ERUDIO student loans help

gardenia101

cluelessfish wrote: »

slc have sent me an old style deferment form as normal. so those of us with split loans can worry less about having to deal with erudio. At least until they claim not to have been informed of our deferment and steal money from our accounts.

does the fact that some of us are getting the old daf strengthen the argument against erudios daf, even a revised one?

Can't help thinking it flies in the face of "being treated fairly" :rotfl:

anna2007

BaffledByErudio wrote: »

Today I received one of those '144th November' letters.

Can anyone who received one of these letters confirm whether they have less months until loan cancellation, than they do remaining repayments (if they were to start repaying)? Just curious to know if this relates to Erudio's illegal ploy to 'condense' the outstanding loan amount into the remaining months to cancellation, by increasing the repayment amount.

Strangely, I sent an email to Erudio, quoting the relevant part of the Regs, and asking them to confirm the date of my loan cancellation. The date of my email... 14 (not 144th!!) November 2014. I guess it's not impossible that Erudio really are so totally incompetent, that they don't bother to check the relevant parts of the Regs/loan agreement, before deciding how to go about things...

erudioed

BaffledByErudio wrote: »

I'm investing in a bulky pack of envelopes and looking into whether there are discount packages for Royal Mail guaranteed delivery services!

Don't hold your breath, Royal Mail has also been privatised in the blink of this governments eye. Based on their continual pricing increases since the sale by BIS, coupled with their new use of the cheapest delivery 'partners' abroad, i imagine local deliveries are also a rip off and pretty poor servicewise now. I would just keep your fingers crossed one arrives.

anna2007

Not sure if anyone has tried this route already, but the Government's Insolvency Service (an executive agency of BIS :rotfl:) has the power to investigate complaints "if you have reasonable grounds to suspect a currently active company of:

causing significant harm to customers, suppliers, etc

breaking the law, eg fraud

serious misconduct, eg company assets have not been used properly

having a significant irregularity in its affairs".

https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-a-limited-company

There's an online complaint form here:

https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/ExternalOnlineForms/CompanyComplaint.aspx

And also guidance on how the Insolvency Service go about Company investigations:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/385944/company-investigations-what-we-do.pdf

The opening blurb in the guidance states:

"Company Investigations has the power to investigate limited companies where information we receive suggests corporate abuse; this may include serious misconduct, fraud, scams or sharp practice in the way the company operates".

Probably as lacking in impartiality as BIS/FCA/FOS/ICO/ETC, but might be worth a try for anyone who's been on the receiving end of Erudio's sharp practice?

spacemanc

fermi wrote: »

If there is no expiring deferment period to take into account then you would be looking at the limitation period starting either:

- If a payment was due and then missed, and no payments or acknowledgement in writing were made after that then it would be the date of that missed payment.

or

- If payments or acknowledgement were made after that then the data of the last of those.

Sounds to me if is was already in arrears so cause of action already accrued, then it would simply be the 2nd of those.

Yeah I think I'll be in the second category and it's highly unlikely that they received payments or had contact with me after Feb 2008.

To check the dates etc, I think I'll have to make a SAR request.

I presume it will be better to do this with the SLC, but will they still have records, or have they all been transferred to Erudio?

fermi

Curiously, now seems the solicitor who was allegedly taking cases on and had a hearing has now removed all mention of Erudio and any case from his website.

BorderReiver14

Could it be to do with protecting the case?

fermi

Not for me to repeat the email I just received, but appears that is not the case. Looks like everyone will be having to do without a court decision on the DAF and that sort of issue for now.

erudioed

Looks like a non-disclosure agreement issue to me. As most of the these companies request if an agreement is made. That way no one knows whats going on and Arrow Global manage to make sure we, as a group, lack key information, and they plough on with mowing of the deferment field. Hopefully i am wrong, but its my first thought. All agreements should be public domain! Maybe we will be lucky enough to find out what is/has happened as it really does affect us all. All for one and one for all, and all that....

I guess this comes at a time when the new DAFs will be coming out as well. I rechecked the MSE page and the amended version by Erudio the other day. I really hope that the suggestions were heard because i had forgotten how bad it actually was...worse than the first one! As no one has seen the final version, we have no idea what info MSE passed on, what the interaction was, or if Arrow made any changes. I assume their was no passing it back to MSE to check the final version...certainly we werent shown it by MSE. Prepare for fireworks...

fermi

OK. No court case to help other fighting then, apart from knowing that Erudio caved in here to avoid testing it in court.