ERUDIO student loans help

Cook1e

I am not the only one then who they claim not to signed the DAF. I sent the signed page again. They confirmed receipt of this and sent to the relevant department and said a letter would be sent. Sent a chase up email, no reply as yet. Will have to see if they answer before the deferment date.

Lungboy

rizla_king wrote: »

Never if you are in arrears

I'm not, but I'm aware they can use that as a reason not to write it off. My loans still have many years left on them, I just wanted to find out the date.

Pluthero

plong979 wrote: »

Well the real Ombudsman got back with their final decision:

• remove Mr L's arrears, as if Mr L's new deferral period started on the 15 May 2014, immediately after the previous deferral period ended and amend its records to reflect this.

• remove any adverse information it may have registered on Mr L's credit file since 2014

• pay Mr L £50 for the distress caused.

So what are my options now?

Really don't want to sign their form or have anything to do with them as they are sharks and I don't believe crossing out bits of the form well do anything as they'll just cry ignorance if they do anything underhand.

Also as this has now entered 2015 deferment period won't they just stick arrears on my again and I'll have to do it all again? I did send another letter and payslips again this year just in case, they haven't responded, probably due to the FOS complaint in progress.

The FOS are not ruling on the need/legality to use Erudio's DAF. In fact they are tripping over themselves with bizzare rulings over its use. There are a number of FOS decisions recently that state it they see no reason why people are reluctant to sign the Erudio DAF. Here is an extract from an FOS decision:

'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. Like our adjudicator I believe that Erudio can share information that they hold on Miss Z. That said, our adjudicator confirmed that Erudio should remove any adverse data that has been recorded on Miss Z’s credit record. I believe this is a fair outcome.

However I can see no reason why Miss Z remains unwilling to sign and date the form.
She may well think this is bureaucratic and I accept that she has given Erudio the information needed to assess her application. But I don’t believe that asking her to sign and date a form is an unreasonable request, and helps Erudio to manage the deferral requests it receives.'

Now this is a perverse decision as Erudio have basically admitted to the FOS that the DAF's credit check section is outside the original loan terms and you can delete that SECTION! (Caught with their pants down AGAIN!) AND that Miss Z has supplied ENOUGH evidence for deferment. Yet in the same breath the FOS see no reason for someone to to sign and complete the DAF. The major ISSUE is the unsuitability of the DAF for the purpose of deferment, yet they are blatantly refusing to rule it is unsuitable. A stunning conclusion! The FOS are inept or unwilling to rule on this issue: And why is that? ?

However on the bright side : an ombudsman has admitted in writing that bespoke applications have the information needed to assess a deferment application. One to use for anyone taking court action

halfpricedebt

I phoned up to make a second payment yesterday.

After they confirmed they received both offer letters I sent them, the girl on the phone told me they can't ask Head Office to get a move on with responding to them as they can't contact them to tell them so. I queried whether Head Office was actually like the Illuminati and she just laughed.

Then when I asked them how much an advanced payment for 10 months would set me back (so I can move things along to being eligible to defer again), she told me there was already an advanced payment on my account. I have no idea where this has come from, and she didn't know either. In order to figure this out she recommended emailing customer service to ask them to investigate - why she couldn't get someone to investigate there and then is beyond me. Needless to say I won't be handing over the considerable amount of money I borrowed from a family member to pay them off. They can't even run their own systems without wild discrepancies such as a random amount of money showing on my account.

I made the minimum payment last month and I suspect that the advanced payment on my account is probably deducted from that which leads me to be very suspicious and leads me to believe that my actual monthly payment should be £60 rather than £158. It seems to me that if they can send letters out claiming they got the original payment amounts wrong and had to rectify it, it doesn't fill me full of hope that they genuinely know what I owe.

It really has gone beyond a joke and I'm losing the will. How many complaints do people have to make before something is done about this company and its clearly dubious practices? I'm amazed they can run a business like this and be completely beyond reproach.

There must be something that can be done that goes beyond a complaint to the Ombudsman?!

halfpricedebt

Ha, interestingly I've had another call where they claim that if Erudio agree to settle, they don't inform CRAs. If they have closed the account they don't consider that partial or outstanding. Apparently it would be up to the CRA whether they flag it as that. I did point out that that depends on what Erudio tell them about the account but he says they don't communicated with CRAs. Quite a lot of inconsistency there wouldn't you say?

If my student loans don't currently appear on my credit file then why would they suddenly appear if Erudio agreed to settle? Apparently I will receive an offer with terms and conditions in writing. God knows when that will be and he still didn't explain the mystery £98.

It's like Jackanory.

fermi

halfpricedebt wrote: »

Apparently it would be up to the CRA whether they flag it as that.

Complete BS!

halfpricedebt

I know! How stupid do they think we are? They are the ones that notify the CRA so part of me thinks they either can't notify them or they can and are lying about it.

erudioed

I agree Pluthero. It was my argument after getting the 1st DAF last year, that if one thing is wrong on the DAF, they need to cancel that DAF and start again from the beginning, at their expense. Its ridiculous for the FOS to suggest that signing the DAF is fine if something is wrong on it. The reason for signing any form is to say everything is correct and you are verifying that via a signature. If something is not correct, then the form should not be signed, i feel that isnt, shall we say, rocket science, even to the FOS's first line of munchkins. Maybe it hires Capita....

Lungboy

Erudio replied to my email of complaint (sent alongside a paper copy) with this reply:

"Thank you for your recent email.
I am very sorry to learn that you are unhappy with having to fill out our deferment form. As it was with the Student Loan Company(SLC) this was also a requirement with them also. I will however pass the details you have supplied to the deferment team. As you have redacted pertinent details that are on your wageslips we may not be able to use these. Could you please supply these again without the redactions.

To allow us to investigate your issue further and contact you back, we would appreciate if you could confirm the following:

• The Preferred Time and Method For Us To Contact You (Email or Telephone).
• Your Primary Email Address.
• Your Preferred Telephone number.

From the details provided above, we will endeavour to make sure your query is answered within the next 48 hours.
Should you have any further queries in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely,

Erudio Student Loans"

I think I'm right in saying that the first point, that filling in a DAF was required by SLC, is nonsense. Good start. They then say I have redacted pertinent information from my wage slip. Isn't the wage slip there to show my gross interest? If so, what does it matter if I redacted everything else? Thirdly, it amuses me that they don't include good old fashioned mail as a method of contact.

erudioed

I assume you would have to have identifiers on the wage slip so they know its yours, such as name, but redacting unimportant info on bank statements is fine with these clowns, so the same must be the case for wage slips. Best to give them as fewer tracing numbers and identifiers as possible as you never know how they may be used again you in the future.