ERUDIO student loans help

Jonez

"Eurdio has adopted a different approach to the deferment application process than SLC previously applied"

Well, that bit is certainly true - I don't remember the SLC lying over the phone, making up stuff as they went along, not understating the relevant legislation that governs their operation, claiming to have mislaid much of the paperwork that was sent to them........ the list goes on.......

Pluthero

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Yep... The letter is certainly going to help my cause. You just couldn't make this $"&t up! Another gem from the letter....

"In the UK, it is generally agreed that reporting relevant and appropriate levels of information about credit agreements and how they are being paid is an important part of the process required to support responsible lending and borrowing"
This pearl of wisdom is in relation to reporting our loans to a CRA, so it seems they just want to do us a big favour here.

"Eurdio has adopted a different approach to the deferment application process than SLC previously applied. (had any of you noticed this? The information we are asking for will help us confirm borrowers current gross income and determine their likely gross income over the next three months in order to satisfy the conditions of deferment. This change in approach does not constitute a change to the terms and conditions of the loan as prescribed in the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998. The method of the deferment process is not specified in those terms and conditions"
Hitting the nail on the head or shooting yourself in the foot?

"If you wish to defer your repayments, please complete and return the DAF we have sent at your earliest convenience. We believe this is a reasonable request to ensure all customers are treated fairly by applying a consistent approach to our underwriting procedure"
Hmmm, I bet you do!

Sounds like the same cr*p they told me when they shot down my complaints....

The information we are asking for will help us confirm borrowers current gross income and determine their likely gross income over the next three months in order to satisfy the conditions of deferment.

Erudio do not have any permission to confirm gross income - are not allowed to contact our employer or search our bank/credit records and we show our income and this satisfies the condition of deferment. That's in black and white on the 1998 loan regs and confirmed earlier by the quotes from the SOS in Hansard!

When all the dust settles on complaints/courts actions Erudio will be shown to be chancers and bullies. A disgrace in itself but compounded by the Govt/BIS/FOS unwilling to MAKE them act responsibly.

anna2007

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

"If you wish to defer your repayments, please complete and return the DAF we have sent at your earliest convenience. We believe this is a reasonable request to ensure all customers are treated fairly by applying a consistent approach to our underwriting procedure"

Not seen that one before. What are they havering on about, what 'underwriting procedure'? If there was any underwriting to be done, surely that should have been before they committed to buying our loans?!

fermi

None of which waffle and half baked nonsense gives them any legal right to refuse deferment if you choose not to use the form?

rizla_king

anna2007 wrote: »

Not seen that one before. What are they havering on about, what 'underwriting procedure'? If there was any underwriting to be done, surely that should have been before they committed to buying our loans?!

As usual they are just making up phrases as they go along.

rizla_king

Jonez wrote: »

"Eurdio has adopted a different approach to the deferment application process than SLC previously applied"

Well, that bit is certainly true - I don't remember the SLC lying over the phone, making up stuff as they went along, not understating the relevant legislation that governs their operation, claiming to have mislaid much of the paperwork that was sent to them........ the list goes on.......

Actually SLC had their moments with some people, but never ever anything like Erudio. Not even slightly close.

anna2007

Here goes nothing... I've requested an internal review by BIS for release of the sale and purchase agreement:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sale_of_mortgage_style_student_l_2#outgoing-421292

Internal review request for the other one (BIS's admission that they will sit on their useless bums and do nothing if Erudio breaks the law and agreements) to follow...

JeLaw

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Yep... The letter is certainly going to help my cause. You just couldn't make this $"&t up! Another gem from the letter....

"In the UK, it is generally agreed that reporting relevant and appropriate levels of information about credit agreements and how they are being paid is an important part of the process required to support responsible lending and borrowing"
This pearl of wisdom is in relation to reporting our loans to a CRA, so it seems they just want to do us a big favour here.

So mis-selling argument? It was never made clear to us at the time of signing our agreements that our loans (if deferred) might be reported to CRA and/or possibly impact on our credit ratings.

"Eurdio has adopted a different approach to the deferment application process than SLC previously applied. (had any of you noticed this? The information we are asking for will help us confirm borrowers current gross income and determine their likely gross income over the next three months in order to satisfy the conditions of deferment. This change in approach does not constitute a change to the terms and conditions of the loan as prescribed in the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998. The method of the deferment process is not specified in those terms and conditions"
Hitting the nail on the head or shooting yourself in the foot?

"If you wish to defer your repayments, please complete and return the DAF we have sent at your earliest convenience. We believe this is a reasonable request to ensure all customers are treated fairly by applying a consistent approach to our underwriting procedure"
Hmmm, I bet you do!

It might only be a handful of people (so far) but haven't one or two people reported here that they have been deferred without completing the DAF? Including the client of A Reeves.

Which makes it difficult for them to claim that "....all customers are treated fairly by applying a consistent approach..."!

Another thing I'm wondering about is whether we could claim we are not being treated fairly because anyone with split loans (some owned by Thesis/Honours/whatever they're called) are still deferred by SLC....and so presumably are able to use SLC's DAF and deferment process? Or is this me clutching at straws?

I'm also getting confused (again!). Maybe because I'm not in the best of health and so unable to think clearly? Or Erudio's lack of clarity/confusion, etc. Have I got this wrong.....that Erudio are quoting the pre-1998 regulations to attempt to justify reporting deferred loans to CRAs - but then quoting the 1998 regulations for other issues such as trying to insist on using their DAF. They can't have it both ways.

BorderReiver14

Hi JeLaw
The mis-selling argument is certainly something that has been raised before but the issue is down to evidence. We would need the literature from the time to see the exact way it was phrased but certainly I remember being told that these were safe loans, they would not harm our future financial status etc. It is something others are exploring in depth.

In terms of what ESL have quoted to me, they cite the 1997 regulations as why I must use their DAF but they really should know better as these were revoked by the 1998 regulations.
In terms of the CRA reporting, they know for sure that they need explicit consent for loans taken out from 98 onwards while they cite section 16 that they believe gives them the right for those with pre98 loans. Something Anthony has argued as being tenuous at best and will sooner or later be tested in court.

Fear not though, the only ones clutching at straws are Erudio and I have every faith they will back down from court cases knowing they are in the wrong. As others have said, they are making enough money from folks who have unwittingly not done some homework which I find particularly sad as there must be thousands who are paying them money when they have every right to defer.

Bozzman

RoaringTwenties wrote: »

Bozzman, have I misunderstood or did Erudio actually tell you that you would not be able to defer in the last two years before you reached the write-off stage? Do they have the power to refuse deferment & enforce a repayment schedule over those last two years?

Roaring Twenties.

Apologies - been away, only just seen your post.

Yes, that is exactly what the chap told me three times. I tried asking him in different ways to make sure he was clear.

Basically - regardless of your income, 2 years from the end of loan period you will no longer be offered a deferment and instead Erudio would contact you to discuss repayment terms.

as posted by others this would appear to be a bit of a porky.