ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

I would just be happy to get the damn DAF, then i can amend it as i see fit and get on with trying to defer, lodging the usual complaint and go through the same malarky as last year. I do feel a an official complaint coming on though about not getting the DAF 8 weeks before the deadline...

gardenia101

BaffledByErudio wrote: »

Just a quick one -

Erudio are now dispatching letters to amend the letters some of us received earlier in the year, dated '144th November'.
They acknowledge the stray numbers etc that were plonked in people's names and addresses and apologise.
Nice for them to be saying sorry for something, but sheesh!, all this admin must be costing them a fortune!

I think they can well afford to suck up those costs :rotfl:

heartbroken wrote: »

Yes, in their final response letter Erudio quoted the 97 regulations (regarding the need to 'satisfy' the loan administrator) and say the 98 regulations ('show' evidence of income) does not specify the method of deferment, and so basically discounts it completely! So wrong.

Received FOS response today. What I was expecting really.

1) FOS think the courts are better placed for making rulings on need for DAF

So agreeing that they're powerless to stop Erudio behaving in any way they want to....

2) Agrees with me that the DAF implied that submitting and signing it, constituted an agreement to change my t&cs and would enable them to report my post 98 loans to CRA. After writing to Erudio they have confirmed that ONLY by signing the FPN contained in the original welcome pack and not on the DAF would I be agreeing to that change in T&Cs. In essence you 'opt-in' to allow the reporting rather than having to 'opt-out'. Hmmmm...

That's interesting - shame my loans are pre-98 as I'm still waiting to receive the welcome pack

3) Views the amended DAF as reasonable. The mention of the FPN is not present and so removes this ambiguity.

Does not believe that the new DAF does not constitute a detrimental change to my t&cs. It refers to the 'How to' guide and my mention that these could change but FOS understand that signing would refer to the guide on that date alone and no subsequent changes.

And so on. Recommendation is for Erudio to backdate deferment, remove all arrears and for me to sign new daf. No mention of compensation for all this stress and anxiety for the past year. I want them to pay!!

Will have to really think about this.

Happy to direct message full letter if anyone wants to see a copy.

Fed up.

My FOS adjudicator didn't award me anything to compensate for the hassle, or the costs of all the recorded delivery post either.

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

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

This is what I'm thinking too :mad:

I think this is why they've ignored all my requests to confirm my write off date & explain why they've created a small gap in my deferment periods. I'll keep asking & when they don't reply for the 3rd time I'll complain to FOS :wall:

anna2007

I emailed the CEO's of the three CRA's last week, to voice concerns over consent and the recording our loans as 'payment holidays'. I've had replies from Experian and Equifax and although they don't fully address the consent issue, there is some news (good, I think) about how our loans would be recorded, if Erudio report them.

The main points from Experian:

"Having looked into this I can tell you we don’t currently hold information about deferred student loans. However, we are aware that ESL will be providing us with this information in future...".

"They [ICO] do say that the Data Protection Act doesn’t require organisations to have your consent before they process information about you as long as they have a legitimate reason and have told you what is going to happen...".

"You’re quite right that information about your income does not appear on your credit report. You might want to check with ESL what information they will be using to verify your income. It may be that they have been given access to other source of information, for example, data held by HMRC. This is not something I can really help you with so you should really take it up with ESL if you want any more information about this.

I’d like to put your mind at rest about how deferred student loan information will appear on your credit report. These accounts will be recorded with a payment status code of “U”. The definition of this code is - “there is no payment due” – it’s not considered to be negative".

Equifax say:

"I’ve reviewed the details you provided with our data and compliance teams and they have confirmed that Erudio Student Loans (ESL) do not currently provide data to Equifax, nor are we currently in discussions with them about a request to provide data. If in the future, ESL intend to supply information to Equifax, our teams will carry out a series of checks at that point to ensure that the appropriate levels of consent are in place.

As an aside, there are a number of options for the recording of a payment holiday. A payment holiday may be treated differently by a data supplier depending on whether it is a result of financial difficulty or whether it is a feature of the product in question. If it is the latter, the credit report is likely to be updated to confirm that no payment is due, which is not considered to be a negative indicator".

Callcredit are the only CRA that hasn't replied yet - they're also the only CRA that uses "PH" Payment Holiday as a status code on their credit reports. However, "PH" is only used to show the 'account status' - there also has to be a 'payment status' code, and the only ones that could apply to our loans are "0" (payments are up to date) or "U" (account has an unknown or ‘unspecified’ update and is not in default). I've had a look at my Noddle report, and all entries with a "U" payment status are shown as green (positive). This fits with what Experian said above, that "U" status means no payment is due. So, if Erudio use the "PH" status, this will show in the 'Status History" section of the credit report (where it usually says "OK" under each month's entry), but will also have a positive payment status.

Callcredit's status codes are shown here, on page 8:

http://www.callcredit.co.uk/media/1741464/your-credit-file-explained-6-5.pdf

I'll chase Callcredit for a reply and I've emailed Experian again, to ask what happens if Erudio have no "legitimate reason" to search files/report the loans and informed consent hasn't been given. Also to clarify the "U" payment status (if Erudio are aware of this, they've clearly been using the 'payment holiday' status as a threat). That was a week ago, so I might have to email the CEO again, as he was very quick to reply to the first email.

It's also good to know that the CRA "will carry out a series of checks at that point to ensure that the appropriate levels of consent are in place". I guess this means if a court later decides that the appropriate levels of consent haven't been given, then the CRA is liable too, if it allows the reporting of our loans?

BorderReiver14

fermi wrote: »

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

Yep, just to confirm for me or anybody else that cares, my final response was indeed one that quoted regulations from 1997.The fos not going to be much cop either... Looks like court for me!

ymeu

@anna2007 - that's really valuable information you managed to obtain and no doubt will be a comfort to lots of people (like me) who worry hugely about how our credit records could be affected now by something we were all told would not affect our borrowing capabilities in the future and consequently sailed into borrowings we might otherwise have thought twice about.

Good to hear too that the CRAs aren't going to automatically do Erudio/ESL's bidding and will actually weigh up whether the data has a relevance.

Obviously, one would generally hold the view that they're all in it together - they're not on our side - but certainly, it's made me feel better to hear that - so thanks again!

Edited to add: Still no sign of my DAF pack by post!!!

Mr_McGuffin

heartbroken wrote: »

1) FOS think the courts are better placed for making rulings on need for DAF

So are deferment and associated processes that arise from the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998 'regulated activity' within the scope of FCA regulation? Or not?

eroneo

anna2007 wrote: »

I emailed the CEO's of the three CRA's last week, to voice concerns over consent and the recording our loans as 'payment holidays'. I've had replies from Experian and Equifax and although they don't fully address the consent issue, there is some news (good, I think) about how our loans would be recorded, if Erudio report them.

The main points from Experian:

"Having looked into this I can tell you we don’t currently hold information about deferred student loans. However, we are aware that ESL will be providing us with this information in future...".

"They [ICO] do say that the Data Protection Act doesn’t require organisations to have your consent before they process information about you as long as they have a legitimate reason and have told you what is going to happen...".

"You’re quite right that information about your income does not appear on your credit report. You might want to check with ESL what information they will be using to verify your income. It may be that they have been given access to other source of information, for example, data held by HMRC. This is not something I can really help you with so you should really take it up with ESL if you want any more information about this.

I’d like to put your mind at rest about how deferred student loan information will appear on your credit report. These accounts will be recorded with a payment status code of “U”. The definition of this code is - “there is no payment due” – it’s not considered to be negative".

Equifax say:

"I’ve reviewed the details you provided with our data and compliance teams and they have confirmed that Erudio Student Loans (ESL) do not currently provide data to Equifax, nor are we currently in discussions with them about a request to provide data. If in the future, ESL intend to supply information to Equifax, our teams will carry out a series of checks at that point to ensure that the appropriate levels of consent are in place.

As an aside, there are a number of options for the recording of a payment holiday. A payment holiday may be treated differently by a data supplier depending on whether it is a result of financial difficulty or whether it is a feature of the product in question. If it is the latter, the credit report is likely to be updated to confirm that no payment is due, which is not considered to be a negative indicator".

Callcredit are the only CRA that hasn't replied yet - they're also the only CRA that uses "PH" Payment Holiday as a status code on their credit reports. However, "PH" is only used to show the 'account status' - there also has to be a 'payment status' code, and the only ones that could apply to our loans are "0" (payments are up to date) or "U" (account has an unknown or ‘unspecified’ update and is not in default). I've had a look at my Noddle report, and all entries with a "U" payment status are shown as green (positive). This fits with what Experian said above, that "U" status means no payment is due. So, if Erudio use the "PH" status, this will show in the 'Status History" section of the credit report (where it usually says "OK" under each month's entry), but will also have a positive payment status.

Callcredit's status codes are shown here, on page 8:

http://www.callcredit.co.uk/media/1741464/your-credit-file-explained-6-5.pdf

I'll chase Callcredit for a reply and I've emailed Experian again, to ask what happens if Erudio have no "legitimate reason" to search files/report the loans and informed consent hasn't been given. Also to clarify the "U" payment status (if Erudio are aware of this, they've clearly been using the 'payment holiday' status as a threat). That was a week ago, so I might have to email the CEO again, as he was very quick to reply to the first email.

It's also good to know that the CRA "will carry out a series of checks at that point to ensure that the appropriate levels of consent are in place". I guess this means if a court later decides that the appropriate levels of consent haven't been given, then the CRA is liable too, if it allows the reporting of our loans?

The legitimate aims...

"The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interesets pursued by the data controller... except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

So, you have a legitimate interest in them not sending your info to CRAs. The right to privacy for one thing. If the reporting would prejudice you in any way, then it is not allowed without your consent.

The aims of the data controller must be balanced against the interests of the data subject. If the two are equal, the interests of the data subject come first.

The situations where they can share without consent are where there is a reason which overrides your right for them not to. E.g, you cannot run off without paying and use your right to privacy to hide from a legitimate debt.

If they really needed to share with CRAs then they should have put it in the original agreements when they had the chance - before you signed up.

If the CRAs share data unlawfully, then the agreements with every oraganisation they shared the data with (e.g. all of your lenders, banks, phone comapaies, etc.) have been broken.

Tell the CRAs that if they share disclosures about student loans, you will challenge it and mess up their right to share data with everyone else. Let us know what they have to say about that!

Pluthero

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

So are deferment and associated processes that arise from the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998 'regulated activity' within the scope of FCA regulation? Or not?

Good point. Why are the FOS washing their hands of this mess? They do have some powers and liaise closely with the FCA afterall?

Having goolged about the FOS it seems they can be pretty facking hopeless in a lot of cases if you don't present your complaints clearly/ and they are just genuinely not very good at THEIR purpose? But still even for them the handling and outcome of £rudio complaints thus far have been pi*s poor.

Lungboy

It's telling that the FOS rep that posts in the Loans forum has never been seen in here.

anna2007

eroneo wrote: »

So, you have a legitimate interest in them not sending your info to CRAs. The right to privacy for one thing. If the reporting would prejudice you in any way, then it is not allowed without your consent.

The aims of the data controller must be balanced against the interests of the data subject. If the two are equal, the interests of the data subject come first.

I think the 'legitimate interest' condition is going to be important in all of this (certainly for credit searches, but probably pre-98 consent to reporting too), both ICO and Experian have referred to it now. It seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel, when none of the other conditions for processing fit.

I added the following to my FOS complaint last week, when I escalated it to the ombudsman - in case anyone wants to use it in their own complaints:

"I am also unclear on what legitimate interest or justification Erudio has in reporting deferred loans to CRAs, particularly as such reporting would exclude deferred borrowers on the later agreement, as well as borrowers in repayment. It is simply not acceptable for some deferred loans to be reported to CRA's and not others: all student loans should be reported on the same basis, i.e. when the borrower defaults on repayment. What is achieved by the reporting when only certain student loans are being reported, and how is this balanced against these borrowers’ legitimate interests in the processing of their personal data, such as the right to give informed consent to disclosure, or their right to privacy? Erudio initially stated that the deferred loans would be reported to CRAs to “promote responsible lending”, although I see that they have removed reference to this on their website and in their documentation, presumably because the lending in this case was done some 15 to 25 years ago, and these Government loans were guaranteed to be granted to support students’ living expenses, provided they met the eligibility criteria. There is more information on the ‘legitimate interests’ condition here:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/conditions-for-processing/

As confirmed by Experian, the higher the outstanding student loans balance and level of existing outstanding borrowing on a credit file, the more likely credit scores (and therefore future credit applications) will be negatively affected. I would therefore ask the ombudsman to give serious consideration to any purported legitimate interest Erudio claims to have in reporting the loans to CRAs, and to balance this against the legitimate interests of the borrowers, most of whom will experience very real, long-term adverse effects in their everyday lives, with the reporting potentially having a negative impact on life-changing credit decisions by lenders. As the legitimate interests of the individual must prevail, it would be unfair and unreasonable for student loans to be reported, particularly in the absence of any specific and informed consent.

Further, both the ICO and Experian have confirmed to me that Erudio can search my credit file without my consent, provided they have a legitimate need to do so. Erudio claim that a credit search is necessary in order to verify my income, when no income details are recorded on my credit file. Erudio also claims the credit search is necessary to confirm my identity, however this would be excessive and completely unnecessary, when identifiers such as name, address, date of birth, National Insurance number, unique loan reference number and landline telephone number are all provided on the deferment application form. I therefore do not consider Erudio to have any legitimate reason to search my credit file, as it will not enable them to verify my income and is unnecessary to confirm my identity. Even if Erudio had a legitimate interest, the ICO guidance states that when the legitimate interests are at odds, it is the legitimate interests of the individual that must come first. I have a legitimate right to privacy, and a legitimate expectation that no person accesses my personal and financial data when I have not consented to it, particularly when that access cannot be justified, and does not achieve the stated need to verify my income and confirm my identity".

eroneo wrote: »

If the CRAs share data unlawfully, then the agreements with every oraganisation they shared the data with (e.g. all of your lenders, banks, phone comapaies, etc.) have been broken.

Thanks, I didn't know about this - do you have a link to more info, as I'd like to put it in my email to Experian's CEO?