ERUDIO student loans help

cmw1212

Does anyone know if printouts of online payslips are accepted or whether I need to try and get originals?

erudioed

concerning bank details, i was told copies are fine, even those with certain details blanked out. I assume it would be the same for payslips but who knows what is right for sure.

babyboos

I have two loans one with honours from 1999 and the other 1998 was with slc up until last month but both are deferred until December although it appears this was backdated three months and is actually showing a October renewal date on hlc one they always take ages to catch up with slc I do all my correspondence with slc
anyhow
I got a letter telling me the new guys are taking over my slc loan and where do I stand it is so so confusing as this is a 1998 loan is it not going on my credit file or not and are hlc going to put deferred loans on my credit file now as well?

BaffledByErudio

@cmw1212 Erudio's deferment pack asks for copies of relevant documentation to prove income, as it 'Can't return originals', so I'd imagine you'd be fine.
This isn't a new tactic. SLC were beginning to ask the same over the last couple of deferment year periods. Although, saying that, last year I couldn't access a photocopier and sent my originals, which SLC still sent back, even though I specified I wasn't bothered if they didn't!
I imagine thousands did the same. That's the type of thing I'd have been taking issue with as a lender (HM Government). Imagine the financial wastage, sending deferrers TWO correspondences. One to confirm deferment, and then weeks later, you'd get your payslips back!
Despite all the grievances we all have with Erudio, I can totally see why that's a silly waste of money and I'd be onto that kind of wastage straight away. Pity our beloved politicians weren't and saw a quicker buck in a sell-off!
It just remains to be seen if Erudio actually defers any of us (entitled to) after sending all required proof of earnings.
Having sent off the form, with proof I'm well under the £2,338 PCM threshold, I'm almost calm now. But I have a very, very vivid and alternate perception change on my student loans now. Providing I'm deferred, I'll spend the next year trying my hardest to generate the few thousand quid I owe Erudio, and, come next spring, I'll stuff the whole lot through their blood-soaked teeth in one pence coins!
And the travesty of all this (now we're pretty much sure nobody is breaking a law?) It's not Erudio's fault! They're just blood-thirsty debt collectors out for what they can get. I don't blame them. Who's going to buy a fiver 'worth no more than a pound' without the legal scope to make it pay?
You need slimeballs to grease their way, checking out the smallprint, guaranteeing it's a nice little earner and giving carte blanche to put a 9 volt battery on every thumbscrew, turned up to MAX!
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you.... The Liberal Democrats.
What goes around comes around. Those amongst us who thought it bright to punish Labour, ticked the Lib Dem Box, which let the Tories in and, boot-up-bum, with their trembling hand, Lib Dems signed this putrid deal with Erudio.
I think we need to view these last few weeks as a shot across the boughs, because I, for one, feel like a stray fox with tail suddenly ripped off. Minding my own business, playing by the rules and.....suddenly....shafted!

littlefox68

I have 4 loans, all pre-1998. So, am I totally screwed?

Unless I missed some comments, most of the ones so far seem only to relate to post-98 loans and how to deal with the reporting of deferrals to CRAs as this goes against the t&c's for those loans.

Now, I've just discovered that the original t & c's of the SLC stated that they could report my past deferments to CRAs, just that they chose not to. Therefore, is it still worth stating to Erudio that I don't agree with the reporting of my deferment even though I signed the original SLC form that states that they could? Before I found out about the t & c's for pre-1998 loans, I photocopied the last page of the new form and completly blanked out the warning box at the bottom and the whole of the back page in order to write a statement about not agreeing with the new rule. Now I'm beginning to wonder if there is any point in doing this as it seems like Erudio have me over a barrel.

In relation to the deadline for returning forms, my deferment end date is 14 May - what do you reckon is the latest date that I could send them off? And, if they do report the deferment to the CRAs, how long do you reckon it will take to appear on file. I've just been approved for a mortgage and almost having a break-down thinking that the mortgage lender might do some final checks and discover these deferred loans.

cmw1212

The people who have sent their stuff back for deferment, have you filled in the direct debit thing I am very apprehensive about doing that I definitely do not earn enough and do not want Erudio having my bank details. Sorry if this has already been asked thread is pretty long and although I have looked through may have missed relevant advice.

rizla_king

Agreements said you have to keep a direct debit mandate in place if it's requested. Student loan company may have been lay about insisting on that but I think Erudio are entitled to insist on it if you have a bank account. No point breaking you loan agreement on a small that? If they take payments they should no then you get them refunded under the DD guarentee.

jamminjamaica

cmw1212 wrote: »

The people who have sent their stuff back for deferment, have you filled in the direct debit thing I am very apprehensive about doing that I definitely do not earn enough and do not want Erudio having my bank details. Sorry if this has already been asked thread is pretty long and although I have looked through may have missed relevant advice.

Erudio confirmed to me yesterday that i do not have to fill in the bank detail section but the form has to be signed. I also asked about blanking out section in my bank statement. they said that i could do it.

erudioed

i have been quietly contemplating today why The Dept of BIS didnt ask the student loans company to ask us deferers whether we wanted to settle our accounts short.
In my imaginary world, a potential scenario for the negotiators would have gone like this:
BIS asks the SLC to mail all if us deferers that the government has decided to sell our loans onto to debt collectors, asking whether we would like to settle accounts for the fee of 25% of the total owed. BIS already know that the figure the bidding process has produced thus far is 17% for current payers, defaulters and the deferers in this loan portfolio. However, BIS, as i was told by them, considered most of deferers as redundant and that the company winning the process would collect very little from them because most were due to be wiped within 9 or less years.

So SLC send this letter out, stating clearly that this debt collector will be controlling the deferral process for the first time. SLC ask for a response on the enclosed form: settle or have the loan passed over to the private sector. I am assuming that most student loan borrowers in deferral would very strongly consider that a good proposal and seek settlement terms before the loan was due to expire.

So figures...and remember, BIS assumed the deferral loan book was pretty worthless:
46% (deferers in the loan portfolio) of 890 million is about 410 million

25% of 410 million is about 102 million.

ACTUAL LOAN PORTFOLIO SOLD TO ERUDIO (that i assume means Arrow Global, CarVal, The Wilmington Trust and other private investors) FOR 160 MILLION


Even if some chose to continuing to defer, SLC could have generated a vast sum of money and still left 480 million worth of debt for sale. Considering most of the defaulters will be tracked down at some point, BIS could surely have still got a rather good price for that 480 million.



I know there are many loopholes in the above, such as deferers becoming liable to pay for odd years and some defaulters maybe evading capture abroad or dying to name just two, but the question remains why were we not offered the option to pay our loans off at a reduced price? As BIS could, we have unfortunately found out all too vividly, sell our loans, i am sure the text of our T&Cs would allow for them to lower our settlement fees, or just add another amendment allowing them to do so.

And this isnt forgetting that BIS employers, and i assume the very desks and coffee they drink during such negotiations, are actually paid for by the tax payer, so they should surely be seeking to settle with borrowers before they let the private sector and all their ammo come in and disrupt our lives. I dont think anyone on the planet is disillusional about what a big global debt collector actually is. This is not credit card debt for holidays and tvs were talking about, but our education, which is fundamentally and philosophically different.

BIS conducted the due diligence test, and now they need to answer some fundamental questions about it...why didnt they ask us of we would settle short during the sales process? How did they decide this labyrinthine collection of global businesses was right to sell to, some already big players in the US and in court as i type this for using heavy handed tactics against ex-students (if you search online you may be very shocked at the state of this issue in the US). Did they know Erudio is basically Honours Student Loans by another name. I know others have more pertinent questions than my small mind can grasp but these are all issues that need looking into and answering for.
All they had to do was mail us and ask if we would settle, but instead, they sold us down the river to the highest bidder. It seems to me that BIS have gotten their priorities the wrong way round. Citizens first, or business first. We have a clear answer on this occasion, and it is a plan they intend to roll out for all future students. We have all unwittingly and unfortunately found ourselves at the start of something that we all need to do our best to stop and highlight before it actually does become policy. If we dont speak out, and we are doing great thus far i think, then no one else will until it is too late.

fermi

Independent - Erudio Student Loans: Readers has cash wrongly taken from account by debt collector

The row about deferred student loans grows as it emerges that 45,000 former students from the 1990s have been contacted by Erudio Student Loans, the debt collector that bought the loans from the government last autumn.

Former students fear the company will pass on details of deferred loans to credit reference agencies, leaving a black mark, although Experian suggests the move could improve people’s ratings as it shows a long-term loan experience.

There have also been accusations that the company has changed the terms and conditions of the loans, although it denies that.

For one i reader, the experience with Erudio has proved to be a nightmare. To her surprise she had money taken from her account last week even though her loan is deferred. When contacted by i, the company admitted its mistake and agreed to refund the cash.

Yesterday, while she was still waiting for her refund, another direct debit was taken out of her account. “If it has happened to me, I’m sure there will be lots of other payments they will have taken from other people, who may not have noticed,” she pointed out.

The company has again promised to sort this out but the question remains: how many other former students have been unfairly hit by this company taking cash that it shouldn’t?