ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

spacemanc wrote: »

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?

If you haven't got a copy of your loan agreement, there's a copy here, with the wording of clause 16:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4945901

There's also a useful post by AReeves here, explaining his view that clause 16 isn't enough to allow CRA reporting of deferred loans:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67490811#Comment_67490811

If you look at the updated disclosure clause in the post-98 agreement linked to above, it specifically mentions reporting to CRA's if the borrower's defaulted. And although the pre-98 agreement isn't specific, I think the DPA allows for creditors to disclose personal data as part of any recovery action on defaulted debt?

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

I think the DPA allows for creditors to disclose personal data as part of any recovery action on defaulted debt?

It is arguable under the "legitimate interests" condition under the DPA that reporting a default is necessary and reasonable to help protect the interest or other people and lenders by recording defaults.

If that is the case then consent is not always required.

plong979

My response to the adjudicator...

[FONT=&quot]I am afraid I cannot accept this offer as I don’t agree with it. As a result I wish for my complaint to be escalated to the Ombudsman.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You state that the DAF needs to be completed as it is required by the business, however I have read reports that people have been deferred without using their form. I also believe there is also a court case regarding this scheduled for 6th March 2015.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You also stated that the business only wanted me to fill in the income section of the form, so, how is it that 3 payslips and an employment letter from my employee, along with my declaration doesn't give them enough details about income? I have fulfilled the terms and conditions of which I am bound by so I am fully in my legal right to be deferred as there is nothing in the legislation telling me I have to use their form.[/FONT]

fermi

If me I would at least amend to something like:

I am afraid I cannot accept this offer as I don’t agree with it. As a result I wish for my complaint to be escalated to the Ombudsman.

You state that the DAF needs to be completed as it is required by the business, however I have read reports that people have been deferred without using their form. I also believe there is also a court case regarding this scheduled for 6th March 2015.

The law under the still in force The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998 simply requires deferrers to:

show—

(i) that his gross income for the relevant month is not more than the deferment level, and
(ii) if the lender asks, that his gross average monthly income during the 3 months immediately following the relevant month will not or is unlikely to be more than the deferment level.

This is not required to be via a form or any other specified medium or method.

I have shown Erudio that I meet the above conditions, and as such they are obliged in law to grant deferment.

They are not entitled to add additional conditions such as the completion of particular forms.

Erudio have been given all the information required to show I am entitled to be deferred and Erudio are obliged to grant deferment on that basis.

Their refusal is neither fair nor reasonable nor lawful.

You also stated that the business only wanted me to fill in the income section of the form, so, how is it that 3 payslips and an employment letter from my employee, along with my declaration doesn't give them enough details about income? I have fulfilled the terms and conditions of which I am bound by so I am fully in my legal right to be deferred as there is nothing in the legislation telling me I have to use their form.

I expect the FOS will still fail to grasp the point, but there you go.

plong979

fermi, thank you for the above

fermi

You could probably write the above on a brick and spend all day bashing the adjudicator's head with it, and it still probably would not sink in, but got to be worth a go.

Pluthero

fermi wrote: »

You could probably write the above on a brick and spend all day bashing the adjudicator's head with it, and it still probably would not sink in, but got to be worth a go.

It certainly seems that way.!:mad:I have been working on my reply to my adjudicator and took some of your info on board. Here it is and I do not think I could have made it ANY clearer:)

Dear ****************

I received your letter about submitting more information to the Ombudsman by February 23rd. I wanted to make it clear that my argument is: there is nothing in the original loan terms that require a DAF to be completed in order to be deferred. Furthermore ESL cannot enforce the completion of a DAF as new condition of deferment as it is not part of the original loan terms. I am well within my rights not to have to complete their DAF or indeed any DAF in order for my loans to be deferred. The fact that the ESL DAF is an invasive information phishing document simply strengthens my argument about not wishing to complete it. Also the fact that ESL are having to redesign their DAF should also be considered by the FOS as it is an admission by ESL that the DAF is not fit for purpose. In addition ESL have deferred people (without filling in their DAF) who refused to complete it and threatened/started legal action.

Your own findings were that Erudio failed to consider my complaints and did not engage with them and you rightly upheld the part of my complaint about their abysmal customer service. Indeed I took the view that they were dismissive and bullying rather than simply incompetent which is not a surprise as they are a (DCA) Debt Collection Agency.

I still strongly disagree with your conclusion that I am compelled to complete the ESL DAF in order to be deferred, you said:

“Regarding your concerns as to the completion of the DAF, I would advise that if the completion of this is required by the business in order to defer the loan, then you will need to do so. We are unable to enforce the business to defer the loan without the completion of the DAF.”

This is why I am so very unhappy with your decision. I am not asking the FOS to enforce ESL to do anything except defer my loan in accordance with the original loan agreement. The deferment of my loans does not require ANY DAF to be completed. ESL cannot force me to complete a DAF and you seem to have concluded it is their right or part of the original loan agreement to do so. It is not. ESL must defer my loan if I satisfy the terms of the original loan conditions and they are set down in the 1998 student loans act:

The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998 State:
9. Each year the lender will tell the borrower the new deferment level for the period between 1st September and the following 31st August. The borrower can defer making repayments of the loan if—
(a) the lender has not already asked him to repay the loan in full, and
(b) he can show—*
(i) that his gross income for the relevant month is not more than the deferment level, and
(ii) if the lender asks, that his gross average monthly income during the 3 months immediately following the relevant month will not or is unlikely to be more than the deferment level.

Please see this extract from the Parliamentary debate on student loans which makes it very clear that students will self-certify their income in order to be deferred:
* http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1990/jun/19/student-loans

Mr. Andrew Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if a student in agreeing to the terms and conditions of a student loan authorises the Student Loans Company to make future searches on their income, via employers and banks.

Mr. Jackson : The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks. Borrowers wishing to defer repayments will be required to ‘produce evidence’ that their income falls below 85 percent of national average earnings.

ESL quoted to me section 11 of the Education (Student Loans) regulations 1997 in order to try and justify the completion of a DAF but these are obsolete as the 1998 Regulations revoke them as I am sure ESL as a responsible lender and purchaser of the loan book must know?

There is no mention in legislation or the original loan agreement of a DAF required to be completed in order to be deferred. I have met the conditions of deferment with the information I supplied by bespoke letter and wage slips to ESL. I have shown my income is far below the deferment threshold and quite simply with this evidence I should have my loans deferred. Their refusal is neither fair nor reasonable nor lawful. It is also not reasonable for the FOS to side with Erudio about the completion of a DAF being REQUIRED in order to defer; you are not upholding my consumer rights by doing so.


ESL bought the loan book but they are still bound by the original terms and conditions, these cannot be changed/amended by ESL and I am not signing up to any new terms with them as is my right. I could also have a fair expectation not to be hounded for money that I do not owe as the original loan terms allow me to defer payment whilst under the deferment threshold. ESL knew people could defer payment when they bought the loan book but seem to be on a campaign to make it as difficult/time consuming as possible to do this. Again one could argue this is simply not right and someone in authority should be standing up for the consumer. I will never use any DAF ESL produce as I am not legally obliged to. I do not understand why the FOS will not stand up for my rights under the CCA (Consumer Credit Act) in this matter.

As for the reporting to CRA’s issue. ESL have been in contact with the ICO (as have I) on this matter which rests upon ESL’s interpretation of clause 16 of the original loan agreement. Erudio considers (their word, not a very strict legal term or definitive statement of the law) that it does allow CRA reporting but they as yet have not registered one person’s loan with any CRA. I firmly believe they know clause 16 does not fully comply with the DPA and is simply a DCA scare tactic to get people to pay up for fear of credit rating ruin. It will also trigger a miss selling argument over the original loan terms exactly like the recent PPI scandal. You have a copy of my CRA/DPA arguments in this matter and they are too lengthy to repeat here.

As I have said before Erudio are up in court soon over these matters and I will be following the outcome closely before deciding on my own legal challenges. I have done nothing wrong or unlawful in using my own deferment form and evidence which makes the FOS decision about DAF completion perverse. All I ask for to be treated fairly and for the FOS to stand up to the bullying Debt Collection Agency ESL as they try to trample over my consumer rights.

Yours

ANY thoughts/ideas are most welcome

BorderReiver14

Beautiful Pluthero... Straight forward and well argued. The only point I would add is a couple of lines at the end saying something like...

To conclude I expect the FOS to resolve this matter by a) ....b) etc. Putting it bluntly in bullet points as to what you want so there can be no doubt. I only say this because if someone skim reads it they may still not get it and let's face it, as Fermi said earlier you may as well be hitting your head on a brick wall.
Good work though ☺

Pluthero

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Beautiful Pluthero... Straight forward and well argued. The only point I would add is a couple of lines at the end saying something like...

To conclude I expect the FOS to resolve this matter by a) ....b) etc. Putting it bluntly in bullet points as to what you want so there can be no doubt. I only say this because if someone skim reads it they may still not get it and let's face it, as Fermi said earlier you may as well be hitting your head on a brick wall.
Good work though ☺

Thanks. Will do that!

erudioed

Slightly off topic, but i recommend last nights dispatches about the privatisation of parking spaces. Capita make a guest appearance after purchasing a company called Parking Eye that has been singled out as a rotten egg for imposing excessive fees and an incentive scheme for employees to distribute as many parking tickets as possible (and they use many underhand tricks, and hide behind the term 'reasnoable behaviour'). In fact, it was hard to watch the programme without thinking Erudio and the privatisation of student loans. We should be ashamed at how quickly England has been allowed to go to the dogs...and without most people even knowing until they actually encounter one of the situations head on.