ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

@ datlex It's your gross income in the "relevant month" that counts per the Regulations, which is the month before you send the DAF - is your income for that month below the threshold?

The only reason evidence is requested for the previous 3 months (or year in Erudio's case), is to show that your income's unlikely to exceed the threshold in the following 2 months.

If you've given them evidence that your income's below the threshold, they can't refuse your deferment. Get a formal complaint in now and take it to FOS/court if necessary.

datlex

So does that mean if say earn £2000 most months and then £2500 for 2 months (perhaps due to bonuses or over time at busy time) right when deferment is due you'd be penalised? Even though your annual income is below the threshold? (those are not my income figures btw)

anna2007

datlex wrote: »

So does that mean if say earn £2000 most months and then £2500 for 2 months (perhaps due to bonuses or over time at busy time) right when deferment is due you'd be penalised? Even though your annual income is below the threshold? (those are not my income figures btw)

Yes, because strictly speaking you're not entitled to defer if your income in the relevant month is over the monthly threshold amount.

I don't know if the SLC used discretion in such cases and considered the annual income, but it's a safe bet that Erudio won't allow it.

Best to avoid overtime completely in the few months before deferment if possible, otherwise the only option is to delay deferment until income's below the threshold again.

Forever

I have just received a letter from the FOS explaining what happens now that I have rejected the adjudicator's decision on Erudio being able to report pre-1998 deferrals to CRAs.

A leaflet says:
"Won't the ombudsman just rubber stamp what the adjudicator said?

No. The ombudsman is completely impartial."

This is good news! However, I am concerned that it also says later in their leaflet:

"But once an ombudsman has made their decision, we won't be able to discuss the merits of your complaint with you any further.

And no ombudsman, however senior, can overturn another ombudsman's decision."

I am a bit worried that my arguing/debating skills are not the best when it comes to these sorts of things.

So I would like to encourage anyone who complains to the FOS incorporating this point regarding reporting to CRAs, which will be rejected by the adjuticator, to ask your case to be reviewed by an ombudsman. This is in the hope that some people with far better skills than I, can persuade the relevant ombudsman to recognize our plight, and to see that this situation is really unfair.

ericctheking

Just a point but has Erudio taken anyone to court?
I mean if people don't pay, so what! it is in Erudios court to do something about it.
And for people living overseas, overseas debt collecetion is extremely difficult, expensive and nigh on impossible. Looks like they lucked out with expats!

fermi

I agree with what has been said (mostly).

Was just pointing out that it's not a magic bullet and that there are potential pitfalls as well as benefits. Depends a lot on what judge you get. We shall see how it goes.

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

But if we lost at court, surely we're in no worse a position than we are currently?

Depends on what for. At the moment Erudio may be giving ground on some matters as they are honestly not sure what might happen if tested in court. If someone tests it and loses they could harden their stance with a court win to quote to back it up if people still argue. No matter that it would be CC so not binding, they would use it in every FOS submission and argument.

Classic example, although High Court/Appeal and so binding, were Carey v HSBC & McGuffick v RBS where the claimants against the creditors (CMCs and individuals) managed to right royally shoot themselves in the foot in losing.

(note: recent cases have overturned some aspects of the above, but that is for another issue and thread)

Hopefully there won't be issues here. :cool:

anna2007

fermi wrote: »

Depends on what for. At the moment Erudio may be giving ground on some matters as they are honestly not sure what might happen if tested in court. If someone tests it and loses they could harden their stance with a court win to quote to back it up if people still argue. No matter that it would be CC so not binding, they would use it in every FOS submission and argument.

But there's not going to be one test case and it all goes away for Erudio. People are going to continue bringing court claims against them, there could be any number of cases in the pipeline now and I imagine that's only going to increase year on year, the longer Erudio are responsible for the shambolic administration of our loans.

Erudio winning a case wouldn't deter me, quite the opposite in fact. And in a different court, with a different judge (or even the same judge in a better mood), and the case presented differently, who knows what might happen.

And it only takes one win and we too can use it in every FOS case and argument

fermi

Going to have to agree to disagree on that Anna.

Should be the way it goes if there is any justice. I hope it does. Often it doesn't. Think I may have just seen too many consumers get kicked in the teeth by CC judges who couldn't care less and have double standards. Ditto with the FOS.

Maybe it will be different here, but I'm not holding my breath, but will be the first to let that breath out in a cheer if it goes well.

eroneo

AReeves wrote: »

I suppose you could say, if they did not like the Terms of the loans then they did not have to buy them from the Government!

Exactly. New information technology can vastly improve the success in collecting debts compared with what was available when the loans were originally made. However, the original terms and conditions of the loans and the Data Protection Act limit they way that technology may be applied to our personal data. They bought the loans subject to all encumberances, disadvantages and limitations and this was reflected in the sale price being only 17p in the pound.

They now want to ignore all the restrictions and collect a higher percentage than they are really entitled to. I think it is an important point that the fact they may have a greater efficiency in collecting debt by exploiting our data with new technology is not a justification for doing so because it is trumped by the rule that assignments are made sunject to equities and all restrictions and disadvantages are inherited by the assignee.