ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

I dont think so!

You're right erudioed, I wouldn't settle @ 5% with these crooks, never mind 30%

It looked like halfpricedebt was replying to GinOClock rather than Forever, so the two issues got a bit muddled?

Refusing deferment unless we agree to their t&c's amounts to coercion. If Erudio don't like the fact that they're bound to the original t&c's, then they shouldn't have bought our loans. The only term on information sharing/disclosure they're legally permitted to include on the DAF is the one in our agreements - word for word - as that's what we agreed to, not Erudio's BS.

I'm sure I read a while ago that the t&c's on assigned debt can't legally be changed once sold? If that's true, they surely can't legally rely on any new t&c's, regardless of whether or not the customer agrees to it... maybe it's illegal for them to even try?

They might argue that their FPN/info on the revised DAF gives clarity to the original (earlier) clause, I wouldn't put it past them. But the post-98 clause is already clear on disclosure, and Erudio's t&c's obviously go way beyond what was originally agreed, so it would surely be a crap defence if they did try to justify their actions in that way.

eroneo

anna2007 wrote: »

I'm sure I read a while ago that the t&c's on assigned debt can't legally be changed once sold? If that's true, they surely can't legally rely on any new t&c's, regardless of whether or not the customer agrees to it... maybe it's illegal for them to even try?

Agreed. It is impossible in UK law for a borrower to be subject to worse t&c's by reason of an assignment without the borrowers consent.
This is because of the "nemo dat rule" and the rule that contracts cannot be varied without the other parties consent.

I doubt they are worried though because so far no borrower has had the nerve to get them in front of a judge.

The FOI for the 'sale and purchase agreement' is VERY important because BIS may have misdescribed the lender's rights in some way. Borrowers rights as a third party to the deal may be affected by what is contained within. If they do not release the 'sale and purchase agreement' that could be the reason why.

anna2007

eroneo wrote: »

I doubt they are worried though because so far no borrower has had the nerve to get them in front of a judge

Have you considered that some people have had the nerve to get them in front of a judge, but because of the workings of the small claims court, it's not possible to get an actual decision on the legal issue? From what I've experienced, the judge gets more than a wee bit annoyed if the two parties haven't sorted out a small claim between themselves, before you even bother him with your legal troubles - it's the small claims court after all.

Obviously you do sometimes see legal decisions coming through the small claims process, but given the limitations, it's not fair (or accurate) to say that no-one has made a serious attempt as far as Erudio are concerned.

What's happening here with our loans is new territory - legally ground-breaking stuff (with the potential knock-on effects on future Government policy) - it's not been tested in court before - I would have thought most judges would relish the chance to give that ground-breaking, rule changing first decision, earn their place in history. But maybe the ones at small claims level don't want/aren't granted that responsibility?

Edit: I should add that it doesn't mean we shouldn't use small claims to resolve our own individual situations, we absolutely should as it should work and costs Erudio plenty. It just seems we're unlikely to resolve the bigger issues for everyone through small claims, we need another route.

Another edit: Or maybe small claims, but unrelated to the deferment process (which they will always agree to when pushed). If challenged on CRA reporting alone, they can only back down on that one issue (win), or the court has to decide (win - surely?!)

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

Another edit: Or maybe small claims, but unrelated to the deferment process (which they will always agree to when pushed). If challenged on CRA reporting alone, they can only back down on that one issue (win), or the court has to decide (win - surely?!)

This is where they hold all the cards, to enforce the agreement customers have to employ a solicitor and then at the last minute Mark Filer (?) backs down and the grants what should have happened in the first place.

Brooker_Dave

eroneo wrote: »

I doubt they are worried though because so far no borrower has had the nerve to get them in front of a judge.

Right at the start someone did and won.

Anthony Reeves did seem to get results before he and his posts here vanished without trace.

eroneo

Sorry if my post seemed like it was blaming borrowers for not taking court action. That was not what I meant. A very small number have and they should be commended for doing so but the majority have sadly been fobbed off and walked over. I still think more borrowers could have stood up for their rights but each person has their own situation and decisions to take.
It does not help that the entire system is in the baddies favour requiring a claimant to go to disproportionate lengths to get any justice and that a claimaint is obliged to settle out of court if settlement is offered. That way ESL escape justice.

The issue of deferment is a red herring. ESL will defer loans if that is all a borrower cares about then just sign the form and forever be bound by the new t&c's.

Even if they allow deferment, our privacy is still at the mercy of an untrustworthy DCA.

The real issue here is that borrowers have had their rights taken away because of the loan sale.

So far I do not know if there have been any actual judgements handed down.

May be worth checking here:

http://www.trustonline.org.uk/

erudioed

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

This is where they hold all the cards, to enforce the agreement customers have to employ a solicitor and then at the last minute Mark Filer (?) backs down and the grants what should have happened in the first place.

Mark Howard Filer's just the name down as running the shell company Erudio, as sanctioned and on behalf of The Wilmington Trust, who set up the shell company and its structure.
Its Zach Lewy, head at Arrow Global, who i assume does all the decision making on behalf of all the 'partners' in the 'consortium'. Well, its Lewy who pokes his head slightly above the water when the press have gotten involved and who the woman at BIS i was talking to called directly when there were any problems.

gardenia101

GinOClock wrote: »

I did get a response on my complaint from Erudio regarding crossing out part (e) of the Certificate and Warranty. It's not very helpful:

The DAF was classed as incomplete as you have crossed out part of the terms and conditions. In order for a customer's DAF to be accepted, a customer must agree to the terms and conditions within the application. As such, I'm unable to uphold your complaint.

There are no words.

Oh I can think of a few words :rotfl:

Not been on here for a while, so sorry if I've missed a few things. Regarding partial settlements I assume Erudio look at how long the loan has to run before being wiped out, & that will have some bearing on what % they may consider settling for. Although I also think they'll just keep pushing & pushing & pushing for more, & probably try & find a way to come back for the rest even if they did did finally agree on a partial settlement. Best of luck with anyone trying to arrange such a settlement though.

I've heard back from the ombudsman at FOS - not sure what to think really, apart from being disappointed.

She's confirmed that Erudio can take most of any child maintenance if a single parent receives it, but feels it isn't discriminatory.

She's confirmed that Erudio should only ask for income details over the 3 month period stated in the SL Regs, but hasn't clarified how Erudio can ask for savings income to be counted over a 12 month period. To me, the regs don't differentiate between income types, so savings income should also just be counted over the same 3 months, surely? While this doesn't affect me for the last deferment processes (& the SLC only asked for 3 months savings income information) it would have caught me out years ago when I received an inheritance.

I've questioned FOS again, but expecting the answer that as I haven't suffered any detriment (since my savings income is well below every month) they won't comment on it....

As for the large print issues - well, isn't that turning into a saga . FOS keep saying Erudio will send me statements etc, Erudio consistently stick 2 fingers up to FOS & Me & don't comply, rinse & repeat.... short of going up to Rotherham with a big stick & beating it out of them I don't know how I'm supposed to get a statement I can actually read :mad:

Have asked FOS what they suggest I do next, but I have a feeling they won't come up with anything that makes Erudio behave themselves.

Didn't some of you on here have incorrect interest rates applied to your loans? How did you know about this - maybe from the statements I have yet to receive? I've asked Erudio several times to confirm what rate I'm being charged & when my loans will be written off - consistently ignored.

Its certainly put me off encouraging my kids to go to university in the UK - & encouraging them to go abroad would be cheaper & they wouldn't be home so often with laundry!

Brooker_Dave

erudioed wrote: »

Mark Howard Filer's just the name down as running the shell company Erudio, as sanctioned and on behalf of The Wilmington Trust, who set up the shell company and its structure.
Its Zach Lewy, head at Arrow Global, who i assume does all the decision making on behalf of all the 'partners' in the 'consortium'. Well, its Lewy who pokes his head slightly above the water when the press have gotten involved, who turned up with an army of lawyers when he agreed to meet Simon Read once, and who the woman at BIS i was talking to called directly when there were any problems.

Mark Howard Filer will be the man named if you chose to sue Erudio for non performance.

According to the accounts he's Erudio's one and only employee.

But I agree Arrow are calling the shots.

No harm in leaning on Filer and Carvel though.

GinOClock

Decision DRN3144521 by the Financial Ombudsman sheds some useful light on requirement to agree to credit checks on the DAF.

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 [on the DAF]. They have accepted that this was not part of the terms and conditions of her original loans...

You can look it up on the FOS website, but I am too new a user to post with links.