ERUDIO student loans help

Forever

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Thanks for posting this Forever and I'm sorry the FOS have not been more kind to you... and its not great news for the rest of us waiting on FOS decisions.

Starting to see a pattern here and as others have commented it seems legal action is the only way we are going to bring ESL to heal.

Thanks BorderReiver.

The adjudicator from the FOS did say to me that different people review our cases. So I could get one result, but someone else could potentially get another. So, fingers crossed.

Overall though, I agree with you that legal action probably is the best way forward.

rizla_king

Stupid, but not unexpected.

gardenia101

erudioed wrote: »

If you all want a laugh and some light relief amongst all this scumbaggery, check out this link to a letter sent out by Capita for Erudio...click on each of the 4 squares to reveal a class A **ck-up: https://twitter.com/tinygert/status/566315741579067393/photo/1

Thanks Erudioed - it did bring a smile. How rubbish are they?

spacemanc

My Erudio account is fully in arrears because I didn't defer with SLC for years although I had been entitled to at the time.

A few weeks ago Erudio sent me an income and expenditure form with a request for an "offer for payment" which I completed and made a repayment offer of £0.

They replied with a "With out prejudice" letter (weird?) asking for the same form to be completed again with a letter saying that I had to make an offer. I sent a pretty firm letter in reply saying that the previous form made it clear that I have no money and therefore I would not be completing it a second time and that my offer remained as £0.

Then I came across this thread! Anyway I've dug out a load of old paperwork this morning and the amount owed on the SLC assignment letter from last March is around £100 more than the statement amount that Erudio sent last September. They had also added a £20 charge and refunded £10 interest as "Rev Post-Term interest", so I'm not sure what all that means.

The interesting part is that the statement cover letter from last September says "From September 2014 to September 2015, unless you are in deferment, you need to pay £0.00 on the 10th of each month"

So basically they're trying to chase me for money and saying they wont accept my offer of £0.00, when I already had a letter from them saying that I have to pay £0.00

rizla_king

Its 0.00 every month a you have now broken the agreement and the whole loan is now due immediately in full. In other words there is no monthly amount due any more under the agreement. Now you owe the lot you could come to an informal agreed amount each month but thats a different thing.

spacemanc

rizla_king wrote: »

Its 0.00 every month a you have now broken the agreement and the whole loan is now due immediately in full. In other words there is no monthly amount due any more under the agreement. Now you owe the lot you could come to an informal agreed amount each month but thats a different thing.

I guess that makes sense in a way, but that's certainly not what the letter says. It makes no mention of requiring immediate payment or could they argue that the original agreement says that it's payable immediately? I haven't got a copy of the agreement to check. Even if that is the case, the CCA regulations around the wording of annual statements is pretty strict.

Also where has the missing £100 of debt gone? Is that related to the refunded interest?

spacemanc

I read a post by AReeves on another website that pre-1998 agreements had nothing in the agreement about sharing data with the CRA. All the Erudio letters as well as the SLC assignment letter, says that they can share data. I've not signed anything with Erudio, so can they do this?

fermi

They allege that s16 of the pre 1998 agreements give them the authority to share data with the CRAs. The ICO and BIS either agree, or are not willing to contradict that.

In the end though only a court can decide on the legality or nor of it.

When did the last deferment you did end? Or when did you first break the agreement by not deferring and not paying back either?

If Erudio were to record something in your case then it could only be a default. To be accurate that would have to be backdated to shortly after your broke the agreement with SLC.

spacemanc

I think I was paying up to around 2008, but I'm not 100% sure if that payment itself was an agreement on arrears. Since 2008 I've been eligible to defer, but I never did. I only currently owe Erudio less than £500 and I think I have another loan of around £500 with Honours, but I haven't heard from them in a while.

I think that the "missing" £100 and the refunded interest maybe to do with the combined statement mistake that SLC made and for which they refunded charges and interest to loads of people last year. I'll have to do more digging in my paperwork later this week to find out.

If that is the case, any chance I could argue that SLC was in breach of CCA for the period 2008 to 2014, so deferment doesn't apply for that period, then just pay the arrears for last year and then going forwards, defer the remaining amount?

fermi

That sort of breach of the CCA simply means they were not allowed to apply charges or interest for the period of non compliance.

You would have had to carry on deferring if eligible and did not want to start paying.

From what you say though, the only thing Erudio could legitimately do to your credit files would be to record a default dated 2008/9 at the very latest.

That is assuming that the SLC haven't already done so, as they actually did on many accounts back then, where they changed their policy and started reporting defaults on accounts in many cases.

Point being with that is that the CRAs only show defaults that are dated less than 6 years old on your credit report. In fact, if there is a recorded default dated more than 6 years old the CRAs remove the whole account from view or will simply not display it, no matter what Erudio subsequently report to them.

So going on dates, and if Erudio report what they should if they do have the right, then what they report should either never appear as the CRAs will not show it, or it would not remain on your report for very long.

If Erudio try to report a false and more recent record to have something that lasts longer, then you should be able to challenge it and get it altered/removed.