ERUDIO student loans help

fermi

Lungboy wrote: »

At least they are finally asking for net income, weren't they previously saying that self employed had to declare gross?

To some people yes, but that was always a load of ball hooks.

Brooker_Dave

It's a shame that the FOS are so weak that these loans are essentially un-regulated, and Erudio/Arrow seem to have been left to do whatever they please.

fermi

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=75061

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=76707

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=74359

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=73017

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=73778

Brooker_Dave

fermi wrote: »

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=75061

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=76707

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=74359

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=73017

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=73778

Each one seems to fall in Erudio's favor, and the FOS solution to the problem always seems to either be £50 or £100 compo.

They don't seem willing or able to address the fundametal problems of Arrows MO.

Given that the FOS may as well be disbanded and a proper regulator with a proper consumer complaints service should be formed.

Brooker_Dave

"It’s clear that Ms Z considers the goal posts have been moved since she took out her loan.
She never expected the finance company to register information about loan payment deferrals on her credit file. She explains when she took out the loan she did so on the basis that “student loans were different” only to find out many years down the line that this just isn’t
so. Now she has a further concern because she considers the information Erudio has put on her credit file will have an adverse impact on her ability to borrow in future. I can wellunderstand Ms Z’s sense of frustration and why she’s upset.
I see that Ms Z considers that Erudio is acting unfairly because it takes a different approach from other organisations and companies. She suggests that it’s not right that Erudio should treat borrowers differently based on when they took out their loans. Further she tells us that
she considers relevant legislation prohibits Erudio from taking the actions it has taken in relation to her.
But Erudio does not have to follow the commercial practices of other companies. And I am not persuaded that it has acted unfairly or unreasonably. Rather having looked at the relevant contractual documents I consider that Erudio is entitled to register information on
her credit file about the deferral of her repayments. The relevant terms and conditions permit this. And she agreed to these terms and conditions when she took out the loan. So whilst I have no wish to upset Ms Z any further I cannot fairly say that Erudio has done anything
wrong here. So I do not uphold this part of her complaint.
It might go towards putting Ms Z’s mind at rest to know that we have also talked to the credit reference agencies about this point. It is not entirely clear that the information put by Erudio on her credit file will have a negative impact on her credit score. If she wishes to find out
more about this she would need to speak directly to the credit reference agencies.

Joyce Gordon
ombudsman"

Who used to work for

(Shoosmiths)

(Eversheds)

(Google "arrow global shoosmiths" )

(Google "arrow global eversheds")

Draw your own conclusions...

anna2007

Lungboy wrote: »

At least they are finally asking for net income, weren't they previously saying that self employed had to declare gross?

It shouldn't be net income though, there's a big difference between gross earnings (after allowable deductions/expenses) and net earnings (after deduction of tax/NI).

Erudio's How to Guide still says:

For self-employment, this is the amount you are paid after any deductions such as Income Tax.

If people follow Erudio's guidance, they'll be understating their gross income... which is probably intentional on Erudio's part.

anna2007

An update on my deferment application - I emailed Erudio CS and Mark Filer yesterday, with an electronic copy of the DAF/evidence and asked for an update - their Customer Services confirmed this morning that the application's been accepted, 8 days after they received it via Royal Mail.

I used GetNotify notifications for the read receipts this time, which also gives the location of the person receiving it, as well as a receipt for each time the email's opened (8 times in total). The CS email receipts mostly showed the location as Leeds (Crapita), but one also came from Redmond, Washington, where Wilmington Trust have an office. Mr Filer's email was opened from Wilmington, Delaware. I guess that removes any doubt about our data being flung about!

anna2007

Firstly I can understand that Miss Z didn’t want to allow Erudio to carry out credit checks but Erudio has agreed that she can delete that portion. They have accepted that this was not part of the terms and conditions of her original loans

Erudio's FAQ's:

Why are you checking my deferment application details with third parties such as credit reference agencies?

In accordance with the terms set out in the original agreement, credit reference agencies (CRAs) may be used to verify your identity and validate the information that you provide in your application, such as income

Looks like Erudio need to update their website with the correct position re credit searches then.

JeLaw

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

"And she agreed to these terms and conditions when she took out the loan. So whilst I have no wish to upset Ms Z any further I cannot fairly say that Erudio has done anything
wrong here. So I do not uphold this part of her complaint.
It might go towards putting Ms Z’s mind at rest to know that we have also talked to the credit reference agencies about this point. It is not entirely clear that the information put by Erudio on her credit file will have a negative impact on her credit score. If she wishes to find out
more about this she would need to speak directly to the credit reference agencies.

Joyce Gordon
ombudsman"

Who used to work for

(Shoosmiths)

(Eversheds)

(Google "arrow global shoosmiths" )

(Google "arrow global eversheds")

Draw your own conclusions...

Oh dear! I haven't had a chance to come back to this thread for a while, and it looks like everything is still a nightmare!

Hopefully I'll get a chance to go through some of the posts I've missed. Just skimmed through the last page for now - and already I'm angry. As I usually am when reading updates about Erudio!

Would this count as conflict of interest? This Joyce Gordon's close relationship with companies involved with Erudio/Arrow?

As I haven't read through many of the recent posts I don't know the status of people's views on mis-selling.

The bit I've put in bold I think is relevant. I'm fairly confident all or most of us did not knowingly agree to terms and conditions that allowed for possible negative impacts on our credit ratings/files.

Lungboy

I've finally had time to draft my deferment letter. I'd welcome any suggestions and tweaks:

Dear Sir/Madam,
I have 6 loans (ref. no.s: ), originally taken out with the SLC and now owned by Erudio. I have been paying them back having been earning over the threshold for deferment. However, my contract changed in January and I have now been under the deferment threshold for the last 3 months. As such, I am writing to you to defer my loans under section 9 of the 1998 regulations which state:

"Each year the lender will tell the borrower new deferment level for the period between 1 September and following 31st of August. The borrower can defer making repayments of the loan if -

a. The lender has not already asked him to repay the loan in full, and
b. He can show -
(i) that his gross income for the relevant month is not more than the deferment level, and
(ii) if the lender asks, that his gross average monthly income during the 3 months immediately following the relevant month will not or is unlikely to be more than the deferment level.

Requirement a is clearly satisfied, as you have never asked me to repay the loan in full. To satisfy requirement b, to show the relevant financial paperwork, I have included 3 months’ worth of payslips including that of the relevant month to prove that I am now earning under the deferment threshold. I have also included bank statements to show the small amount of interest I am earning each month. I have not included a DAF as it is not necessary to do so to meet requirement b, to show you that I am beneath the deferment threshold. Nothing in section 9 of the 1998 regulations says that a DAF is required. Furthermore, the DAF asks me to allow you to share my details with CRAs, which I refuse to do, and it asks for personal information which is not required for me to show you that I satisfy section 9. Finally, it asks me to consent to conditions which are not included in hard copy with the DAF, but are instead on a website that can be changed at any time.

I look forward to your confirmation of my deferment.

Yours faithfully etc