ERUDIO student loans help

Mr_McGuffin

Check out this BIS response to a series of penetrating questions in a FOI request:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/erudio_student_loans_12

Part I relates to the interaction between BIS and Erudio, particularly around the preparation and approval of the 'DAF'

The specific points in the question are not answered and the information requested is not given. BIS states that it 'will routinely engage with the MS loan owners' future tense, but does not answer how this engagement has operated in relation to our loans past, and continues to do so present, to ensure that the 'various documents... comply with requirements of student loans legislation.'

BIS reiterates its reassurances that 'the terms of the loans are not affected by changes to the DAF' but does not answer question (v) 'Does BIS deem it acceptable for any DAF to impose new terms on the borrower?' BIS does nothing to clarify whether the DAF sets up new terms additional to those of the loans and whether BIS considers this acceptable.

BIS states that it 'will routinely engage' with the profit-seeking 'MS loan owners', but of course operates no corresponding mechanism to 'engage' with those now trapped by the exploitation of this public sector scheme for private profit. As far as I can see the only purpose these distorted Erudio DAFs are 'fit for' is to obtain the greatest possible profit for the private owners of the loans. This is achieved by obtaining repayment from as many of those legitimately entitled to defer as possible, entirely to the cost of the borrowers and with the collusion of civil servants employed at public expense.

Has any affected graduate managed to 'engage' with BIS to 'ensure' that the 'various documents' are 'fit for' the legitimate purpose of deferment of their loans?

BIS has an opportunity in Question 2 to clarify the terms in the Certificate and Warranty, for the benefit of the understanding of those affected, to 'ensure' this document 'is factually correct and accurately represents the position in respect of borrowers' legal obligations and the creditor's legal rights.' It conspicuously does not do so.

BIS quotes the Disclosure of Information clause of the post-1998 terms and conditions. This relates to the processing of information held, but does nothing to oblige or compel the borrower to disclose any additional information, and obviously differs from the pre-1998 agreements.

Perhaps BIS is suggesting that it considers loan owners may give confidential information to any other parties on the grounds of 'fraud prevention purposes'? Yet the provision for deferment on the basis of self-certification is structural to the loans. The written answer from the then Minister Robert Jackson explicitly confirms this and the terms for deferment were subsequently defined in a statutory instrument.

This Disclosure of Information clause deals only with information held and does not appear to relate in any way to rights to obtain information from third parties in relation to a request for deferment, or for any other purpose. To give is not the same as to receive. There is nothing in this clause to 'authorise the organisation or persons from whom my income is derived to give Erudio Student Loans such confirmation or information about that income as Erudio Student Loans may reasonably request.'

Is BIS suggesting that authorisation is given by agreement to 'process the information we hold about you... in any other way'? This contains no permission to obtain additional information from third parties, and no such wording appears in the pre-1998 agreements.

What does the sentence 'which all borrowers sign when undertaking a loan details which documents how their personal data will be processed' mean? Does it mean this was written in a hurry? Or that BIS does not want to give a clear and unambiguous answer?

BIS also refuses to release the details of elected MPs who have contacted it with concerns about Erudio, claiming an absolute exemption to which no public interest test applies. It states that to release this information would breach a data protection principle. Is this a normal response to requests for information about contact between elected representatives and a government department?

Jonez

"What does the sentence 'which all borrowers sign when undertaking a loan details which documents how their personal data will be processed' mean? Does it mean this was written in a hurry? Or that BIS does not want to give a clear and unambiguous answer?"

That reads like something Erudio themselves would have composed.....

Brooker_Dave

BIS does not care about us.

They're just in it for their own benefit.

They'd sell us all in to slavery if they got a quick profit from doing so.

erudioed

Hopefully all this clear scumbaggery, backwatching, purposeful lack of clarity will lead 200,000 odd people to vote for a party or candidate in the general erection who does not wittingly/unwittingly back these neo-liberal policies, that have not only risen up and bit us on the badoongers, but virtually been the driving ideology behind every conflict in the last 40-odd years, possibly much longer. That would rule out The Conservatives, Labour and The Liberal Democretins...
Nice work as well Mr Mcguffin. I was actually thinking the same when i read it, it gave BIS the perfect opportunity to clarify certain issues but they clearly chose not to. They did sell the loans though, so i dont really expect much from them. As far as i am concerned, via all these non-responses, BIS is just hanging itself for when either a) government changes in a meaningful way and the new government wants an example of how bad the last clowns were or b) some financial regulator or journalist decides to grow a pair and undertake some good old fashioned research and reveal what BIS has actually done, who (including the business structures of those parties) they actually sold the loans too and why all future students need to strongly consider about whether going to university is actually a good idea because the rest of their lives will be spent sending all their financial information to such companies and being forced to interact with them just like we are. Is that really the noose a future student needs hanging over their head, in their case, probably for the rest of their life?

erudioed

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

They'd sell us all in to slavery if they got a quick profit from doing so.

That many people struggle to pay for a roof, bills and fodder when they have a full-time job, you could argue they already have for those on the bottom rung!

Brooker_Dave

erudioed wrote: »

That many people struggle to pay for a roof, bills and fodder when they have a full-time job, you could argue they already have for those on the bottom rung!

“The creatures outside looked from Erudio to BIS, and from BIS to Eurdio, and from Erudio to BIS again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

ericctheking

The worst thing is it is that Erudio is owned and run by Americans.
Dave Willets is a traitor to his own people!

Brooker_Dave

ericctheking wrote: »

The worst thing is it is that Erudio is owned and run by Americans.
Dave Willets is a traitor to his own people!

But he's rich, so why should he care about the people he's supposed to be representing?

From the companies house info, Erudio appears to be some sort of charitable trust (cough) with 1 employee (Mark Filer (from leafy) Kingswood KT20 6PR) and which sends the funds it recieves to organisations in Delaware and Guernsey both listed as tax havens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_haven?

Can anyone clarify?

Mr_McGuffin

As Erudio is apparently a 'special purpose vehicle', here is a helpful guide by Mark Filer to SPVs and their role in securitisation:

http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/repositories/wtc_sitecontent/PDF/lib-WP-spvManagement.pdf

As I understand it, the use of a trustee of a 'charitable trust' is the usual mechanism by which SPVs ensure the separation of the vehicle and manage the appearance of accounts.

This examines the current situation for regulation of SPVs by the FCA:

http://www.cadwalader.com/resources/clients-friends-memos/finally-certainty-about-licensing-spvs-under-the-fca-consumer-credit-regime?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original#.VNcmn9kgGc0


It looks like a Michael Poulton of Herbert Smith Freehills advised BIS on the 'securitisation' aspects of the sale:

http://www.legal500.com/firms/1561/offices/236#LocalReferenceWorkArea934

http://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/people/michael-poulton.

Perhaps the large piece of work for Goldman Sachs on his cv is this? http://www.zerohedge.com/article/titlos-llc-special-purpose-vehicle-downgrade-catalyst-trigger-which-will-destroy-greece?page=1

Herbert Smith Freehills gave legal advice to BIS on the sale to Erudio, and PricewaterhouseCoopers ran the sale. ('Parties interested in purchasing the loan book should contact PwC at [EMAIL="projectariel@uk.pwc.com"]projectariel@uk.pwc.com[/EMAIL]')


Back in 1989 and 1990 Price Waterhouse was central to planning and setting up this loan scheme and indeed the SLC itself, and actually ran the SLC at the start until staff were recruited. The Price Waterhouse report characterised in Parliament as the 'operating manual' for this loan scheme was produced in just three weeks in 1989. The involvement of Price Waterhouse in the establishment of the scheme and the SLC are described in this National Audit Office Report:

1992/93 HC 371, The administration of student loans, 11th January 1993


I believe these are just a few topical Price Waterhouse or PwC alumni. Do correct me if I am wrong:

Tom Drury, CEO Arrow Global
Mark Filer, Wilmington Trust, Director Erudio Student Loans Limited
Michael Harrison, Executive director, Shareholder Executive ('We are not doing anything particularly unusual in these circumstances' )
Amyas Morse, Comptroller of the NAO
Margaret Hodge, Labour Chair of the Public Accounts Committee
David Wallace, SLC Deputy Chief Executive


Does anyone know of any comment or criticism from the Labour Shadow BIS Secretary Chuka Umunna concerning Erudio and this loan sale? I am not aware of anything whatsoever. He certainly did not support this motion against the sale of student loans:

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/542

Coincidentally, Chuka Umunna trained as a solicitor at Herbert Smith. Apparently he has also received considerable support from PricewaterhouseCoopers:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/12/pricewaterhousecoopers-tax-structures-politics-influence
http://www.swlondoner.co.uk/streatham-mp-chuka-umunna-pockets-100000-research-funding-pricewaterhousecoopers/

Mr_McGuffin

House of Commons Library
Deposited papers

DEP 5118
Hardcopy only

12-07-1989 Commons
Department of Education and Science, Price Waterhouse

Top-up student loan scheme feasibility study report
Price Waterhouse. 1989.

Corporate Author: Department of Education and Science, Price Waterhouse


Dep 5411
Hardcopy only

22-11-1989 Commons
Department of Education and Science, Price Waterhouse

Student Loans Company: report on stage 2. Price Waterhouse. Nov. 1989.
With 'Student loans scheme memorandum of understanding'. DES. 1989.

Corporate Author: Department of Education and Science, Price Waterhouse