ERUDIO student loans help

fermi

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

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.”

Dissecting those weasel words from Erudio....

Not a legal requirement for you to use their DAF then.

Nor legal for Erudio to refuse deferment simply because you chose not to use their form.

fermi

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

“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.

No Erudio.

The people you are trying to collect debts from have not assumed the wording change means that.

It is quite apparent that even with the original wording of "satisfy" there was no legal requirement to use a particular form of the loan administrator's choosing, nor did they have the legal right to refuse any deferment that does not use it, as long as you meet the conditions for deferment.

Erudio were simply quoting the old version of the wording "satisfy", as that wording is easier for Erudio to misrepresent as meaning that their form is compulsory, whereas "show" is less amenable to such attempts at misrepresentation by Erudio.

cluelessfish

fermi wrote: »

Dissecting those weasel words from Erudio....

Not a legal requirement for you to use their DAF then.

Nor legal for Erudio to refuse deferment simply because you chose not to use their form.

well said.

why do people who are paid to read/write these statements for erudio find it so difficult to give a straight answer.

“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.”

this should read something like this

"Erudio is aware the wording changed from “satisfies” to “show”, while the wording has changed, the intention of the sentence has not, deferment is a legal right and is not at the discretion of the lender. When dealing with so many customers, it is reasonable to have a process in place to ensure Erudio manages the large volume of deferral requests it receives efficiently. For example a standardised form for customers to declare their income as used by SLC for many years.

After acquiring the remainder of the mortgage style loans Erudio decided to create a new DAF which asked for more information than required and contained unclear information on what customers were signing. Some customers chose not to sign the form but still provided Erudio with evidence that they met the criteria for deferment. At the time erudio refused to process these applications,This was an error on our part and should have been corrected sooner.

Erudio, with feedback from mse, has now changed the DAF. We will continue to monitor its use and may make further changes to ensure Erudio treats all customers equally and manages the large volume of deferral requests it receives efficiently.”

eroneo

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

“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.”

There was never a problem with the SLC form.

The problem with Erudio's DAF, is that the Fair Processing Notice aims to change the terms and conditions in their favour. A borrower cannot use the form without being forced to agree to the changes. Therefore, the DAF they have created is not reasonable and noone should be required to sign it.

Would it be reasonable for the DAF to have a compulsory clause that must be signed by the borrower that doubles the interest rate every time you defer?

No. (oops better not give them ideas:()

anna2007

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.

Only Parliament has been dissolved, so no MP's now until after the G.E. It's business as usual for the Ministerial Departments, until the new Government's in place.

BIS fobbing off, as usual.

cluelessfish

I agree that BIS should reply, however the the regulations are legal documents and are written so that anyone with a pinch of legal training, or common sense, can understand. So if bis wont give answer ask someone else, does mse have a legal department of some kind?

"satisfy" and "show" are different words and the change was made for legal reasons to remove doubt

satisfy
conditions/needs/requirements
To have or provide something that is needed or wanted:
She satisfies all the requirements for the job.
There are three main conditions you must satisfy if you wish to be a member of the club.

show
to make it possible for something to be seen:


Erudios response contains the words "reasonable" and "required" in the same sentence about the use of a DAF. How does that in any way answer the question asked or demonstrate that erudio understands the regulations?

rizla_king

Erudio understand the regulations very well. Which is why they are doing their best to hide or obscure the fact that their forms are not a legal requirement.

Jonez

As has been said many times - the requirement to use the DAF needs testing in court. Surely it's only a matter of time before a case sets a precedent?

ymeu

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

“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.”

Many thanks, MSE Paloma

What a bizarre and nonsensical statement from Erudio.

Words have very specific meanings and the legislation was changed for the sole purpose of changing the meaning.

There is no other reason to change the words.

If the legislators intended the meaning of the sentence to remain the same - they simply wouldn't have changed the words!

Hey Presto! - that's how you keep a sentence meaning the same thing.

Obviously they intended the sentence to mean something different in 1998 to what it did in 1997 - and to properly and clearly express the change in the intended meaning... they changed the wording.

I mean for gawd's sake!!! What are Erudio like? That's like arguing with a toddler

BorderReiver14

Jonez wrote: »

As has been said many times - the requirement to use the DAF needs testing in court. Surely it's only a matter of time before a case sets a precedent?

Sadly not because only individuals are taking court action and Erudio are always settling out of court each time by granting a deferment thus removing 'unfair relationship' and paying the costs of the individual.
My guess is that it is going to take a test case with a group of us to force it to court.