ERUDIO student loans help

Pluthero

fermi wrote: »

- Mostly as far as I saw the misquoting was done in response to complaints, in order to mislead students and bodies such as the FOS who were looking at complaints.

- The main issue was not the wrong threshold quoted, but the use of the 1997 Regulations' wording regards what other conditions students had to meet to defer.

- Erudio misquoted the 1997 regulation to students and the FOS relying on the section that said:

"shall be entitled to defer making repayments of that loan if he satisfies the loans administrator"

- The correct 1998 Regulation do not require that students "satisfy" Erudio of anything. Instead it is just:

"he can show"

- Erudio used erroneously the "satisfy" term to justify the use of their DAF forms and their unlawful refusal of deferments that did not use them.

- i.e That they would not be "satisfied" unless their forms were used and signed.

- Possibly a false contention, but one they hoped students and the FOS would fall for.

- The correct "he can show" makes it clearer that that insistence is false, as the student just has to show this via any reasonable means they choose, and is not required to satisfy Erudio of anything, or use their forms. It is a legal right to defer, not a favour Erudio are doing people.

It seems that MSE did not raise this very crucial point in their STORY!

fermi

As said, I have seen no indication previously that MSE are prepared to lock horns with Erudio on the fundamental principle of whether the forms can legally be insisted upon, sadly, so I'm not surprised it was not brought up.

fermi

The statement says: "We are aware that a number of customers coming towards the end of their current deferment period have experienced a delay in receiving their Deferment Application Form (DAF) – these have now been issued.
"These are normally sent out eight weeks before a customer's current deferment period is due to finish. These forms are sent out in batches and unfortunately some of these were delayed in sending. These have now been distributed and customers should have still received them in plenty of time to allow for completion and return before the end of their current deferment period.
"We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused. If you think you may have been impacted by this delay and believe you might not be able to return your form before the end of your deferment period, please get in touch by calling 0333 003 7188 and we will be able to assist."

Problem is not getting the form back before the end of the deferment period. The delay should not stop that for most if sent out now.

Instead it's getting Erudio to process them by that date.

They are slow and delay enough at the best of times, but this will just back log things worse if experience is anything to go by, perhaps leaving students vulnerable to having their bank account raided unfairly again due to the delays.

Jonez

With this statement, hopefully Erudio are just providing more evidence of their dubious practices that can be produced when cases go to court. It hardly bodes well for them when they admit that they cannot even correctly quote the legislation that allows them to operate.

BaffledByErudio

The whole thing is intensely bonkers!
How many times will Erudio make a mistake, initially deny it, then have to back peddle? How many times will they end up sending out letters of apology to borrowers for errors and miscalculations, only to then further write to us to apologize for mistakes in those apology letters?
It's a farce. Sometimes I think they are deliberately confusing in a bid to discourage deferments, other times I just think they well and truly have their knickers in a twist and can't keep their heads above water!
I suppose they might be beginning to imagine HM Gov has pulled a bit of fast one in some respects. But then again, they clearly thought they could make legally deferred loans profitable, so who knows what's up their sleeves!

BorderReiver14

I provided a copy of a letter sent to me by Erudio that quoted the 97 regulations at length in reference to a specific question I asked them. That was to define the legislation that stated I must use a DAF.

They are simply telling huge porkies if they think it was a typo and it wasn't that far in the past either... Only last month! Call me old fashioned too but if you make a mistake at least have the f!&%ing balls to apologise to my face! I am also dismayed that mse, having seen my letter along with me providing background info have seen fit to ignore all this. Not happy!

I am constantly told that Erudio are simply following the letter of the law more closely when it comes to deferment... Well two can play at that game!

eroneo

Jonez wrote: »

With this statement, hopefully Erudio are just providing more evidence of their dubious practices that can be produced when cases go to court. It hardly bodes well for them when they admit that they cannot even correctly quote the legislation that allows them to operate.

Amongst the users of this thread there is a mountain of evidence that if brought together could show they are not fit to have a credit licence. Unfortunately each of us only has our own bits and pieces. It needs to be brought together somehow into a dossier. I lack the technical know how but does anyone here have an idea for how to set up a central repository?

Brooker_Dave

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

They are simply telling huge porkies if they think it was a typo and it wasn't that far in the past either...

Like it was a mistake when they stole people's money 500 times?

"Erudio Student Loans has admitted over 500 people have mistakenly had money taken from their accounts"

erudioed

For sure, there are only so many times errors happen where the potential knock on effect benefits these people that it is obvious to me it is deliberate. For some of the poor calculations i give them the benefit of the doubt but procedural things that make us feel the pressure are no way just little errors that slipped through the system. Sending out the DAFs late is one such event. Its not like they have a peak period during January and February, which is more than enough time for them to get envelope sealing. Once again the Erudio response is that 'some' people were affected, more like 'most' because it was deliberate to give people less time to defer, forcing us to a) contact Erudio and give them another chance to gather more contact info and b) having a much greater chance of Erudio taking a DD payment they are not entitled to (even if it is refunded, they will have another angle).
Basically, Capita should be sacked on this issue alone for providing such a poor service. Let alone lying on the phone that the forms can be sent out 5-8 weeks before. I suggest anyone told this, or indeed anyone getting their forms late, should take 2 mins to lodge an official complaint about it. Plus, that will give you that 4 -8 weeks for them to answer when collection activity will be suspended, thus, getting those 2-3 weeks back before they take a DD. The most fundamental thing is getting the forms out 8 weeks ahead and unless they take a work burden or financial hit, nothing will change year on year. In fact, as we know, they seem to get increasingly worse...

As an aside, for anyone wishing to make a complaint who might not have done so yet, if you are prepared to contact them (this is by phone), it is very easy and remarkably painless to make a complaint. This is one area where they seem to have got their sheet together, even though the reply they give is often rather limp and weak.

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

On the last page of the new DAF, Erudio are asking us to agree to terms/information on fair processing that are on their website, and in the How to Guide - these can be changed at any time by Erudio, and they expect us to agree to that.

I'd say we're even more justified in refusing to use this new DAF, and I hope as many of us as possible do that, but it's only for those who are prepared to take it to court (or at least threaten court action).

I have an idea of how I want to go about it, but want to run it by the in court solicitor at my local sheriff court first. If they think it's a good claim, we could get a template letter before action and Particulars of Claim posted on the forum, for everyone to use?

This is what Anthony was doing for one client.

Now vanished from his site.

Reports indicate that Erudio had to give in - sort of - and granted deferment without the DAF being filled in or signed.

Summary of the case

I act for a borrower who took out a student loan in November 1997. He applied for
a deferment in September 2014. He provided evidence of his income in the form
of his HMRC tax return. Erudio replied by saying that he had not completed their
deferment application form (DAF) and would not consider his application. My
client has refused to complete their DAF as the Education (Student Loans)
Regulations 1998 do not state the application must be in a prescribed form. The
Regulations state that a borrower can defer making repayments if the lender has
not already asked him to repay the loan in full and his gross income is not more
than the deferment level.

Erudio responded by saying that if our client could delete the following words from
the Fair Process Notice at the end of the form:

“Accordingly therefore submitting this application you confirm that you consent for Erudio
to perform relevant checks at credit reference and fraud prevention agencies”.
We would not agree to complete the form on that basis because the DAF does
need to be completed and also the form requests other unnecessary personal
information and wrongly suggests that a Direct Debit mandate needs to be in
place before deferment is considered. On this point, they have confirmed to
another borrower back in July 2014 that a Direct Debit mandate does need to be
in place.

Our application to the court seeks a declaration that the agreement and the way
Erudio is exercising its rights under the agreement amounts to an unfair
relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended.

Further and in the alternative, we seek an order for specific performance of the
contract, ie. that they should consider the deferment. The basis of the unfair
relationship includes:

1. Requiring the borrower to complete unnecessary personal information on the
DAF that is not required to determine the application

2. Requiring the borrower to sign a form that gives permission to search the
borrower’s credit file

3. Any unfair attempt to make changes to the terms of agreement despite
assurances at the time of assignment that would not alter.

4. Stating that a direct debit mandate is required to be set to enable
consideration of the application. Inconsistent treat in this respect in relation to
another borrower who has the same loan terms.

5. Chasing for arrears that only exist because of a wrongful refusal to consider
the deferment application.

So we have made an application to the Court with the first hearing at
Middlesbrough County Court on 6 March 2015.