ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

rizla_king wrote: »

You are. The data they collect is anything search the site for using the search box on it, the details of the pages on the site you viewed, the IP address you visited with, your browser, any information gained from site tracking technology or cookies etc. Under the law all that counts as personal data.

I know I am. How can they link that type of data to a data subject's personal data, if you haven't given any personal details when visiting the site?

anna2007

Forever wrote: »

Edit: I see Rizla King beat me with a response

And you beat me to it with my question to Rizla King

Thanks for the info, that makes sense... I'll stop it with the paranoia now

Forever

anna2007 wrote: »

And you beat me to it with my question to Rizla King

Thanks for the info, that makes sense... I'll stop it with the paranoia now

You are welcome.

Dan4747

Hi,

I've just received my deferment package from Erudio am going to take issue with them on their 'requirement' for my direct debit details. I've read Anna2007's letters and would be grateful if you (Anna2007) are OK with me using their reply in my correspondence with them - so as to remind them of their stance. Also, I'm unsure with regards the following: In your opinion, is it the case that as I'm already deferred and am therefore seeking to extend that deferment, that I can refuse to complete the D/D section on the form, or, to be on the safe side, is it maybe best to complete the details seeing as they haven't officially announced the D/D isn't required while deferred. I'd rather not give the details over at all, but then if not doing so leads to refusal of deferment and subsequent 'arrears' on my account - and then a merry-go-round of getting it overturned - it may be best take the former route. At least by stating my objections in writing and using the reply they sent to you as evidence, they may agree in writing that no D/D is required and then it shouldn't be an issue. It just irks me to think of them even having my D/D in the first place.

JeLaw

Anna2007, thank you for making that FOI request about the percentage of statue barred loans included in the sale to Erudio. I'd been thinking about making a FOI request on this - but I think you've worded it a lot better than I would have!

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

I am sorry if someone has already posted the following link but judging by this FOI it seems BIS may have (although doubtful as they are no archive for times gone by) literature dating to student loans in the 90s.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/icr_student_loan_literature_2?unfold=1

If we are to follow a mis-selling line I am guessing Anthony and a court would want literature rather than our word we were told 'these loans are safe, won't affect your future etc etc'
I have boxes of old uni papers and I'm sure there must be something!

Even if we can't find written proof of those assurances, surely our case for mis-selling is that the possible future negative impact on our credit records (and the possibility that these "government loans" might one day be sold to a private company) - was never expressly and clearly pointed out to us.

Any reference to credit reporting in our original agreements was, not only buried in the small print, but also written in extremely ambiguous language.

I've copied and pasted below something I posted a while ago on one of the Erudio threads (and highlighted what I think is particularly relevant in bold)...

I admit I don't know anything much about how all this works but I've had a look at the money advice service site and their description of financial mis-selling.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.u...s-affected-you

I think one of the PPI reasons is relevant to us:

• Nobody fully explained the terms and conditions (small print)

I don't think any of us (I certainly wasn't) were made aware of the possibility that one day these loans could be sold on to a private company. We were encouraged to take them out on the understanding that they were with the government.

Also I think these could also be relevant to our case (reasons given for mis-sold investments):

• You weren’t told about the risks involved
• The product didn’t suit your needs or attitude to risk that you discussed with the adviser.

Maybe I am just failing to understand something.

JeLaw

Dan4747,

I was deferred without providing my DD details. I wrote with my application that there was no requirement in the original terms for an active DD whilst in deferment.

I'm still a bit nervous about what they might try in the future because of this - and I think you should do what you feel most comfortable doing under the circumstances.

It seems a lot of people on here have completed the DD part of the DAF and later cancelled (after deferment) - or not cancelled but are regularly checking their accounts to ensure nothing has been wrongly taken.

If you do decide not to provide DD details, I simply crossed through that part of the DAF.

fermi

Well the FAQ here still says:

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



So I would suggest that everyone emails [EMAIL="consumer.queries@fca.org.uk"]consumer.queries@fca.org.uk[/EMAIL] and customerservice@erudiostudentloans.co.uk with a formal complaint that they are still putting information on their website and forms that is deliberately intended to mislead students about their legal obligations.

JeLaw

Thanks for posting that, Fermi.

I really hope I'm able to keep up this fight (whenever my health permits, I intend to)!

I'll have to make a formal complaint. Surely if this issue came to court, the onus would be on Erudio to provide evidence of their claim that having an active DD set-up is a requirement of deferment? And that evidence doesn't appear to exist judging by the original agreements that we have seen (I must dig mine out when I get the chance).

In fact, am I not correct that even if people are not entitled to defer and are making repayments, they do not have to pay by DD (and are allowed to make alternative payment arrangements)?

dizzybuff

No response from the adjudicator.think the cat may have got her tongue.

anna2007

Dan4747 wrote: »

Hi,

I've just received my deferment package from Erudio am going to take issue with them on their 'requirement' for my direct debit details. I've read Anna2007's letters and would be grateful if you (Anna2007) are OK with me using their reply in my correspondence with them - so as to remind them of their stance. Also, I'm unsure with regards the following: In your opinion, is it the case that as I'm already deferred and am therefore seeking to extend that deferment, that I can refuse to complete the D/D section on the form, or, to be on the safe side, is it maybe best to complete the details seeing as they haven't officially announced the D/D isn't required while deferred. I'd rather not give the details over at all, but then if not doing so leads to refusal of deferment and subsequent 'arrears' on my account - and then a merry-go-round of getting it overturned - it may be best take the former route. At least by stating my objections in writing and using the reply they sent to you as evidence, they may agree in writing that no D/D is required and then it shouldn't be an issue. It just irks me to think of them even having my D/D in the first place.

Hi Dan4747 - Of course, feel free to use the letter, I hope it helps with your application - would be interested to know if you get agreement from them that the DD's not required, maybe you could let us know if they do?

As for completing the DD mandate, JeLaw's right, it comes down to what you feel most comfortable doing. If your income's under the threshold, you're entitled to defer and all Erudio can do is stall on processing the deferment. It's then a straight choice between not paying and disputing any arrears, or paying and then claiming the payments back. I'd rather not give them the chance to put arrears on my account, even if they're not genuine arrears, so would pay and then claim it back. Others have done it the other way and had the arrears wiped. Either way is going to take time to sort out, so that might be a factor if you don't want Erudio holding onto your money for months on end!

You could try with the letter and no DD mandate, see how that goes, and decide for sure closer to your deferment end date? I think it states on Erudio's website to allow 14 days for the DD to be set up, although it took them 4 days to set mine up when I applied last year... strange how they were so efficient at that!

There could be other developments in that time too - this shiny new DAF must be making an appearance soon, which might change things (seems unlikely though), or FOS might make a decision on the DD requirement.

Good luck, it's not easy deciding how to go about it, I sat on the DAF for 5 weeks last year before sending