ERUDIO student loans help

fermi

So no DAF signed in that case?

AReeves wrote: »

They have granted deferment in the case where there is a court hearing set for 6 March 2015. They have invited my client to discontinue but we will not do so. The reasons:

1. They need to present their proposed new DAF so that we can be sure it will not continue the unfair relationship, otherwise we could be in the same position next time.
2. They need to pay my client's costs

There has been mention on their website of presenting a new DAF which supposedly will not require consent to the passing of information to CRA's and will not require the completion of DD details. I will invite them to produce the the new form ahead of the hearing on 6 March. If that form goes beyond what is required under the Regulations, then I will ask for a declaration from the court that there is still an unfair relationship.

Hopefully, this provides us with an opportunity to view the form and if they have not made the necessary changes then we can ask the court to rule.

Anthony Reeves
Lawyer

Assuming it is this case?

Summary of the case

I act for a borrower who took out a student loan in November 1997. He applied for
a deferment in September 2014. He provided evidence of his income in the form
of his HMRC tax return. Erudio replied by saying that he had not completed their
deferment application form (DAF) and would not consider his application. My
client has refused to complete their DAF as the Education (Student Loans)
Regulations 1998 do not state the application must be in a prescribed form. The
Regulations state that a borrower can defer making repayments if the lender has
not already asked him to repay the loan in full and his gross income is not more
than the deferment level.

Erudio responded by saying that if our client could delete the following words from
the Fair Process Notice at the end of the form:

“Accordingly therefore submitting this application you confirm that you consent for Erudio
to perform relevant checks at credit reference and fraud prevention agencies”.
We would not agree to complete the form on that basis because the DAF does
need to be completed and also the form requests other unnecessary personal
information and wrongly suggests that a Direct Debit mandate needs to be in
place before deferment is considered. On this point, they have confirmed to
another borrower back in July 2014 that a Direct Debit mandate does need to be
in place.

Our application to the court seeks a declaration that the agreement and the way
Erudio is exercising its rights under the agreement amounts to an unfair
relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended.

Further and in the alternative, we seek an order for specific performance of the
contract, ie. that they should consider the deferment. The basis of the unfair
relationship includes:

1. Requiring the borrower to complete unnecessary personal information on the
DAF that is not required to determine the application

2. Requiring the borrower to sign a form that gives permission to search the
borrower’s credit file

3. Any unfair attempt to make changes to the terms of agreement despite
assurances at the time of assignment that would not alter.

4. Stating that a direct debit mandate is required to be set to enable
consideration of the application. Inconsistent treat in this respect in relation to
another borrower who has the same loan terms.

5. Chasing for arrears that only exist because of a wrongful refusal to consider
the deferment application.

So we have made an application to the Court with the first hearing at
Middlesbrough County Court on 6 March 2015.

fermi

evilsheep wrote: »

Irritatingly, I completely forgot to send them the emailed letter and attachments, so I'll be doing that today. Am I correct in thinking that I absolutely do not need to sign their forms, as I am providing them with all of the information that is required to defer?

Legally that is arguably the case.

Practically it depends whether you want to make a point of principle on it and risk the possible hassle, depending on whether that legal stance hold water in the long term, or if you just want to get deferred without more argument than is strictly necessary.

evilsheep

I'll continue along the 'making a point of principle' lines I think. I'll remind them in the letter that SLC processed my deferrals via email previously, and that I'm providing exactly the same information as I've always provided.

I'll also be sending all the information as a complaint to the FCO and FAS (especially the farcical address-changing bit). I'll post here with updates.

springburn1

Has anyone had any experience in paying their loan(s) off early?

I've been trying to obtain my balance figure from Erudio to do this but they aren't responding.

It was bad enough changing my address when I moved but except from continuing to write them letters requesting what my balance is and stating that I wish to pay it off is there anything else I can do?

Pluthero

springburn1 wrote: »

Has anyone had any experience in paying their loan(s) off early?

I've been trying to obtain my balance figure from Erudio to do this but they aren't responding.

It was bad enough changing my address when I moved but except from continuing to write them letters requesting what my balance is and stating that I wish to pay it off is there anything else I can do?

Jesus wept! They hound loads of people who don't have to pay! Here's someone who wants to give them money and they can't even get that done?

Unreal!

CC2

I will no longer be eligible to defer when my deferral period ends next month, thanks to them changing the goal posts. They want £365 a month from me. I do not have £365 a month to give them (bank balance before payday was MINUS £960!) My parents are coming to the rescue and have agreed to loan me the full amount payable and I can pay them back in far more reasonably sized chunks, but paying it back in one go is seemingly not straightforward - as per poster above! I too would love to know how exactly I'm supposed to do it!

Jonez

Pluthero wrote: »

Jesus wept! They hound loads of people who don't have to pay! Here's someone who wants to give them money and they can't even get that done?

Unreal!

The words p*ss-up and brewery spring to mind..........

Sarebear78

CC2 wrote: »

I will no longer be eligible to defer when my deferral period ends next month, thanks to them changing the goal posts. They want £365 a month from me. I do not have £365 a month to give them (bank balance before payday was MINUS £960!) My parents are coming to the rescue and have agreed to loan me the full amount payable and I can pay them back in far more reasonably sized chunks, but paying it back in one go is seemingly not straightforward - as per poster above! I too would love to know how exactly I'm supposed to do it!

£365 per month? Wow. That is a lot. I took the full loan amounts every year and my repayments wouldn't be that much if I had to repay, I'm sure. What years were your loans? Are you sure that they have worked it out correctly and not tried to jam it into the remaining life of the loan, rather than the 60 months (or so) that it should be? (Which they have tried with others!)

rizla_king

Even if you took the max loan each year out on a 4 years course from 97-2001 and paid 14 years of interest then started paying back over the minimum 60 months dont it would come to much more than £210 per month?

Lungboy

I have 6 loans and my repayments aren't close to that.