ERUDIO student loans help

gardenia101

fermi wrote: »

- Mostly as far as I saw the misquoting was done in response to complaints, seemly in order misrepresent what the law says.

- 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.

Looks like my FOS adjudicator fell for it - not a single comment about the incorrect legislation being quoted, but she is satisfied that Erudio are behaving correctly :wall:

I've had a letter from Erudio (& in large print) about my latest letter of complaint, which was mostly addressing why they hadn't addressed things I'd complained about in my first, official complaint. Things like why do I need a d/d in place, why have I still not received a statement etc.

They said "FOS subsequently investigated your concerns & issued their findings & adjudication in your favour, which we have accepted. In light of this we do not believe a further investigation & response would add any value to the resolution of your complaint & we have not therefore addressed the points you have raised."

But FOS have also ignored a few points in my complaint too - they appear to be selective in what they will or will not investigate.

So it would appear that Erudio can get away with not even supplying me with a statement of account in over a year, & that can be deemed OK by them & FOS.

They have also refused to give me a date that my loans are due to be written off, assuming I meet the criteria for deferment. For the second time.

What do I have to do to get a statement out of this company?

One minor victory - they have backdated my deferment period to ensure that there isn't a gap in my deferments.

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

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

I will get my letter scanned & emailed tomorrow. After all I need to go to the library & Post Office to scan & post yet another letter to Erudio. Still ignoring me by email, but I'll keep sending emails as it all helps to prove how unfit they are for dealing with our loans.

Jonez

So, if telling people lies by quoting outdated legislation to underpin their arguments doesn't constitute incorrect behaviour, what the hell does? Really, it doesn't bode well if the FOS can't get their heads around this very basic stuff.

dizzybuff

Bloody he'll received my compo today. Will be doing an foi to ensure they do not keep my bank details.

BorderReiver14

gardenia101 wrote: »

But FOS have also ignored a few points in my complaint too - they appear to be selective in what they will or will not investigate.

That sounds about right and what we have come to expect from the FOS but at least its another avenue explored.

I have literally sent the FOS bullet points of what I expect from them. Kept it brief so they know that if they ignore or fudge anything I'll be slamming it right back at them. As it is their job to try and provide an alternative to court I can also argue I reasonably exhausted avenues open to resolve the matter.

Keep your chin up and keep up the fight!

BorderReiver14

erudioed wrote: »

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.

I suspect (without wanting to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist) that this is a half-truth or censorship by omission. Could it just be that BIS and/or other government departments have asked SLC to pull their heads in? Could it be more likely that SLC knew that the regulations and agreements did not legally give them the rights Erudio are now claiming? Is that not the real rationale? Its not as we are told, because SLC chose not to exercise that right... Its simply because they knew they never had that right.
They knew that students were offered generous loan conditions that included a sales pitch of 'these are not like private sector loans, they will not hurt your future financial health'. Please excuse my acute scepticism but it is worth trying to read between the lines when we have to deal with such underhanded and toothless organisations such as these.

erudioed

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

I suspect (without wanting to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist) that this is a half-truth or censorship by omission. Could it just be that BIS and/or other government departments have asked SLC to pull their heads in? Could it be more likely that SLC knew that the regulations and agreements did not legally give them the rights Erudio are now claiming? Is that not the real rationale? Its not as we are told, because SLC chose not to exercise that right... Its simply because they knew they never had that right.
They knew that students were offered generous loan conditions that included a sales pitch of 'these are not like private sector loans, they will not hurt your future financial health'. Please excuse my acute skepticism but it is worth trying to read between the lines when we have to deal with such underhanded and toothless organisations such as these.

I dont think its too conspiratorial. The sale of all pre-2010 student loans, which must be in the billions, was included in notes in the budget just gone. Although we were told that would not happen in the middle of last year, this is clearly a reversal of that. As we are the test case for giving a private company control over the deferral process, it isn't a surprise to me that the government will pull rank to achieve their sordid plans. I think this explains quite a lot, with BIS stage managing all the FOI requests and such things.
What does surprise me though, and we could maybe do something about this with the election coming up by peppering MPs, is that there are 250,000 of us and now x million ex-students from 2000-2010 all being put to the sword and betrayed by this government within one serving term and before an election. If all of these ex-students knew about this (and the 2000-2010 ones wont, just like we didn't until we got our letters telling us of the acquisition) before the election, i would guess it would be enough to actively swing an election. After all, if one of the parties (such as Labour) focused just for one day on this issue of student loans being privatised during this election period, it would probably be enough to cause one hell of a sheetstorm. Maybe we all should all pepper such MPs. I think any ex-student who was given a loan by the government would be shocked to learn that their loans were just going to be sold to yet another shell company, purchased by a debt collector, with money from a consortium of very dodgy overseas money pools funneled through tax havens. If that isn't election gold, i don't know what is...its just the politicians who need to know about such things probably don't, at a time when they need to and when it could have maximum effect.

gardenia101

Jonez wrote: »

So, if telling people lies by quoting outdated legislation to underpin their arguments doesn't constitute incorrect behaviour, what the hell does? Really, it doesn't bode well if the FOS can't get their heads around this very basic stuff.

Your right, it doesn't bode well. I had a letter from my MP conatining an attachment from somebody higher up the food chain at FOS - not amazingly insightful as this person appears to me to work in the political dept. of FOS since they managed to fill a page of A4 with words that didn't really say very much :silenced: I did however, receive an apology.

Even more worryingly, my adjudicator is a specialist adjudicator whatever that is. I really hope the poor lady hasn't been given everything Erudio as that would be far to much for one person (or even 20 :rotfl:).

I'm still hoping that there has been a simple mix up with letters to explain why my specialist adjudicator can't tell the difference between the 97 & 98 regs - like I've said before she has got to the point of several parts of my complaint, so I am surprised she's missed this.

dizzybuff wrote: »

Bloody he'll received my compo today. Will be doing an foi to ensure they do not keep my bank details.

Well, that's great news Dizzybuff :T.

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

That sounds about right and what we have come to expect from the FOS but at least its another avenue explored.

I have literally sent the FOS bullet points of what I expect from them. Kept it brief so they know that if they ignore or fudge anything I'll be slamming it right back at them. As it is their job to try and provide an alternative to court I can also argue I reasonably exhausted avenues open to resolve the matter.

Keep your chin up and keep up the fight!

I'm definitely still fighting & will report back when my adjudicator replies in a couple of weeks.

My MP is more than happy to take my case up with ministers & the FCA, although we're seeing what FOS say first. My MP is a similar age to me & had the same MS loans we did, so I'm hoping he'll still be my MP in May.

What happens to ongoing cases if MPs get sacked? Do they go straight to the new MP to continue with, or would I have to start from scratch again with the new MP?

It seems rude to ask my MP

eroneo

erudioed wrote: »

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.

No rationale for not doing something is not the same as a rationale for doing it.

Asking questions or asking for an opinion is no good. They can just deny it. They must be asked to produce specific documents. Not easy if the requestor does not know how to refer to the documents.

The first thing could be to request a list of document and reports concerning MS Loans that contain the strings "CRA", "credit reference agency", etc. This would be a good FOI, becuase once you have the list, you can ask for each document on the list.

Anyhow, the response does give a lead to follow. There was a decision in 2009 that defaulted loans would be reported. There must be an exact date for that decision. That decision will be written down and may refer to a report. Send a very short FOI asking only for that document. That document may answer the question or a document it refers to can be requested.

It is highly likely that a document exists that shows why they decided not to report to CRAs.

Keep going until you get hold of it.

Schnurrbart

Hi all

I have three student loans (from 1993-96), and am eligible for deferment (and always have been). Last year the loans were being handled by Thesis Servicing. However, it looks like they might have been sold on to Erudio, whose practices are generating a lot of criticism. The reason I am unclear is that I have received no notification from either company that the loans have been passed on. Neither have I received a Deferment Application Form from either company.

I was about to contact one or both companies, but then I started to read about Erudio, and decided to post here first. The thing is, Thesis did not have my bank account details (the bank details section on the DAFs were always blank, and I have no Direct Debit instruction set up with them) so, presumably, Erudio will not have them either, so at least I don't have to worry about them trying to take money from my account.

What I am trying to get at is this: should I even bother trying to establish who is handling the loans, or should I just wait until whichever company is responsible eventually contacts me? I am not trying to avoid repayment (as already stated, I am eligible for deferment - in fact, my income is way below the earnings threshold), but, on the basis on what I have read about Erudio so far (and I've barely scratched the surface) I am reluctant to approach them and say, "Hey, don't forget about me!"

I think my best bet would be to contact Thesis and ask them whether my loans have been sold off to Erudio. Then, if for some reason they haven't, I can simply inform Thesis that I have not received my DAF, safe in the knowledge that they do not hold my account details.

My loans were just the 'standard' student loans that were offered at the time, so I assume that they are 'Mortgage Style' loans, in which case I believe I am correct in saying that they will indeed have been sold to Erudio.

To be honest, I'm not even entirely sure what I am asking in this post, so I apologize for any fuzziness. I guess I'm asking others what they would do in my situation, whether I should pro-actively chase up the matter with Thesis & Erudio, or whether I should, er, not.

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks. And good luck to those currently embroiled in disputes with Erudio. Deferring used to be a relatively straightforward affair, now it looks fraught with problems and pitfalls (with Erudio, anyway).

Site mods: I originally posted this in 'Loans', please delete that if necessary.

Jonez

Schnurrbart wrote: »

Hi all

I have three student loans (from 1993-96), and am eligible for deferment (and always have been). Last year the loans were being handled by Thesis Servicing.

My loans were also 93-96 - and were always handled by SLC prior to being sold to Erudio. How did yours end up being with Thesis? I thought it was only the later loans that were sold to them?