ERUDIO student loans help

dizzybuff

@ erudioed I've emailed the adudicator I'm in an argumentative mood today so bring it on.

erudioed

ha, thats the spirit dizzybuff!

BorderReiver14

anna2007 wrote: »

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.

Sneaky indeed and agree wholeheartedly but if they can put in writing as they have essentially done for MSE that none of this amounts to changes in original T&Cs then that is all we need. Equally they must accept that there is no legislation to say that we have to use their badly designed/misleading/phishing forms...
...and the fact that anyone who has to deal with them must surely have a complete lack of faith in them to handle our accounts.!

BorderReiver14

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?

It was the last part of that link that interested me too but could not copy and paste it so thank you. Hit the nail on the head. If they were prepared to make that statement to MSE who would report it to the public why will they not put it in writing to us?

it only carries out credit checks at credit reference and fraud prevention agencies in line with the original loan ts&cs

As far as we can tell (and Anthony has kindly since commented) there is no right to do this and so if they do anything on our credit files we could take them to court. Has anybody even had a footprint left yet? It could all be gas and air in order to get as much info as possible out of people and get us to just fall in to line.

anna2007

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Sneaky indeed and agree wholeheartedly but if they can put in writing as they have essentially done for MSE that none of this amounts to changes in original T&Cs then that is all we need. Equally they must accept that there is no legislation to say that we have to use their badly designed/misleading/phishing forms...
...and the fact that anyone who has to deal with them must surely have a complete lack of faith in them to handle our accounts.!

Erudio have said the same on their website, the second and third 'recently asked questions', although each answer contradicts the other somewhat:

http://www.erudiostudentloans.co.uk/faqs/default.htm

Although according to the Privacy Policy on their website, the very act of visiting Erudio's website means we are consenting to them disclosing our data to anyone and everyone they want to, so they don't need our informed consent via the FPN anyway:

"By visiting https://www.erudiostudentloans.co.uk you are accepting and consenting to the practices described in this policy" and then:

"Disclosing your information

Where applicable, we may disclose your personal information to any member of our group. This includes, where applicable, our subsidiaries, our holding company and its other subsidiaries (as such terms are defined in section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006) (if any).

We may share your information with selected third parties including:

business partners, suppliers and sub-contractors for the performance of any contract we enter into with them or you.
analytics and search engine providers that assist us in the improvement and optimisation of our site.

We may also disclose your personal information to selected third parties if:

we sell any or all of our business and/or our assets to a third party;we are legally required to disclose your information or in order to enforce or apply our terms of use;
to protect the rights, property, or safety of Erudio Student Loans Limited, our customers, or others; and/orto assist fraud protection and minimise credit risk".

http://www.erudiostudentloans.co.uk/tools/privacy-policy.htm

Not quite sure how the dodgy chancers will make that one stick

gardenia101

anna2007 wrote: »

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...".

Erudio have ignored my questions about the legality of having a d/d in place during deferment - asked in 3 different letters but they never answer. Even though I'm now deferred (apparently) they have set up a d/d which I'm watching like a hawk :rotfl: I'd feel happier not having it active, but until l have a definite reply I'm going to leave it running. They have told me to ignore the d/d schedule letter.

I have asked my FOS adjudicator to clarify this, but I've not had a reply yet & not expecting one for a while as its only been around a week since my latest letter to her.

I had another letter from them yesterday (& in large print :T). Saying they'd wiped my arrears as a "gesture of goodwill" & backdated my deferment. Not a mention about my payment being refunded to my c/c so I rang them & asked for it & they've said they'd start processing it shortly as they agreed I was entitled to that refund & they were "sorry they'd missed that off".

I don't think they're that sorry or they accidentally missed it at all

I wasn't amazingly happy about having to give them all my card details again, but they can't process the refund unless I do. I'm getting a new card, so they can't try & take anything, & if they don't process the refund in 14 days then my c/c company will take over the case & get it back from them. I don't think twice about the vast majority of businesses holding my c/c details, but this whole Erudio nightmare has made me far more cynical.

They're still considering me for the 3 year medical deferment - I didn't realise it would take that much longer to read the extra letter from the hospital, but maybe there's more to it that that. I don't know if anyone else was applying for the 3 year deferment, but it may be that you get deferred for 12 months first. I didn't apply for it under the SLC as I didn't know about it then, so don't know what their process for medical deferment was.

Anna - thanks for the BIS letter. Good to see something in writing.

Forever

I'm afraid I have some bad news regarding the FOS and giving our information to CRAs for those of us with pre-1998 contracts.

I sent the FOS Anthony's (thank you so much!) legal arguments against this process. However, the FOS adjudicator said:

"First, I would like to explain that although we have regard for relevant law, we were set up by Parliament as a free informal dispute resolution service and as an alternative to a civil court. However, unlike a court, we decide cases by reference to what is fair and reasonable.

Having reviewed the terms and conditions of your agreement, I was satisfied that Clause 16 broadly permitted the Student Loans Company, and now Erudio to disclose information about this agreement.

You are free to pursue the matter by other alternative means and I can see you have already obtained independent legal advice on this matter."

JeLaw

anna2007 wrote: »

Hi eroneo, I made a lengthy complaint to ICO a while back, but I gave up, as their view is that signing the loan agreement gives the required consent. I'd been warned that would be ICO's position before I made the complaint, so it does feel like :wall:

It's frustrating that I don't have more time to devote to this fight (health issues taking up too much time) but I have to say again how grateful I am to Anthony - and everyone else on here.

Regarding the credit reporting. If ICO are taking the above position, that surely makes this a mis-selling case? I, and I think many others here, were told at the time we took out the loans that these loans would not have any impact on our credit record/files.

I also refuse to accept their view. I included with my DAF (which had the FPN removed as I photocopied that page and then used scissors to cut out the FPN part) a covering letter stating that I did not consent to any changes to the original terms and conditions - and that I did not consent to the reporting of my credit information.

Additionally, "payment holiday" is not correct in our case. A deferred student loan is completely different from a payment holiday.

rizla_king

So breaking the law is fair and reasonable.

Bullsheet!

Forever

AReeves wrote: »

Not unexpected. However, as I have said in previous posts they decide matters by what they regard as "fair and reasonable" and (as they acknowledge) not always strictly on what is the law.
That is why, in my view, a court decision on all the issues is important.
So the bottom line is that a decision of the FOS does not necessarily reflect what the law is.

Anthony Reeves

I have now asked the FOS what I should do if I disagree with their decision. I hope I can pursue this with them.

Mainly though, I really hope we win in court!

If I have time, I might pass your legal arguments on to the FCA and the BIS to try and help fight our cause too.