ERUDIO student loans help

Pluthero

I had a real good go with the ICO. They were good with replies to my many questions and issues. I did copy them the DAF and ESL website citing their CRA threats that are plainly made and how I felt they did not have the right under the existing loan terms etc etc

BUT ultimately they said this:

Thank you for your further correspondence about Erudio Student Loans.

As previously explained until Erudio report this information to the Credit reference agency we are unable to consider this matter further.

I appreciate Erudio have updated their information regarding Deferred loans, however as no information is registered by Erudio on your credit file we cannot progress this matter further.

I can only therefore advise that you contact Erudio directly in relation to the updated information.

Yours .......


But I will of course get back to them in the HIGHLY unlikely event of ESL actually having the b*lls to reports our loans.

halfpricedebt

I don't know why I still get shocked and angered by what I read here. I made damn sure I never signed anything that indicated these jokers would use that to report my loans to CRAs.

At the end of the day I insisted it wasn't going to happen. I wouldn't sign anything that they have sent you stating you are giving them permission to do anything outside of the original agreement.

I screamed bloody murder at them on the phone last year when I submitted my own deferment letter until they had to concede I had been deferred. I didn't sign their form and crossed everything out saying "do not consent".

I even cancelled my DD so they couldn't help themselves to my account as they had done with others. Now I'm having to pay I make a payment over the phone when it's due and they've never said a thing. They even asked me if it would be easier to set a DD up and I said no.

I'm really starting to think we should all just stop engaging with them. Cancel the DDs, don't pay them and ignore their correspondence - it's what they do to us. What are they going to do if all customers stop engaging with them?

I'm so sick of their antics, something more radical needs to be done or we are going to have these same conversations year after year until the loans get cancelled, we settle, or we finish paying.

It's not fair they expect us to hold up our end of the bargain but they can't do anything to honour the agreement they signed up to honour.

eroneo

halfpricedebt wrote: »

they signed up to honour.

Did they? I'm not so sure. Did you consent to the loan transfer on new terms?

Did any of us agree to new terms and conditions? New terms and
conditions means they have DISHONOURED the original contract.

Do they have any rights at all are are we just being fooled by their persistent lies?

anna2007

Where any amendments have been made to the certificate and warranty we will be unable to process your deferment in line with your terms and conditions.

They are pretty much admitting here that unless you agree to their t&c's (all the extra stuff in the warranty, plus statement underneath), they won't honour the original t&c's of the loan agreement. I honestly don't know what they're playing at because that seems illegal as an assignee to the debt... but it's probably more to do with profit margin and scaring people into believing the crap they spout.

@ Tommygunn - PM me if you want a copy of the same declaration I signed and Erudio's acceptance. Even if they said they've changed their own 'policy' on the declaration since I was deferred in May, that doesn't change the legal position and have to defer your repayments if you prove your earnings. They're supposed to be champions of "treating customers fairly", which should mean consistency too. Be nippy-Scottish in any correspondence , so no niceties , straight to the point that they are in breach of contract by refusing deferment.

If they still refuse to defer, you can either take a complaint to FOS (will cost Erudio £650 upwards if they reach the FOS fee threshold, but you're very unlikely to get any legal argument resolved), or take it to small claims court, where it'll cost Erudio a whole lot more, but will probably be settled out of court, so still not legally resolved. After 2 indecisive FOS complaints (not all bad, £400 compensation for crappy customer service), I'm ok with asking a court next time, with all of Erudio's legal costs thrown in, to decide on the CRA reporting.

anna2007

Has anyone tried to get it by FOI?

Yes, details here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sale_of_mortgage_style_student_l_2#comment-58348

It's at the official complaint stage and can go to a tribunal if ICO side with BIS (don't see how they can side with Government when both previous agreements are public records). I was told by ICO I'd have their decision by late June/early July, so you've reminded me to get on their case! I said at the start of this, ICO report to Government - I'm not convinced that they're impartial, so I haven't really pushed our position with them... maybe that's what they want. Their arguments were pretty ridiculous - if you pointed out the flaws in supposed 'consent' (the condition Erudio are relying on), they said Erudio could claim a" legitimate right" to report, a completely different condition - it felt like ICO were trying to fit the situation around the law. My experience is that ICO are not on our side.

There's really only one solution at the present time - Jeremy Corbyn How else are we going to put a spanner in the privatising of every single asset the taxpayer owns, the decimation of our welfare state and the citizens who rely on it? Tories playing political chess with people's ACTUAL lives again, I hope Jeremy and his politics at least puts a dent in Gideon's bum when he bites it.

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

I'm ok with asking a court next time, with all of Erudio's legal costs thrown in, to decide on the CRA reporting.

Court seems to be the only way to deal with Erudio.

Crudio

eroneo wrote: »

Sorry to change the subject but the following document is interesting reading:



It is an investment prospectus for Honours student loans but contains excerpts of the "sale and purchase agreement" between SLC and honours.

Thanks for posting this eroneo. Sorry I can't link to your original post or copy the original link as I'm new to the forum.

There is some interesting information regarding borrowers in Scotland on pages 31-32, specifically:

Loans Governed by Scots Law
The governing law applicable to a Loan is determined by the address of the Borrower stated on the original Credit Agreement and is not affected by notification of changes to the correspondence address.

Title to a Loan under Scots (a Scottish Loan) law only passes once notice (intimation) of assignment (assignation) is given. Therefore, under Scots law (i) intimation of the composite assignment and assignation of the Loans under the Sale and Purchase Agreement should be sent to each of the Borrowers whose Credit Agreement is governed by Scots law, and (ii) strictly the intimation of assignation should be acknowledged by the Borrower to evidence receipt. Common practice dictates that delivery of the intimation by recorded delivery will provide such evidence of receipt.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the above process didn't happen in my case, and I would be surprised if it happened for many. This could mean that for loans borrowed using a Scottish contact address, Erudio have no right to claim ownership, and SLC are still responsible.

eroneo

anna2007 wrote: »

Yes, details here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sale_of_mortgage_style_student_l_2#comment-58348

It's at the official complaint stage and can go to a tribunal if ICO side with BIS (don't see how they can side with Government when both previous agreements are public records). I was told by ICO I'd have their decision by late June/early July, so you've reminded me to get on their case! I said at the start of this, ICO report to Government - I'm not convinced that they're impartial, so I haven't really pushed our position with them... maybe that's what they want. Their arguments were pretty ridiculous - if you pointed out the flaws in supposed 'consent' (the condition Erudio are relying on), they said Erudio could claim a" legitimate right" to report, a completely different condition - it felt like ICO were trying to fit the situation around the law. My experience is that ICO are not on our side.

For the FOI refusal I see:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1189/commercialdetrimentof3rdparties.pdf
and this
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1178/awareness_guidance_5_v3_07_03_08.pdf

Erudio have not personally objected, so the assumptions about their commercial interests should not be relevant. The govt's argument is basically that if bidders for the ICR loans knew the full information about the deal with Erudio, they would see what a giveaway it was and expect a similar bargain.

If it was not a giveaway and the govt truly got a good deal then it would be in their commercial interests for bidders to see the info so they know what a hard bargain they are up against.

If the govt got such a shamefully poor deal and agreed such shamefully poor terms with Erudio that they are fearful of repeating the same mistakes then it is rightly in the public interest for tax payers to know the full extent they were ripped off.

In terms of your general complaint:

The legitimate interest is one of 6 conditions for processing in the DPA, consent is another. At least one of the 6 must be satisfied or the processing is automatically deemed unfair. However, even if one or more conditions ARE satisfied, it does not automatically mean the processing is fair. This is often misunderstood.

Credit checks are unfair because the SLC did not mention credit checks when you were invited to sign up. The argument that it is in the legitimate interests is irrellevant.

eroneo

Crudio wrote: »

Thanks for posting this eroneo. Sorry I can't link to your original post or copy the original link as I'm new to the forum.

There is some interesting information regarding borrowers in Scotland on pages 31-32, specifically:

Loans Governed by Scots Law
The governing law applicable to a Loan is determined by the address of the Borrower stated on the original Credit Agreement and is not affected by notification of changes to the correspondence address.

Title to a Loan under Scots (a Scottish Loan) law only passes once notice (intimation) of assignment (assignation) is given. Therefore, under Scots law (i) intimation of the composite assignment and assignation of the Loans under the Sale and Purchase Agreement should be sent to each of the Borrowers whose Credit Agreement is governed by Scots law, and (ii) strictly the intimation of assignation should be acknowledged by the Borrower to evidence receipt. Common practice dictates that delivery of the intimation by recorded delivery will provide such evidence of receipt.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the above process didn't happen in my case, and I would be surprised if it happened for many. This could mean that for loans borrowed using a Scottish contact address, Erudio have no right to claim ownership, and SLC are still responsible.

So you got the Notice of Assignment Pack but it was not sent by recorded delivery? You may have found a get out. I think there are several other arguments that the title is questionable.

That document will take time to read through but there may be other useful info.

eroneo

In response to another FOI:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/247888/response/644959/attach/3/INTERBAL%20REVIEW%20FOI2015%2000586%20MS%20A%20PATTERSON.PDF.pdf
It was asked : Whether there is any provision for the student loans to be returned to the Government, if Erudio is found to be breaching the terms of the sale and purchase agreement between the Government and the purchasers.

BIS says:
"there are no intentions or provisions to take action in these cases"

Yet in http://www.ise.ie/debt_documents/honours_2337.pdf
there are claues covering every eventuality with a full range of sanctions if the purchaser breaches the agreement.

Presumably, the sale and purchase agreement with Erudio has comparable provisions? If not I would be very surprised but according to BIS there are no provisons in the deal with Erudio!

We should complain that we are not being treated fairly compared with the borrowers whos loans were sold to Honours. Honours borrowers are protected by provisions in the Sale Agreement but we aren't.