ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

Link to the FOS decision - how embarrassing for Erudio

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

anna2007

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.

The CRA reporting's different from the legal right to deferment, which is clear cut.

It shouldn't have to involve a solicitor though, our agreements are regulated by the CCA, consumer contracts have to be written in a way that the ordinary consumer can understand. Even if we forget that the earlier clause on disclosure is unclear, ambiguous and therefore unfair in law, there's the fact that the consent Erudio is relying on contradicts the DPA and the overriding EU law on data protection. Erudio also can't impose new terms on assigned debt. There's other stuff I won't go into on here. Surely all of that is enough?!

Any friendly, sympathetic QC's reading this?

eroneo

anna2007 wrote: »

The CRA reporting's different from the legal right to deferment, which is clear cut.

It shouldn't have to involve a solicitor though, our agreements are regulated by the CCA, consumer contracts have to be written in a way that the ordinary consumer can understand. Even if we forget that the earlier clause on disclosure is unclear, ambiguous and therefore unfair in law, there's the fact that the consent Erudio is relying on contradicts the DPA and the overriding EU law on data protection. Erudio also can't impose new terms on assigned debt. There's other stuff I won't go into on here. Surely all of that is enough?!

Any friendly, sympathetic QC's reading this?

Only older agreements contain the all encompassing clause 16 on disclosure.

Notice that none of the original agreements have a section on obtaining data. For example credit checks are obtaining data. There is no mention of it in the contracts.

Wherever terms are described that may need data, it is only ever data given voluntarily by borrowers. There is no clause saying they will collect data from third parties.

I think this is far more worrying than reporting our debts to CRAs. If they are only able to disclose the limited information they already have from SLC and us and only to CAIS, it is tiny compared to massive violation of privacy they really intend to get away with.

To stop them disclosing they must be prevented from obtaining because they cannot disclose what they cannot obtain.

erudioed

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

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.

Indeed, any bad publicity for any of the parties is a plus in my books, especially as its all warranted by the shoddy, deceitful business they are all backing, or is it fronting. I still wonder who the whole consortium is though. Maybe we will find out one day. All the parties involved deserved to be heckled and told what they are actually backing in reality, at the front end service point, although i am sure most of them already know.

Brooker_Dave

"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..."

Surely if one part of the DAF is unfair - contains a section that is not part of the original T&Cs - then the whole document in unusable?

Why should a customer be forced to sign a document that is misleading?

The FOS seem to have a very unusual attitude towards the issue of the DAF.

anna2007

eroneo wrote: »

Only older agreements contain the all encompassing clause 16 on disclosure.

Notice that none of the original agreements have a section on obtaining data. For example credit checks are obtaining data. There is no mention of it in the contracts.

Wherever terms are described that may need data, it is only ever data given voluntarily by borrowers. There is no clause saying they will collect data from third parties.

I think this is far more worrying than reporting our debts to CRAs. If they are only able to disclose the limited information they already have from SLC and us and only to CAIS, it is tiny compared to massive violation of privacy they really intend to get away with.

To stop them disclosing they must be prevented from obtaining because they cannot disclose what they cannot obtain.

Yes, clause 12 in the later agreement specifically prohibits the sharing of our confidential data unless we break the agreement.

Erudio has to share information with the CRA databases before it can access it, e.g. for credit checks. Which is why Erudio said in the MSE articles early last year that they had to put information in to get information out.

The problem for Erudio is that the later agreement only allows them to share our info in very specific circumstances (and the earlier clause is too ambiguous to be valid consent to share with CRA's). This is why Erudio is so insistent that we now agree to everything in the DAF, as they don't even have that basic right to do checks under the agreements, never mind the right to report the loans.

Brooker_Dave

Meanwhile over at Mumsnet:

"Class Action

I was wondering if anyone who has been thinking of paying a lawyer to sue Erudio for breach of contract could contact me please.

I have a mountain of evidence of various breaches of contract

Also some, if not most loans are likely to be null and void under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I have at least one loan that is definately unenforceable as is, and may need a court to rule on the two others. I am doing this on principle as I am fed up of corruption.

If we can also pool redacted PDF's of successful complaints that generated compensation payments, then all make the complaints again seperately, we can easily generate enough money to pay a lawyer to act on this. I have a lawyer in mind who I think would do it.

This also particularly applies to those who are paying back and not just deferers, as the chances are at least one of your loans is unenforceable.

Please p.m. me via mumsnet. Send me your email address please. We also need a way to pool successful complaints."

?

Princess_Jane

My loan was successfully deferred - thanks all!

Lungboy

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Meanwhile over at Mumsnet:

"Class Action

I was wondering if anyone who has been thinking of paying a lawyer to sue Erudio for breach of contract could contact me please.

I have a mountain of evidence of various breaches of contract

Also some, if not most loans are likely to be null and void under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I have at least one loan that is definately unenforceable as is, and may need a court to rule on the two others. I am doing this on principle as I am fed up of corruption.

If we can also pool redacted PDF's of successful complaints that generated compensation payments, then all make the complaints again seperately, we can easily generate enough money to pay a lawyer to act on this. I have a lawyer in mind who I think would do it.

This also particularly applies to those who are paying back and not just deferers, as the chances are at least one of your loans is unenforceable.

Please p.m. me via mumsnet. Send me your email address please. We also need a way to pool successful complaints."

?

It sounds silly, but Rob Rinder (off the TV) actually specialises in this kind of law. I've considered an email to him but never got off my bottom to write it.

eroneo

Rinder is a fraud and financial crime specialist rather than a consumer credit specialist.
Fraud is basically lying to get something.

The phrases "your terms and conditions have not changed" and "in accordance with the original terms and conditons" have appeared many times. These are seemingly misrepresentations of the truth.

Theses statements did not appear out of thin air. Executives and other people sat down and made a plan as how they could maximise returns and came up with these phrases.

In order to prove a crime, there needs to be evidence someone knew they were lies and still put forward the policy.

The ombudsman decsion above says that ESL admit they cannot do credit checks. Yet they are still saying credit checks are in accordance with the original terms and condions. Is that not a lie? They have admitted it is not true but are still using it to trick borrowers into allowing credit checks.