ERUDIO student loans help

spacemanc

fermi wrote: »

......
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.....

That's an interesting point, so is there any other record of the loan that they could put on my account? I guess their only other option is going for a CCJ?

Also what's my position regarding my offer of £0 repayment? Ironically I'm actually a student again right now, and due to these very same loans I'm ineligible for student support, so my total income is a £5500 student loan, which has to cover my living expenses and fees! Student Finance only made a final descion on this 3 months into my course, so even if I dropped out I'd still have the same expenses. This means that I'm unbelievably skint, so my offer if £0 is generous! Would I have been better making a token offer of £1 a month, or would it make no difference?

fermi

Yes, the only other way it could appear on your credit report is if they get a CCJ that you then fail to pay within one calendar month of a court judgment being awarded.


Also see: https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/sampleletters/sole-letters/Pages/Token-payments-or-no-offer-of-payment-%28sole-names%29.aspx

and

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/28%20EW%20Review%20pack%20for%20people%20with%20no%20available%20income/Default.aspx

dizzybuff

Honestly why do I bother ,


Just received the Ombasmans final decision and the adjudicator has put the complaint through incorrectly .


She has put it through as such


It was wrong to refuse her application to defer her loan repayments. - I didn't say this I stated it had been miscalculated

It made a mistake when it did not follow her instructions about setting up her direct debt. (sp) I stated it had set it up then cancelled it again causing me to get in arrears.


 And it has provided poor customer service. - the only thing she got right.


Below are snippets


Mrs A says Erudio has miscalculated her income. It is not this services’ role to perform
calculations such as are required in this case. However, we can insist that the businesses
which fall within our jurisdiction demonstrate that their calculations are correct. So we asked Erudio to tell us what income it had taken into account and on what basis.
It sent us the relevant guidance. Looking at this it appears it has followed the approach it is meant to follow in assessing her income. I can well understand though why Mrs A is so
upset. Especially about the part of her income that is earmarked for the maintenance of her dependants. Naturally it seems she considers this is not “her” money as such – to spend as she chooses - but money solely for them. But unfair as this may seem to Mrs A, the information I have seen suggests Erudio is entitled to bring this money into its assessment of
her income.- ahhhhhhhh I was bothered about this I was more concerned about the fact they had added an extra 243 quid a month that I don't earn to the calculation.....


Mrs A has not received appropriate customer service and she should receive an award for this Mrs A says when she spoke to Erudio one of its operatives spoke to her like she was a “3 year old”. Erudio has not said this was not so. Further, it clearly accepts that it has given her contradictory information in two letters regarding her monthly payment. It says as a result it“failed to deliver the level of customer service [Mrs A] should expect from [it]”.
I consider in the circumstances that Mrs A is likely to have experienced distress and inconvenience. I consider that £150 is a fair award for this.

I actually didn't ask for an award I only asked for my arrears to be added back onto my account , this has not been upheld.

Im wondering why I have bothered. The adjudicator didn't put the complaint through correctly . Im !!!!ed off to say the least.

I feel I have the only option to accept it and start paying even though I only earn 18k per year and my benefits take me over the threshold. Im actually in tears because of this.

fermi

If me I would be thinking of making a formal complaint about your adjudicator themselves.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/answers/complaints_a12.html

Sounds as if they are not competent for the job

dizzybuff

Can I complain about how shes handled it and then make a decision. just feel in a rut.


The adjudicator hasn't even mentioned that they added a deduction.

fermi

Can't see why not. If she's not handing it on the correct basis to start off with then any decision would be meaningless.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/our-service-standards.htm

dizzybuff

just read my emails , the point of the additional 243 was emailed to her and she put this to erudio , yet all they stated was they followed procedure. I will raise the complaint tonight as this should have been included in the ombasmans information.


Ive emailed the adjudicator and asked that everything was included as I think shes been selective and missed the main sodding point out, although I feel if erudio don't calculate the income correctly how can they be correct.


Ill sort it out tomorrow or over the weekend as im so mad at her and I will wait to see if she replys to my email.


does anyone have any idea how erudio demand arrears after it hasn't been upheld.

eroneo

@Pluthero

One point to mention: the DAF requires you sign the FPN at the back agreeing to share data with CRAs. You are being refused deferment unless you sign away your privacy rights. You do not have to agree to that.

Ask the FOS if they think you are obliged to do something that would reduce your rights and increase theirs?

Pluthero

eroneo wrote: »

@Pluthero

One point to mention: the DAF requires you sign the FPN at the back agreeing to share data with CRAs. You are being refused deferment unless you sign away your privacy rights. You do not have to agree to that.

Ask the FOS if they think you are obliged to do something that would reduce your rights and increase theirs?

I covered this by saying I am not signing up to new terms:

[FONT=&quot]'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 appear to be on a campaign to make this as difficult/time consuming as possible. I am not surprised at this as they are backed by Arrow Global and CarVal Investors: debt collection specialists with a monetary interest in turning legitimate deferrers into debtors. One could argue this is simply not right and someone in authority should be standing up for the honest consumer. I will never use any DAF ESL produce as I am not legally obliged to.'



I fully expect the FOS NOT to side with me over the DAF issue. I just hope it costs Erudio time and money to deal with my complaints.

End of the day I don't have to agree with the FOS findings[/FONT].

This process will run into my next deferment in MAY and Erudio are getting the same evidence new DAF or not.

This whole student loan sell off is history repeating itself if you look at the Honours student loan sell off from years ago: here is their website with the good old Wilmington Trust running things.

http://www.honoursstudentloans.co.uk/Application/Home/Default.aspx

Yes they will threaten and frustrate you, threaten court with and ruination. BUT they will never take you to court for not using their DAF as they will lose. They are making enough money from people paying up when they don't have too. Lets face it how many people have probably lost the rag with these cretins with their shi*ty customer service and prove your income demands? They must be making a mint!

AND the kicker is: whats the worst they can do? RUIN my credit rating? They are threatening to do that anyway. :rotfl:

anna2007

@ Pluthero Nice one with your FOS response

Was thinking it might be worth highlighting that those of us on the pre-98 agreements are disadvantaged, simply because the disclosure clause was updated in 1998 to be DPA compliant? The FOS adjudicator even stated this in their response to you, but seem to have missed (or ignored) the fact that the post-98 clause is more favourable, i.e. loans will only be reported to CRA's if the borrower defaults.

You could also mention that Erudio customers are being treated inconsistently, as other customers whose loans are with HSL and Thesis (and even other Erudio customers whose loans are split) continue to use the SLC's DAF, which is far less intrusive/only asks for info on income/doesn't attempt to impose new terms. The SLC's DAF was also the standard for over 20 years, and worked without issue - you could give FOS a copy for comparison, if you haven't done it already.

It doesn't seem very fair or reasonable to me, that we're being treated inconsistently, simply because our loans are held by Erudio?