldn't.

If anything was to be recorded on your credit files then it would have to be a default that would be dated about 10 years ago, which would not actually show on your credit file as it's too old.

Sounds like the statements you got were just the 2 lots that had to be sent as SLC messed up theirs a few years ago. They had to send those whether it's statute barred or not.

teffers

Thanks Pluthero and fermi

Great advice as always. I shall keep an eye on the CRFs for now just to be sure.

dizzybuff

And here's the adjudicators view on why erudio are not a
Debt collection agency hmmm


Erudio is a company that are the legal owners of the accounts that were owned by SLC. It now is the administrator of these accounts. Erudio isn’t engaging in the activity of ‘debt collecting’ as it is pursuing the consumer for money that is owed to it. Erudio hasn’t been appointed as a debt collector by another business.

erudioed

That was rather amusing. No matter how you try and dress a turd...

I wonder how they would respond to the question "How can Erudio can be that when they dont have any staff."
However, i believe Arrow Global are a debt collector, and they have 'hired'/created Erudio to collect loan repayments. Well, Erudio actually seem to have appointed Capita to collect the payments. Surely someone there is a debt collector. But maybe that is one of the purposes of a shell company, no one can pin the blame for anything on anyone, and no one can accurately work out who they are actually dealing with.