ERUDIO student loans help

Brooker_Dave

So as a pre 98 person, "not in breach of any obligation in relation to any loan" is what I need to care about?

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

So as a pre 98 person, "not in breach of any obligation in relation to any loan" is what I need to care about?

No, because that's from the 1997 regs, which were repealed by the 1998 regs (and which refer only to arrears).

Sorry for confusion, the point I was trying to make is that Erudio knew in that letter to me that the 1998 regs applied to my pre-98 loans. They didn't try to quote from the 1997 regs (even though the wording's more favourable to them), possibly because I had quoted from the 1998 regs in lots of correspondence with them.

So the excuses given by Erudio in the MSE article are a crock of !!!!.

StressedHubby

I was quoted the 1997 regulations by Erudio in their final response (which took them 13 weeks to write). My case is now with the FOS as I've had enough of being lied to and treated badly. I've no idea how long the FOS take to look into a complaint but as long as it's quicker than 13 weeks I'm not bothered!!

fermi

The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1997 (Revoked)

[STRIKE]

Deferment

11.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this regulation, a borrower who has not been required to make an immediate repayment of the outstanding amount of his loan under regulation 9(b) shall be entitled to defer making repayments of that loan if he satisfies the loans administrator—

(a) that his gross income for the month preceding the month in which he applies for deferment does not exceed the product of £1,316 and the annual adjustment, and

(b) if the loans administrator so requires, that his gross average monthly income during the three months immediately following the month first referred to in sub-paragraph (a) will not or is unlikely to exceed that amount.

[/STRIKE]


and in contrast the ones that actually apply in law now.

The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998

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.

erudioed

Just a quick one. But i strongly recommend contacting people like Simon Read and Paul Lewis again if you have been quoted the wrong regulations. I have given them a heads up, so the more people who express their outrage, the more coverage it will hopefully get. If Arrow cant even quote the correct regulations, and now their reply to the MSE author admitting it, this lack of confidence/concern needs to be spread as wide as possible.

Additionally, i dont know about anyone else, but i am only 6/7 weeks away from deferment and my new forms havent arrived yet. I was told some were sent out on saturday...

fermi

Anyone who has copies of letters making thses false claims about which regulations apply, if you are willing can you forward copies to MSE?

fermi

From Paloma earlier.

Read the full story:

Received a letter from Erudio quoting outdated regulations? Let us know

Pluthero

StressedHubby wrote: »

I was quoted the 1997 regulations by Erudio in their final response (which took them 13 weeks to write). My case is now with the FOS as I've had enough of being lied to and treated badly. I've no idea how long the FOS take to look into a complaint but as long as it's quicker than 13 weeks I'm not bothered!!

FOS take months to reach a decision. They think its okay for us to be messed around by Erudio, they may concede erudio did/do 'some things wrong/badly' and offer you £75 quid if you are lucky. The FOS will not rule against the requirement to sign a DAF (SO FAR ANYWAY, my complaint has went to an actual Ombudsman and could take another 6 months - I hope he has a brain) or the CRA reporting issue.

But keep complaining. This fight ain't over by a long damn way.

Pluthero

Erudio's response to my complaints last August:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5i5dw3vqn99ry6b/erudio%20redacted%201.jpg?dl=0

and

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zy5fyg56mfrgr49/erudio%20redacted%202.jpg?dl=0

Bang to rights. Mentions the 1998 regs but quoting the 1997 regs and incorrect deferment threshold. This is the kind of under handed bullsh*t we honest deferrers have had to deal with with these DCA scum. Notice their 'arrears threats' at the end of the letter and the laughable idea 'if I no longer want to defer my loan...' in a COMPLAINT letter ABOUT the deferral of my loans. I do want them deferred ERUDIO but I am not signing up to any change in terms in order to do so AS is my right.

The whole purpose of Erudio's 'NEW/OLD DAF and Deferral Process' is to make people pay up either through FEAR or shear bloody Frustration. It should not be allowed to stand BUT the truth will come out about all their practices and the due diligence/loan sell off itself.

Keep fighting folks.

ericctheking

Pluthero wrote: »

Mentions the 1998 regs but quoting the 1997 regs and incorrect deferment threshold. This is the kind of under handed bullsh*t we honest deferrers have had to deal with with these DCA scum.

That is fraud, trying to obtain money by deception.
Report them to the police.