ERUDIO student loans help

fermi

No, it wasn't just later loans sold to Thesis. I have seen ones (I think) for 94 - 96 that Thesis bought.

As far as I know it was ONLY loans that were still with SLC later 2013 that were then sold to Erudio.

If Thesis had them then they should still have them.

Schnurrbart

Thanks Jonez and fermi.

Jonez, I don't know 'how' my loans ended up with Thesis - I simply got a letter some years back telling me that the loans had been transferred, and since then all my dealings (basically just the annual deferments) have been with Thesis.

fermi, I hope you are right. Clearly, I need to contact Thesis to establish whether or not they are still handling my loan; if they are, I need to request their DAF.

On Erudio's home page it states: "We manage student loans taken out by students who began courses between 1990 and 1998, previously looked after by the Student Loans Company (SLC)." I inferred from the first clause of that sentence that my loans were possibly with them, since they were taken out between 1990 and 1998. I admittedly didn't pay much heed to the second clause, especially given that (initially at least) my loans were looked after by SLC.

Hopefully, I'm in the clear as far as having to deal with Erudio is concerned (at least until such time as Thesis sells my loans on to them) - I won't know until after Easter, as I'm unable to contact Thesis today. But my heart goes out to those who are having major issues with Erudio, and I'll continue to follow this thread with great interest.

fermi

The loans each company handle are not strictly segregated by year.

You cannot use the years as a way to work out who has a loan.

Thesis are not selling any loans on as far as I know.

BaffledByErudio

I didn't realise that - I thought there was a specific dividing line between the periods of loans sold off.
If it was somewhat random - i.e Thesis bought as many as it wanted and then the rest were flogged off to Erudio when the time was right - then SURELY there's some bloody big argument to be had about the CRA reporting predicament we're in!
How can it be fair that we're being grassed up - in theory giving our credit worthiness a knock - on a purely pot luck basis of which accounts were sold?
It's a f***ing bigger disgrace than I ever imagined, if that's the case!

anna2007

From HSL's website:

All the loans which HSL purchased were mortgage style loans granted by the Student Loans Company prior to March 1999 and the customers whose loans were transferred were randomly selected from the Student Loans Company's overall customer base. The selection process ensured that where a customer had multiple loans at the time of sale, all of a customer's loans were transferred. This has minimised the instances where a single customer has loans administered separately, but customers whose loans were transferred to HSL and which have taken additional student loans since March 1999 will have loans from both HSL and the Student Loans Company and these are managed as separate loans

http://www.honoursstudentloans.co.uk/application/AboutHonours/Default.aspx

I'm guessing the selection process for the Thesis sale would have worked the same way, so completely random.

fermi

Pretty much, yes.

Jonez

Schnurrbart wrote: »

Thanks Jonez and fermi.

Jonez, I don't know 'how' my loans ended up with Thesis - I simply got a letter some years back telling me that the loans had been transferred, and since then all my dealings (basically just the annual deferments) have been with Thesis.

I stand corrected - I had no idea that the loans were sold off in the random fashion described below. What a bloody mess!

crapola

I'm sorry, but randomly selected?!

How the frig is that being treated fairly?! :mad:

fermi

They may have though that was being fair?

Not that I think it was I hasten to add.....

'Fair' would have been not selling any off in the first place, but politicians don't think in those terms, and wanted a fast buck.

Former_MSE_Paloma

Hi there,

I asked BIS about the difference in the wording from "satisfy" to "show" and unfortunately it was unable to respond as Parliament has now been dissolved.

I also asked SLC and it said it can't comment as it is an issue for BIS.

I've just received the following response from Erudio regarding the wording on the 1997 regs ("satisfy") and the 1998 regs ("show") in relation to the DAF...

“Erudio is aware the wording changed from “satisfies” to “show”, and some customers have taken this to mean they do not need to complete or sign the Deferment Application Form. However, while the wording has changed, the intention of the sentence has not. When dealing with so many customers, it is reasonable to have a process in place requiring the completion and signature of a DAF form to ensure Erudio treats all customers equally and manages the large volume of deferral requests it receives efficiently.”

Many thanks, MSE Paloma