ERUDIO student loans help

zombi

Thanks Fermi

anna2007

fermi wrote: »

Complete and utter dribble from whoever you spoke to at SLC.

That is scandalous. :eek:

I suppose SLC aren't under any obligation to help us, their contract's with the other loan holders now.

But a little bit of common sense under the circumstances wouldn't go amiss - SLC are creating more work and hassle for all involved, as well as royally !!!!ing off the customer.

The scandal is that it's taxpayers' money paying for the extra staff time in dealing with zombi's (and everyone else's) complaint, when some jobsworth could have just popped a form in the post!

Pluthero

From that MSE news story:

'Separately, on the issue of credit checking customers as part of the deferment process, Erudio says it has also changed its practices so that if it chooses to check someone's credit file – which it says it has not done to date – this will now be done via a 'soft' search, meaning other lenders can't view this and it will have no impact on people's credit scores.



In certain circumstances Erudio will also report details of the loans to credit reference agencies, which is explained in the how to guide. It says this has always been in the terms and conditions of the loan. MoneySavingExpert.com is checking this with the SLC and will update you on this here..

Well Someone called Erudio checked my credit file back in May 2014? So thats a big fat LIE!

Also interested to hear what the SLC say about the CRA reporting!

Moneyer

Anyone know if Erudio are actually taking care to treat 1998 loans, which have different T&Cs that don't permit any data sharing unless in arrears, differently? Given that only my wife's 1998 loan is with Erudio, it has never been in arrears, and she hasn't signed anything to permit data sharing, should she check her Experian file to make sure they haven't recorded anything?

fermi

At the moment I'm not aware of anyone who has had account data on deferred loans reported by Erudio, on either type.

(Someone is bound to pop up now :rotfl:)

However, given how mind numbingly incompetent Erudio seem to be, I would not like to rule anything out, so perhaps best to check for your own peace of mind even though it seems unlikely.

erudioed

And in the new DAF guide for the new DAF, Arrow has changed the language from 'might' to 'will' report pre-98 loan deferers to CRAs, so now could be the time they try it. I guess it may also depend on the new writing around the signature area on the DAF that had all that CRA info in the 1st DAF. But we havent been shown that yet, so i guess we will have to wait until we get the new forms because that area isnt shown in the new DAF guide on Erudio's site. That was the area as well i think that made so many not want to sign the 1st form. My guess, this year, more people will not want to sign that area because they will have added more suggestive, vague and passively threatening language. Hopefully i will be pleasantly surprised but im not holding my breath!

Jonez

Pluthero wrote: »

From that MSE news story:

'Separately, on the issue of credit checking customers as part of the deferment process, Erudio says it has also changed its practices so that if it chooses to check someone's credit file – which it says it has not done to date – this will now be done via a 'soft' search, meaning other lenders can't view this and it will have no impact on people's credit scores.



In certain circumstances Erudio will also report details of the loans to credit reference agencies, which is explained in the how to guide. It says this has always been in the terms and conditions of the loan. MoneySavingExpert.com is checking this with the SLC and will update you on this here..

Well Someone called Erudio checked my credit file back in May 2014? So thats a big fat LIE!

Also interested to hear what the SLC say about the CRA reporting!

Yep - they checked mine too - so that's a load of bo**cks! These people really do have carte blanche to do what the f**k they like - safe in the knowledge that the 'soft touch' regulation and their friends in government will ensure that they can get away with it.

Pluthero

Jonez wrote: »

Yep - they checked mine too - so that's a load of bo**cks! These people really do have carte blanche to do what the f**k they like - safe in the knowledge that the 'soft touch' regulation and their friends in government will ensure that they can get away with it.

No they don't have carte blanche. But will send you many a threatening letter about all sorts of dire consequences. They have no more rights than the SLC ever did. As their backing down over recent court/legal threats have proven. They are a DCA plain and simple. If you think they give a sh*t about deferment you are deluded.

Give them the exact same info as you give the SLC and then let them threaten all they want: they will not take you to court, cost too much and they would lose. Just keep a record of your honest actions and ride it out till your loans are written off.

Jonez

Yes Pluthero - I know that they don't actually have carte blanche - I was expressing my frustration at what appears to be the reality of the situation. And I am not deluded in my understanding of their attitude to deferment - they wilfully choose to ignore the differences between deferred debt and defaulted debt - which is exactly why they should never have been allowed to acquire these loans in the first place.

spacemanc

The whole use of credit reference agencies needs to be investigated by the government. It's even more sickening that we have to pay to see our own files.

I'm in dispute with a water company who marked my file with a search very soon after I received my bill. Their argument is that their bills are due immediately, so technically they can do a table 1 debt collection search (visible as such to other lenders for 2 years) before you've even received the bill. In my case it was less than a month after receiving the bill. Even worse, this is without any signed agreements and you're forced to use your local water company so you have no choice. It's all within the rules.

After checking my credit files 12 months ago (don't rely on noddle - check Experian and Equifax), my current compensation received for various errors from several companies is over £300 and once 3 other disputes are satisfied it will probably stand at around £800. But I'm not seeking money - I just want to be treated fairly.

The issues above have cause me all sorts of problems and I think it's pretty scandalous that they can do it. If you want to take companies to court for the defamation which they inflict on us through dodgy information with CRAs, then you have to prove to the court, direct quantifiable damage which is very difficult to do. So these companies know they can make 'mistakes' and it's very unlikely to cost them more than a token compensation payment.