ERUDIO student loans help

zombi

anna2007 wrote: »

Erudio told some over the phone last year that the DD wasn't required to get deferred, but as far as I know there's nothing else in writing that's been posted on the forum to confirm it's not a breach of the agreement. It's in my FOS complaint, and the letter's posted on the DAF feedback thread, so between FOS/MSE maybe we can get Erudio to officially back down on the DD requirement.

If Thesis holds one of your loans, shouldn't the SLC be dealing with your deferment for all loans? Edit - Lungboy beat me to it!

Thanks Anna and Lungboy. Erudio have 2 of my loans andThesis have one.


I received and signed the deferment application from SLC in March last year (with confirmation of deferral from SLC) but Erudio said they 'apparently' "didn't receive notice" of my deferment until later on which is why they took/stole 2 amounts of money from my account (if you believe that you'll believe anything!).


Funny how Thesis got the message, and aren't the loan companies supposed to notify the account holder in advance before they start using the DD? Well Erudio did no such thing.


They're also still sending me threatening letters saying that I'm in arrears, when I clearly AM NOT. I've been successfully deferring since 2000 when I graduated.


I'm waiting to see if I get a deferral form from SLC in the next few months - in the meantime if Erudio try and send me a DAF it's going straight in the bin! AND I'll be sending them and the ombudsman ANOTHER letter. :wall:

anna2007

@ zombi Ah, right. On the plus side, by the time you're finished with them at FOS, it'll likely have cost Erudio upwards of £700, for nothing in return - does make you wonder how much longer they can maintain that level of 'incompetence' in everything they do.

gustavep

zombi wrote: »

Gustavep: "2. Letter confirming deferment






I see they're stating on their letter to you that you definitely need a direct debit in place on your account. :mad:


Is it only Anna2007 so far that has received statement from Erudio that you don't need to do so? I'm concerned by this as I cancelled mine (on the advice of the bank) to stop Erudio stealing any more money from my account.


Also, does anyone think this will this cause an issue with Thesis who hold my other loan?

I don't have a DD set up, they never even mentioned it when they originally rejected my deferment application, they only wanted my signature on their form.

So they've put me in deferment but sent a letter stating not having a DD would be a breach of the loan conditions. If this was true they wouldn't have deferred the loan.

Toying with the idea of raising a new complaint about this, hopefully resulting in a second complaint to the ombudsman.

BaffledByErudio

On the Direct Debit front - I too have a letter (which I requested and have mentioned before a while ago) which says something along the lines of 'we reviewed our procedures and customers who are significantly off the deferment wage threshold no longer require an active Direct Debit'.
Some time after that letter I was instructed over the phone to put one back in place and that the letter was, in fact, an error.
So, to cut a long story short, I'm in deferment and have just left the DD in place months ago. I still think Erudio are deliberately vague on the DD situation and, as many of us have asked, whatever reason could there be for such confusion other than trying to trip some of us up?

erudioed

If they say they need a DD in place during deferral, before deferment is decided, then that would only mean for the 1st year's deferral because after then (ie every year from now onwards), we will always be in deferral, with deferral just being an extension.
This whole DD is deliberately confusing and they need to sort it out. How can anyone deal with a company that's deliberately being confusing and evasive on its so called rules. They've admitted it isnt necessary after deferment has been granted as well (which means its no longer necessary after year 1's deferment), so they just need to state the damn rule and change all their complaint responses, their website FAQs and all letters that serve as correspondence with its 'customers' (although 'prisoners' is probably more appropriate that 'customers') to be consistent and clear!

anna2007

gustavep wrote: »

So they've put me in deferment but sent a letter stating not having a DD would be a breach of the loan conditions. If this was true they wouldn't have deferred the loan.

Erudio don't seem to be making deferment conditional on having the DD in place (only arrears on the account should affect entitlement to defer).

It's possible they're saving the DD being a breach of the loan agreement for loan cancellation, as the agreement states the loans will be cancelled, so long as we're not in breach of ANY obligation. However, in the Regulations, which trump the agreement, the only condition is that we're not behind with any repayments.

It's also possible that the only reason they threaten it's a breach of the agreement is to deter people from setting one up, as it's impossible for Erudio to put arrears on the account with a DD in place.

Whatever their reason for insisting on the DD, it doesn't really matter as it's not a legal requirement during deferment.

fermi

This has been mentioned before I think?

If you read the loan agreements and regulations, it's fairly clear that even if not maintaining a DD was technically a breach of the agreement, it would be a minor technical breach on that point only, and NOT one that would allow them on those grounds to:

- Default or terminate the agreement
- Demand full payment immediately.
- Refuse deferment
- Refuse any age or disability related write off.

Or basically do anything with the loan to force you to give a DD.

i.e, they could write as much as they like saying it is 'a breach of the agreement', but can't do sodd all if you refuse. It's toothless.

So if that reading of it is correct, it would explain why they are being vague.

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

It's possible they're saving the DD being a breach of the loan agreement for loan cancellation, as the agreement states the loans will be cancelled, so long as we're not in breach of ANY obligation. However, in the Regulations, which trump the agreement, the only condition is that we're not behind with any repayments.

The terms in the 1998 regulation replace the applicable original terms to bring them into parity with the newer ones yes, so anything contradictory in original agreements pre 1998 no longer applies.

Post 1998 loans were always on the "behind with payments" condition.

gustavep

anna2007 wrote: »

It's possible they're saving the DD being a breach of the loan agreement for loan cancellation, as the agreement states the loans will be cancelled, so long as we're not in breach of ANY obligation.

I don't believe they could even do that.

The only mention in the pre-1997 agreement of direct debits is 4.3 "Repayments shall be paid by direct debit..."

The 1998 agreement is slightly different. This adds the line "...if your account changes you must give us a new direct debiting instruction"

Neither agreement places any requirement to have a Direct Debit in force. As long as you gave the SLC your account details when you took out the loan and haven't changed them, I don't believe you need to give anything to Erudio. If you've got a pre-97 loan you don't even have any obligation to tell them if the account has changed.

Their "requirement" to have a DD in force is either a bullying tactic to give you access to your account, or, more likely in my opinion a demonstration of ignorance and/or incompetence on the part of Erudio.

anna2007

@ gustavep No, they can't do it, but that won't stop them trying!

@ BaffledByErudio Was that stated by Erudio in a final response to a complaint? If so, they can hardly backtrack and claim it was said in error, when they spent 8 weeks deliberating over the response!

It's also different to what they told me, in that they didn't say it only applied if income was way below the threshold (although my income is way below). They said something like "We have reviewed our policies and can confirm that a DD is no longer a requirement during deferment". That was a final response, which took them 8 weeks to come up with.

Are they just making it up as they go along? Who cares what their own internal "policies" are, if they're not relevant to our t&c's?