ERUDIO student loans help

BorderReiver14

AReeves wrote: »

It is just a pure revenue raiser. The standards of service from the county courts, in my experience, has not improved and the fees in this country are 25 to 100 higher than in New York !

In my opinion, it will lead to more harassment and threatening tactics (by some debt collectors) because access to the courts will become less viable and so people won't use them.

Anthony Reeves
Lawyer "

A scandal indeed and no doubt it will lead to people not wanting to use the courts, especially as they will be seriously out of pocket with no hope of recovering the costs even with a good outcome. You have to wonder what the government is thinking!

BorderReiver14

http://http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2014/12/erudios-arrears-mail-out-leaves-graduates-confused?_ga=1.14623794.464839178.1421769837

I may have missed others chatting about this? Is Erudio confirming that submitting a form will not alter T&Cs? Is it just that we need to clarify that they have no right to refuse deferment because some decide not to use the DAF?

eroneo

"
It has, however, confirmed that the following sentence will not be included in the new form: "Accordingly therefore by submitting this application you confirm that you consent for Erudio to perform relevant checks at credit reference and fraud prevention agencies."
Erudio says that while the new form is still in development it will accept signed copies of the current form with this wording crossed out.
It adds that the signature on the current form was "only ever intended for verification purposes and not to provide additional consent" and that it only carries out credit checks at credit reference and fraud prevention agencies in line with the original loan ts&cs."


In what way do the original ts&cs authorise Erudio to carry out credit checks?


1. The original agreements made no mention of credit checks.
2. Erudio now say that signing the FPN on the DAF does not provide additional consent.


Therefore, Erudio must be relying on some existing law that they think means they can carry out credit checks without our consent.


The Data Protection Act 1998 says that under the First Principle, processing will not be 'fair' unless a an FPN is issued at the earliest opportunity when data has been obtained. Erudio issued the first FPN with the Notice of Assignment notifying us that they would do credit checks - so the conditions for processing in schedule 2 might apply. However, sending an FPN and meeting the conditions for processing does not guarantee that processing is 'fair and lawful'.


An FPN issued years after the loan was agreed, does not give Erudio a right to do something that was not permitted in the original ts&cs. If credit checks were not permitted by the original agreement, they cannot be permitted now no matter what FPN is issued.


Any comments? Is there any loop-hole or other reason why Erudio have a right to do credit checks?

Sarebear78

anna2007 wrote: »

For anyone who qualifies for their loans to be written off under the 25 year rule, rather than age, I've received clarification from BIS today on when the loans became outstanding - I think some had been told it was from when the last loan became due to be repaid in the April after graduation, which isn't the case:

"Schedule 2, part 1, paragraph 2 of the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998 states that “Interest will be calculated daily on the amount of the loan outstanding.” As mortgage style loans began to accrue interest from the day the first instalment was paid out to the borrower, the loan agreement became outstanding from this date (i.e. once there was a balance to be repaid and interest had begun to be charged). Consequently, our understanding is that the 25 year period began when the first instalment of a borrower’s last mortgage style student loan was paid out".

If anyone needs a copy of BIS's letter, let me know and I'll post a copy here. Although it's worth asking Erudio to confirm the exact date for cancellation in writing, they did this for me and even got the date right, but did mention (twice) that the loans only qualify if there are no arrears on the account... I wonder why they laboured that point!

Thanks Anna - that is very useful. I'd be interested in having a copy of the letter please

Pluthero

eroneo wrote: »

"
It has, however, confirmed that the following sentence will not be included in the new form: "Accordingly therefore by submitting this application you confirm that you consent for Erudio to perform relevant checks at credit reference and fraud prevention agencies."
Erudio says that while the new form is still in development it will accept signed copies of the current form with this wording crossed out.
It adds that the signature on the current form was "only ever intended for verification purposes and not to provide additional consent" and that it only carries out credit checks at credit reference and fraud prevention agencies in line with the original loan ts&cs."


In what way do the original ts&cs authorise Erudio to carry out credit checks?


1. The original agreements made no mention of credit checks.
2. Erudio now say that signing the FPN on the DAF does not provide additional consent.


Therefore, Erudio must be relying on some existing law that they think means they can carry out credit checks without our consent.


The Data Protection Act 1998 says that under the First Principle, processing will not be 'fair' unless a an FPN is issued at the earliest opportunity when data has been obtained. Erudio issued the first FPN with the Notice of Assignment notifying us that they would do credit checks - so the conditions for processing in schedule 2 might apply. However, sending an FPN and meeting the conditions for processing does not guarantee that processing is 'fair and lawful'.


An FPN issued years after the loan was agreed, does not give Erudio a right to do something that was not permitted in the original ts&cs. If credit checks were not permitted by the original agreement, they cannot be permitted now no matter what FPN is issued.


Any comments? Is there any loop-hole or other reason why Erudio have a right to do credit checks?

I would like some clarification on this, anyone know if the original T's and C's of the original loan conditions allowed a credit check to be carried out. I have been told that you have to CONSENT to have a credit check carried out?

How far back can you get a search on your credit file? Did the SLC ever conduct one on anyone's file?

anna2007

Sarebear78 wrote: »

Thanks Anna - that is very useful. I'd be interested in having a copy of the letter please

No problem, copy here -

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4hy0besp1jh12o/BIS%20Response%20Loan%20Cancellation%20200115.rtf?dl=0

anna2007

Pluthero wrote: »

I would like some clarification on this, anyone know if the original T's and C's of the original loan conditions allowed a credit check to be carried out. I have been told that you have to CONSENT to have a credit check carried out?

There's nothing about credit checks in the regulations or t&c's, and Mr McGuffin highlighted a while back that they don't even have any legal right to verify income with your employer or anyone else, as they claim to have in the warranty and declaration on the DAF. It's all based on self-certification by the borrower.

Erudio are being sneaky when they tell MSE that the signature on the DAF was never meant to gain consent - we all know the DAF states that submitting the DAF is their idea of our consent to search our credit files, and their approval of the deferment is consent to report our deferred loans. The borrower's signature has to be important if Erudio want to try and make that stick.

SLC never obtained consent to search our credit files, which I suppose is why Erudio were so keen to coerce us into agreement by making deferment conditional on that consent.

Pluthero wrote: »

How far back can you get a search on your credit file? Did the SLC ever conduct one on anyone's file?

I think your credit file only covers the last 6 years? I regularly check mine and never saw a search by SLC.

anna2007

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

I'm sure Anna will confirm this for you but legally there is no obligation for you to have a DD set up while you are in deferment. Erudio gave Anna written confirmation of this I believe.

There's no legal requirement to have the DD set up, and Erudio have confirmed that in their response to my complaint, but nothing's changed officially and until it does, it might be better to get Erudio to confirm to you individually that the DD's not a requirement - please feel free to use my letter to force a confession out of them!

Erudio didn't explain in their response why they were so insistent that the DD was a requirement, so I've asked for the following as part of my FOS complaint (still patiently waiting on a decision):

"In relation to the Direct Debit issue, I request that Erudio provides a full explanation of the reasons why it considered the DD to be a legal requirement during periods of deferment, when there is no reference to this in the loan agreement and legislation.

As Erudio has confirmed in its final response that the DD is not a requirement during deferment, its deferment application form, guidance and website information should be amended to reflect this... I appreciate that the FOS may not have the authority to instruct Erudio regarding any procedural changes, but I would hope that the FOS could notify the FCA...".

Pluthero

Thanks Everyone. More complaints on the way to FCA and ICO tomorrow

anna2007

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

A scandal indeed and no doubt it will lead to people not wanting to use the courts, especially as they will be seriously out of pocket with no hope of recovering the costs even with a good outcome. You have to wonder what the government is thinking!

Our Government is probably thinking of that top 1% that own 50% of global wealth! They're certainly not thinking about the average consumer.

Maybe they're thinking of their DCA buddies who are in the business of buying future portfolios of student loans... with average student debt now above £40k, would these proposed increases to court fees not be a big deterrent to graduates wanting to use the courts against the likes of Erudio?