ERUDIO student loans help

gardenia101

And I won't be getting any clarifications from FOS for some time as my adjudicator is going on holiday for almost 3 weeks. Will post updates when I get more answers.

Thankfully my deadline to accept/escalate my complaint of this week will be extended as expected - I'll find out by how long when shes gets back. Gives me a few more weeks to not hear from Erudio, & for them to not supply the large print documents that shes asked them to send to both of us

When will it end? I'm hoping by 50, but Erudio have ignored my request to confirm the date my loans will be wiped off (assuming I'll still be deferred at 50, which is very likely). Have they replied? :rotfl:

fermi

Link in the article has been sorted now, so should point here

erudioed

gardenia101: Tell everyone you know to contact the author. The more the merrier.
They even told MSE they thought the 1997 regs apply in their response. Its such a catastrophic gaff, i had to pull my trousers up, they fell down i was laughing so hard. It took BIS to once again set things straight. All the lawyers, all the cash and they cant get the basics right...that sounds about right as most of us already know. I wonder if Erudio quoted these regs in complaint replies that got appealed to the ombudsman, with the ombudsman not picking out the error.

gardenia101

fermi wrote: »

Link in the article has been sorted now, so should point here

You're right - darn, you're good :beer:
Glad it wasn't just me

gardenia101

erudioed wrote: »

gardenia101: Tell everyone you know to contact the author. The more the merrier.
They even told MSE they thought the 1997 regs apply in their response. Its such a catastrophic gaff, i had to pull my trousers up, they fell down i was laughing so hard. It took BIS to once again set things straight. All the lawyers, all the cash and they cant get the basics right...that sounds about right as most of us already know. I wonder if Erudio quoted these regs in complaint replies that got appealed to the ombudsman, with the ombudsman not picking out the error.

That was one of the points I wanted to clarify with my FOS adjudicator - from what she'd said I got the impression she was reading a different final response letter from Erudio than I was. Will have to wait & see what she says next month.

It was another poster on here who said they'd had a letter where Erudio had quoted the wrong regs - will look for that post.

fermi

evilsheep and BorderReiver14 on this thread are 2 more with those letters I think?

gardenia101

fermi wrote: »

evilsheep and BorderReiver14 on this thread are 2 more with those letters I think?

Found Evilsheep's post (#3366) so that's a yes. Fermi, you're too quick for me :rotfl:

Mr_McGuffin

Yes, certainly, me too. Erudio quoted the revoked 1997 regulations in its final response to my complaints.

I think the point about this is not to do with quoting the 1997 deferment threshold. The revoked regulations are cited as a response to objections to its deferment application form, not as notice of the deferment threshold.

It is ridiculous to suggest this is an error, and the purpose for the quotation of these regulations over those from 1998 is obvious.

It better suits the purpose of Erudio to quote the 1997 line 'satisfies the loans administrator' in relation to deferment than the correct 1998 definition 'he can show.'

This has been gone through in some detail on here, by myself included. I have posted all this before, but a starting point to understand what the the Labour government did with these loans in 1997-98 is the Explanatory Note to the 1998 Regulations and the 1997 explanations and proposals from Stephen Byers and Kim Howells here:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/jul/21/education-student-loans-bill

Anyone reading this today will notice that the proposed 'freezing' 'without change' in practice involved changes to the previous drafting of the deferment terms.

The 1998 regulations were intended to define the terms of all preceding loan agreements prior to sale to the private sector, and as I understand it to do so in accordance with the original intentions and parliamentary approval for the loans.

Copies of the original proposals for the loan scheme as presented to Parliament are in the House of Commons Library here:

Dep 5749
Hardcopy only
28-02-1990
Commons Department of Education and Science
Top-up loans: rules & procedures.
DES. 1990.
Corporate Author: Department of Education and Science

DEP 5849
Hardcopy only
28-03-1990
Commons Department of Education and Science
Top-up loans: rules and procedures.
DES. 1990.
Corporate Author: Department of Education and Science

It is a simple 8 page document and makes clear how these loans were originally conceived.

The mechanism proposed for 'verification' of income for deferment was not adopted when the regulations were made later in the year. This is the context for the confirmation in the 19 June 1990 written answer by Robert Jackson:

'The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks.'

There is a question to BIS about this in a recent FOI request that I recommend reading:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...udent_loans_12

The answer does not seem conclusive and satisfactory to me.

Mr_McGuffin

A different point, but as I understand it the Education (Student Loans) Act 1998 and Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998 were themselves immediately repealed by the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998.

A lawyer would have to interpret this correctly for sure, but as I understand it this Act then provided for the making of 'transitional arrangements' in relation to the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. This appears to me to be the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions) Order 1998.

Transitional and saving provisions
3.

—(1) The repeals of the 1990, 1996 and 1998 Acts shall not affect the continued operation of the provisions of those Acts or of any subordinate legislation made or to be made under them with respect to, or otherwise in connection with:

(a) loans made under the 1990 Act before the coming into force of the repeals of those Acts;

(b) the making of loans to any student who attends any course referred to in article 4; or

(c) loans made to any such student.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the repeals of the 1990, 1996 and 1998 Acts shall not affect the continued operation of any such provisions relating to any of the following functions:

(a) the making of subordinate legislation;

(b) the assignment of public sector loans under section 1A of the 1990 Act;

(c) the making of arrangements (including arrangements which provide for the making of payments of any specified description)

in connection with such an assignment.

Do correct me if anyone understands this to be mistaken.

Is it certain that section 42 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 cannot apply to these loans?:

(6) Any order or regulations under this Act may make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas and may contain such incidental, supplemental, saving or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(8) Nothing in this Act shall be read as affecting the generality of subsection (6).

anna2007

We contacted Erudio, which looks after 250,000 student loans taken out between 1990 and 1998, and it told us that depending on the year students took out their loans, they would be subject to different Government regulations from either 1997 or 1998

This looks like very like Erudio trying to worm their way out of a tricky spot, created by their own deceit.

My loans were taken out between 1990 and 1993, so you don't get any more pre-98 than that. In a letter to me dated 24 November 2014, which confirmed the date my loans are due to be cancelled, they quote from the 1998 Regulations, as they mention (twice) that the loans will only be cancelled if there are no arrears on the account. Only the 1998 regs specifically refer to arrears. Both the 1997 regs and the pre-98 agreement say loans will only be cancelled if the borrower's "not in breach of any obligation in relation to any loan".

These misquotes in relation to deferment were made since that letter (and long before it too). I know the letter's on a different issue, but I find it hard to believe that Erudio got it wrong - they knew exactly what they were doing in trying to deceive people over the deferment requirements.