ERUDIO student loans help

Former_MSE_Paloma

Morning all, thanks for the feedback on this story. I'm separately looking into the difference between 'show' and 'satisfy' the lender re deferment. Once I hear back, i'll post more information in the forum - many thanks, MSE Paloma

Brooker_Dave

erudioed wrote: »

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.

This is the crux of it, to some extent the operational shortcomings of Erudio run by Mark Filer can be forgiven.

But at what stage do the sheer number of "errors" and "mistakes", cease being incompetence but actually become a criminal enterprise?

For example:

"My deferment date arrived without any further contact from Erudio, and lo and behold a direct debit had appeared on my account for ESL Ltd (Erudio Student Loans Ltd? I assume). It promptly pinched over a hundred pounds from my account without so much as a by-your-leave. This of course, as surprise direct debits are want to do, instantly put me overdrawn.

I went to my branch and spoke to an advisor. Explained that I had no idea who ESL Ltd were (though I had a suspicion), that I had not received an information on payment dates or amounts and that I had not signed any direct debit mandates allowing ESL Ltd to take money from my account. Since any one of those three thing breaches the Direct Debit Guarantee my bank were more than happy to simply reverse the Direct Debit and refund my money."


Now clearly perhaps setting up direct debits and helping themselves to money once or twice could be a mistake or shoddy, but 500 times?


(The FBI defines organized crime as any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities.)

Lungboy

In reference to Anthony Reeve, wasn't there a group of MSE posters that had got together to fund an action? Did that not get anywhere, or has he cut off all connection to them too?

e: is any of the paperwork regarding the court case available? I see it was conducted at Middlesborough County Court, would we be able to find out the particulars, more than what Fermi posted?

leigash

Just wondering what all the people who refused to fill out the form last time around are now doing?


My wife refused to fill out the form and complained to the FOS. Weird thing is that Erudio have not contacted her in any way, so was just going to do exactly the same thing this year and send a letter with 3 months wage slips.


Has this happened to anyone else? Doesn't surprise me, but not heard a word from them for around 6 months.

erudioed

A heads up on FOI requests. A powerful internal review request by Anna firstly:

"Dear Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills's handling of my FOI request
'Erudio Student Loans Limited's failure to file annual accounts
with Companies House'.

Government Ministers are wholly responsible for selecting the
purchaser of the student loans portfolio through a competitive
tendering process, and BIS claims to have applied due diligence to
this process. The Government did not in any way consult, or obtain
consent from, the borrowers affected by the assignment to a debt
management consortium that has shown little regard for the legal
rights of those borrowers. In fact, until recently, Erudio claims
to be completely unaware of the Statutory Instrument that applies
to the student loans it is now responsible for administering, as
highlighted in this Money Saving Expert news article:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/lo...

In response to a previous FOI request, you disclosed the following
extract from the Sale and Purchase agreement between BIS and the
purchasers, which in itself should be a provision to protect the
interests of borrowers, but which you failed to mention in response
to this request:

"10.2.1 The Purchaser undertakes that in relation to all matters
relating to the Loans in the Portfolio it has acted and will act in
compliance with and has observed and will observe all Applicable
Laws (including, but not limited to, the Consumer Credit Act, Data
Protection Act, the 1990 Act and any Regulations) and the terms of
the Credit Agreements, and has taken and will take account of any
relevant codes of practice (including, but not limited to, the
Credit Services Association Code of Practice, the TCF Outcomes and
relevant Office of Fair Trading guidance which includes, but is not
limited to, Office of Fair Trading Irresponsible Lending Guidance,
Debt Collection Guidance, and Debt Management Guidance)".

As BIS/the Government was party to the original contract, it is
reasonable to assume that you would have contingencies in place to
remedy any breach of the sale and purchase agreement by the other
party, otherwise there would be little point in having an
agreement, if any breach is not acted upon by the Government. The
provision obviously exists in the sale and purchase agreement, but
if it is ignored by BIS/the Government, who is responsible for
enforcing it?

I am sure the electorate also has a reasonable expectation that its
Government, as previous owner of the student loans, will act to
protect the interests of affected borrowers, if the purchaser is
found to be in breach of the relevant law. For BIS to state that it
would take no action to protect borrowers under such circumstances
is incredulous, and indicative of maladministration on the part of
BIS, being wholly responsible for the sale.

To clarify, I am asking for details of ANY contingencies and/or
provisions put in place by BIS to protect borrowers, in the event
that the purchaser is found to be acting illegally. If it is true
that no such contingencies exist, could you please confirm what
retrospective action would be taken by Government, in the event of
the purchaser acting illegally.

On a final note, for BIS to take the maximum time allowed under
FOIA to respond with a one-liner, "At present there are no
intentions or provisions to take action in these cases" shows
nothing but contempt for both the legal provisions under FOIA, and
the considerable number of people affected by this issue."





And, a response to another FOI request by SLC about info it holds concerning why they didnt report our loans to CRAs...i am sure this reply will be seen with some suspicion and frustration. They state they didnt report loans, but they hold no rationale for not doing so. Here is the original FOI request followed by the response by SLC:


"I refer to your email dated 05/03/2015 requesting the following information
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”):

“I wish to make a freedom of information request in relation to
mortgage-style loans (MS loans), originally made by SLC under the Education
(Student Loans) Act 1990 and Consumer Credit Act 1974, both as amended.

During a previous FOI request released by the SLC (76-14), SLC stated
clause 16 of the Agreement on pre-1998 loans allowed the creditor to pass
details of deferred MS loans to registered credit reference agencies
(CRAs).

Much to the relief of borrowers with MS loans, SLC has chose not to report
loans to CRAs throughout the duration they were held (with the exception of
defaulted loans from 2009), until the last remainder were sold to Erudio
Student Loans Limited.

Could SLC provide the rationale behind their policy of not reporting loans
to CRAs? If such data is held, could they provide any details of any
discussions regarding this policy (documents, minutes of meetings etc)”

Response

Having conducted a search of our records, and consulted with the relevant
departments within the Student Loans Company Limited (“SLC”), I can confirm
that SLC does not hold the specific information you have requested.

Whilst SLC had a policy of reporting Mortgage Style (“MS”) loans which were
in default to CRAs from June 2009, and rationale for this could be
provided, SLC does not hold any rationale for not reporting loans to CRAs.

Background information

MS loans are regulated loans under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as
amended) (“CCA”). The terms and conditions for MS loans are prescribed in
the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998 and are specified in
borrowers’ loan credit agreements – these terms have not changed as a
result of the sale of the remainder of the MS loan portfolio to Erudio
Student Loans in November 2013, and borrowers have the same rights and
obligations as they had when their loans were managed by SLC. Copies of
the MS loan credit agreements are in the public domain, having been
previously released by SLC under FOI – available at
http://www.slc.co.uk/freedom-of-informat...
(ref 76-14 from May 2014). The administration of MS loans is the
responsibility of the owners of the loans, who are regulated by the
Financial Conduct Authority for loans formed under the CCA and must operate
within the relevant legal and regulatory frameworks and industry guidance."






@lungboy, it had been in discussion but nothing germinated at that point.
@leigash, i would assume the case would be stronger this time for not signing it, especially as what we are being asked to sign is not fully included in the paperwork, as well as it not be 'written in plain English'. And because Erudio caves in on this issue when threatened with legal action, which is probably strongly affected by Arrow Global now understanding the 1998 regs dont force someone to use the DAF form to defer.

plong979

leigash wrote: »

Just wondering what all the people who refused to fill out the form last time around are now doing?


My wife refused to fill out the form and complained to the FOS. Weird thing is that Erudio have not contacted her in any way, so was just going to do exactly the same thing this year and send a letter with 3 months wage slips.


Has this happened to anyone else? Doesn't surprise me, but not heard a word from them for around 6 months.

I'll be doing the same again this year. Already printed off my wage slips and letter, just waiting for the DAF to arrive. I'm actually leaving my job at the end of May to pursue a dream so i won't be getting paid for a long while anyway.

The FOS sent me a letter the other week saying that as I rejected the initial offer it's now been escalated and I can expect an answer within 6 months (though it may take longer). Not expecting anything to be honest but at least there is a trail.

I've not heard from the DCA since I lodged my complaint.

leigash

Thanks for the responses, going to just do the same thing again this year. Will be interesting to see if they do actually send her a DAF.

anna2007

Lungboy wrote: »

e: is any of the paperwork regarding the court case available? I see it was conducted at Middlesborough County Court, would we be able to find out the particulars, more than what Fermi posted?

I phoned Middlesbrough County Court the day the hearing was meant to take place, but she wouldn't tell me anything, unless I could prove I was "party to the proceedings", give the case reference, etc.

I have a copy particulars of claim - not sure if it's the same as the one used in the Middlesbrough case, but it'll be along the same lines. It should be easy enough to adapt it, if anyone's thinking of court action against Erudio over the current DAF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vzkyatilr0mub17/Erudio%20-%20particulars%20of%20%20claim.doc?dl=0

fermi

Some of those issues are not quite the same now as they were, but certainly gives people an idea.... Especially if they are still fighting last years.

anna2007

eroneo wrote: »

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.

Erudio currently have only 'interim permission' and like every other consumer credit business, will have to apply for full authorisation with the FCA over the next year.

This is the perfect time to make the FCA aware of how we are being treated by Erudio, but it will probably take a fair number of complaints to have any impact.

Anyone who feels they're not being treated fairly by Erudio (and that must be pretty much all of us!), please pass details to:

consumer.queries@fca.org.uk