ERUDIO student loans help

dizzybuff

Hi jonez, the fos seems to think they have done all they can, ie give me a standing order account to be able to pay. But good advise I'm on it.

Jonez

dizzybuff - I'm sure that this has already occurred to you - would the refusal to alter something as simple as the call date for a DD constitute an unfair relationship? i.e. they can refuse the request, despite the fact that it creates a problem for you with overdrafts etc., but you have no rights in the matter. Aren't there quite specific rules on this governed by the FCA? I may be talking ballcocks - just a thought.

StressedHubby

Does anyone know for sure which Student Loans Act to quote in applying for deferment?

I've received a final response from Erudio that, true to form arrived late (13 weeks!!) and contained nothing of any use but did quote the 1997 Student Loans Act.

My loans were taken out in 1997 and 1998.

I am throughly confused by Erudio and have no idea which set of regulations they should be following in looking at my deferment!

In other news, I received a phone call form Erudio demanding payment this week and when I asked them to provide me with proof that they were legally entitled to see my Tax Return I was told that I had to supply it if I wanted to be deferred..... Why do they seem unable to supply proof when asked? Is it because they are on a constant fishing trip for our personal information?? They also informed me that some of the paperwork I supplied back in May 2014 for my deferment was incorrect.... but have yet to tell me that in writing so I think I will treat that as a big, steaming pile of..... well, you get the idea!

Jonez

The 1998 Act. The 1997 version was rendered obsolete by the enactment of the 1998 legislation. 13 weeks late? Even by their standards, that's Olympic standard p*ss taking!

fermi

The correct regulations are the 1998 ones.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/211/made

Which state:

The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1997(2) and the Education (Student Loans) (Amendment) Regulations 1997(3) are hereby revoked.

So any quoting of the 1997 ones by Erudio is out of order as they are no longer legally in force.

Which regulations apply is such a fundamental thing, and so key to deferment, that I can't see how even the fools at Erudio could plausibly plead that it is a mistake.

Which leaves the conclusion that it is an intentional deliberate attempt to mislead, which should be reported to the FCA as such.

http://www.fca.org.uk/site-info/contact

fermi

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.

fermi

Note, not if Erudio are kind enough to let you.

Not at their discretion.

They are not doing you a favour by deferring.

Deferment is a right if you meet the conditions.

anna2007

eroneo wrote: »

Each bank has it's own way of deciding on what they will lend you. The information on your credit file is used in that decision. The more debt you have, they less they will lend. What you need is evidence that the student debt would reduce your borrowing potential all things being equal. If there was some way you could ask a lender to confirm that a student debt would reduce what they would lend you then that evidence would contradict the opinion of the FOS.

Any FOS adjudicator with half a brain should know that an increase in outstanding debt recorded on someone’s credit file will have an impact on how lenders assess their creditworthiness, and therefore affect how much credit that person can get when applying in the future, particularly important for mortgage applications. For example (and this from Google, which I’m sure all FOS adjudicators have access to):

“Lenders take into account the amount of outstanding debt you have, and the monthly payments you make, when assessing whether you can afford the new mortgage”.

http://moneyfacts.co.uk/guides/mortgages/improve-your-chances-of-getting-accepted-for-a-mortgage/

”When lenders work out your credit score, they take into account the amount you owe. So, if you have savings, use them to pay off any outstanding debts”.

https://www.confused.com/credit-cards/guides/how-credit-cards-can-affect-your-mortgage-application

”When deciding whether or not you can afford a new mortgage, lenders assess how much outstanding debt you already have”.

https://www.lovemoney.com/guides/11764/why-mortgage-lenders-turn-you-down

”You will help your chances of getting a decent mortgage by paying off as much debt as possible before making a mortgage application”.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/nov/21/19000-debt-stop-us-getting-mortgage

Having said all of that, I did read that student loan debt now has to be factored in by mortgage lenders when assessing affordability, as a result of the FCA’s ‘Mortgage Market Review’ in 2012. So even if our student loans weren’t recorded on our credit files, lenders would still have to take any outstanding student loan debt into account when assessing a mortgage application. I guess this means that the issue here’s not really about how the extra debt on the credit file might impact on future borrowing (as the student loans would have to be factored in anyway), and more about how Erudio intend to report it - as a “temporary payment holiday”, and whether that’s seen in a negative way.

So is a "payment holiday" seen as a big no-no by lenders? Well, the FOS adjudicator could have checked the view of his/her own boss, because even FOS acknowledges this as a way of helping consumers who are having problems meeting mortgage repayments, and say steps lenders can take to help and “treat customers fairly” include:

”allowing a "payment holiday" to tide the consumer over a short-term problem”.

We don't have a "short-term" problem" - we're exercising our legal right to defer repayments, which means we're not obligated to make any repayments!

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/mortgages-arrears-and-hardship.html

Experian say:

”If you are struggling to make existing repayments, ask whether your lenders can help you to work out a schedule of repayments you can afford or arrange a temporary payment holiday”.

http://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/credit-education/refused-credit.html

The Government's Money Advice Service say:

“Even where your lender agrees this temporary solution, your credit file will be affected - this in turn could affect your ability to get credit in the future".

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/mortgage-payment-holidays

What does it take for FOS to admit/realise that what’s being proposed by Erudio is going to !!!! up our credit records??? :wall:

Mr_McGuffin

The ICO provides a link on its website to guidance on 'payment holidays' in the document Principles for the Reporting of Arrears, Arrangements and Defaults at Credit Reference Agencies. http://www.scoronline.co.uk/files/scor/high_level_prinicples_document_final.pdf

The ICO describes this as:

'Guidance for lenders and others who provide credit about when and how to file information about defaults with the credit reference agencies to ensure credit reference agencies are able to hold fair and accurate records about the financial standing of those individuals'

The foreword by the ICO says:

'We thought it best for this 'principles' document to become the main source of advice for the public on the reporting of arrears, arrangements and defaults with the credit reference agencies (CRAs).

A record lodged with a CRA must be a reliable reflection of an individual's credit standing. The Data Protection Act 1998 is likely to have been breached where, for example, inaccurate, out of date or excessive personal data is being used to assess your credit-worthiness.'

This document 'drawn up by the credit industry in collaboration with the ICO',describes a 'payment holiday' as 'a temporary change in terms':

'Should a temporary reduction in the payment amount be jointly agreed between you and your lender, this 'arrangement' will be recorded at the CRAs.

This may also occur if there is a temporary change in terms (that is not part of the product) such as a payment holiday or change to interest only.'

Deferment is an integral provision in the terms of the loans. There were no means tests or checks of credit worthiness when these loans were made. The sole qualification was to be a student on an undergraduate degree course. It is misleading to describe and record deferment as a 'payment holiday' with CRAs. The ICO states that it would consider 'the Data Protection Act 1998 is likely to have been breached' if 'inaccurate' personal data is used to assess credit worthiness.

How can it not then be 'inaccurate' to report deferment to CRAs in this way, where it will be used to assess credit-worthiness? Erudio is threatening borrowers seeking deferment with action that, from the publically available guidance of the ICO, appears certain to result in the deliberate recording of inaccurate information. Yet the ICO appears to consider that in this instance it is fine and correct, and the FOS agrees.

Brooker_Dave

The only way to deal with Eurdio is through the courts.

They are a debt collector working out of a tax haven masquerading as a charity with 1 employee.

All borrowers have to do is behave in a reasonable manner, keep up with what's in the loan agreement and stick with doing things as they have been done for the last 20 years or so.

Complaints to the sort touch regulators are a waste of time.