ERUDIO student loans help

Sameboattogether

Wow - gone 24 hrs! What a catch up but thanks to all if you posting!! It helps!

My date is last week! Hence last year mine went off to slc 3rd week Feb and got caught up with Erudio transfer & finally got done close to end of April!! Erudio refused to let me see their daf saying I had to wait till 8 weeks b4 my end of this "new deferment" period! As I had already sent slc the slc form.
So was left in dark and couldn't see daf anywhere meanwhile till third week Jan.
Have to say pack of 1st edition arrived about 6/ 7 weeks before end exactly the same as slc for me, give or take a week. I expected them to cut it fine.

I heard about new daf and saw draft probably early Feb and decided to wait sending back my old style pack back as we want to get a mortgage in a few months & thought the whole Erudio way is so onerous so reluctant to use! So needed to make my mind up, research & decide my approach.

First week of March saw updates on here & their site & q&a's bit so decided to ring up & tell them not got pack to get newer one ( which online stuff told me that if you want new pack you can have it, but I wasn't going to chance it with Erudio by asking, with them knowing I already had old form. I asked on Friday and it arrived by post tues or weds last week!! I was amazed as held out no hope for at least an 6/8/12 week wait for it!!!! But old pack up my sleeve meanwhile!

I did compose my first post for here that day new pack arrived, to tell you all I had new pack but knew I couldn't do attachments & overnight you all saw it anyway & notes bit by then so I never posted, but did on my first look think exactly what everyone on here thought!! Have been reading on here for past year! I too contacted reeves but chose to wait for new pack launch.

Anyway I also asked for email version too & over phone gave my email - told 3-5 days for email copy, 5 - 7 or 7 to 10 post - mine came very quick by post, but no email since I asked! And no birth date asked of me.

They also told me they will only backdate from when my pack is received now ( this year / this time round apparently last year was the exception!!) so I said that's a gap then she said yeah & I have to then request rollback once confirmation deferment letter in my hand!!

So no automatic 12 week back date!!! Got to contact them once deferred as they won't do it automatically this time!!! The person was very specific re this. A load of .....!!! And again will deliberately cause gaps / create the gaps when they shoudn't exist if within 12 weeks of last deferment end when re deferred once more. How can that be ok?!?!

Anyway during my pack request call I established missing letters to me two earlier this year - I've requested twice now but still haven't got them posted but did get same day as pack arrived, redemption figure letter - funnily enough that arrived safely & quickly enough!!

I can get my form and notes copied and my ref blanked off each top left side if of help to anyone. And could get it added to drop box or similar.

I've since phoned last week again - and challenged further my missing letter and apology letter & got waste of time answers over why the apology, what for and why was my amount to pay so high last sept in statement letter & then over phone told £60 less now!!! Told they have to speak to slc as many years back I made some payments ( one year's mess up of deferment by slc & me not understanding half what I do since, back at the start but deferred 16/17 year's since!!) & they claim an error in miscalculating how many months I therefore am allowed to pay back total over, due to these old payments. Erudio claim they only have info since 2005 & have to ask slc for before that date. I would just like to see for myself the details, in writing, but here we are a week later & nothing by post or email.

But I intend to call slc again and get exact months I'm allowed ( less than 60 cause of old payments at the start ) as I do trust them to give me the facts & accurate / truthful answers!! Erudio's answer to £60 difference was it doesn't matter I said it does, it's huge difference to anyone & not least cause I want to know the min payment if it was due, is spot on correct, as we all would / do regardless of me being deferred still at the time ( but was only a few days left when I rang first time )
Erudio attitude - your in deferment so not matter!! Till my near end dawned on the csr!!

The idiots!!

Gardenia101 think it was: ring slc they have and are keeping into the future all the specific details of our loans & early February answered me all the important dates & details. A good job as my second Erudio call ( so far in this year's deferment debacle) revealed them claiming to not know when my end was so I said I spoke to slc so would you like me to tell you when it ends ( as mine's before the 50 thing cause 25 applies ) & suddenly they had a date!! We ended up agreeing on the date but she tried to say subject to no arrears full stop so I said no, not in arrears at the time of my cancellation arriving!!

Hope I was correct.
Did try to say 50 to me at first also! But I knew was getting lots of wrong info!!

You want from SLC the date the last agreement was signed or the date when they last made a payment to you which was your last ever payment from them ie in your last year. I've forgotten which without checking my notes from call, but my dates for the two above were only several days apart anyhow. Think it's the very last payment date of the final payment to you. They have all the signing dates and all payment dates & will confirm cancel date also.

I forgot to ask for copies of my three agreements though. But will when I speak to them again & will ask Erudio for my cca's also at some point!

Wish now I'd recorded both calls. So unbelievable - don't think my friends & family would believe me if I tried to tell them just how shoddy the outfit is & shoddy for administrating such important stuff re our loans & all the finer print of them which is all legal & should be dealt with in a legally correct manner therefore!!

Both calls left me thinking still a shambles year later & at a loss to know who will give a ....... that so many legal bits etc they can't get correct over & over!!! And we are supposed to not be all that bothered by it!!

Sorry for my long ramble - have been dreading my renewal this time for yonks!

Such a worry last year & now re a mortgage & Erudio checks & reporting!
I did ask about it & didn't know was the answer to wether they soft or full checked my application last year.
But did also say " no reporting being done as giving customers the chance to pay first " was the exact answer I got ( thought at time - I bet you are!!) so I said but that contradicts the pack you've sent me especially the notes - csr replied "I know!"

Thanks to you all for posting!

Lungboy

Pluthero wrote: »

Sounds about right. Yet We are told by BIS/FOS/etc etc that terms and CONDITIONS have not changed under Erudio.

Hmmm. Sure is a bit different than sending ONE A4 sheet of paper to the SLC with some wage slips...

I'm half tempted to try sending an SLC form with Erudio scribbled across the top.

Brooker_Dave

Just send a letter and proof of earnings.

The form is still unusable, and even if you do use it they mess about.

Clearly the plan is to try to stop these getting written off when we hit 50.

erudioed

Jonez wrote: »

So - government is already selling off income contingent loans to private companies? How is this whole thing not destined to become a massive mis-selling scandal?

I seem to recall a few months back that Vince Cable and his national asset selling government had decided market conditions werent right for another student loan sale. It seems like they must be now! Either that, or they just lied before. Maybe it is coincidental but that was at the same time negative publicity for Erudio/Arrow Global was flying around. Maybe we need to raise the stakes again now. With the deferment forms coming way too late already (how can we defer if we dont have the forms) and now Arrow Global using the wrong regulations for 1 year (and some elements of the new DAF seeming to contain wording/meaning similar to those of the wrong 1997 regs) this seems like as good a chance as any to tweet, phone and email around again.
Ive said all along, only a financial hit or negative publicity will ever put them on a path that serves our interests, so we have to get on the foghorn again.

Brooker_Dave

Most people are apathetic towards us and our plight with Arrow, so they won't care, the people who will care are today's students who are being sold govenment loans that suddenly get sold to loan sharks looking for a quick buck.

Brooker_Dave

http://www.arrowglobalir.net/news/view/id/402

"As previously discussed, the Group has been involved with ongoing discussions with HMRC with respect to the business activities in Guernsey prior to 2013 when the Group was restructured. HMRC has concluded its review and disagreed with our technical analysis. HMRC have raised an assessment for VAT but confirmed no penalties will be levied as they have confirmed that the Group acted reasonably. Given the time, costs and uncertainties associated with appealing the HMRC decision at a tax tribunal and the fact that this is a historical issue, with no impact on future profitability, the board has decided to settle the assessment. Including advisors costs for the current period, this has resulted in a non-recurring charge of GBP2.4 million."

Cook1e

Pluthero wrote: »

Sounds about right. Yet We are told by BIS/FOS/etc etc that terms and CONDITIONS have not changed under Erudio.

Hmmm. Sure is a bit different than sending ONE A4 sheet of paper to the SLC with some wage slips...

It's not for people to chase them. If they fail to deliver I will be sending more complaints quoting their answers of promising that they are improving their customer service and then on to the FOS

Will the FOS get fed up with round 2 of complaints ?

anna2007

From Mr Osborne's budget speech today:

"Let the message go out: this country’s tolerance for those who will not pay their fair share of tax has come to an end" :rotfl:

anna2007

Cook1e wrote: »

Will the FOS get fed up with round 2 of complaints ?

FOS barely noticed round 1 - they appear to live in their own little oblivious bubble!

Pluthero

Lungboy wrote: »

I'm half tempted to try sending an SLC form with Erudio scribbled across the top.

LOL now that is just crazy enough to work:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxfnjih55qdk2y4/Erudio%20SLC%20spoof%20PDF.pdf?dl=0

How nice were the SLC with their form. They even put guide lines telling you where to fold it so it fitted snug in the envelope. I think we should petition Erudio to put folding guidelines on their new DAF. It a small thing but if they are serious about getting the whole deferment process right I think its something they should seriously consider :rotfl: