ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

plong979 wrote: »

Anyway, now the threshold is out, going to print off the SLC daf editing the monthly amount and then I'll sign that and send it off.

If your income was over this year's threshold, make sure Erudio don't receive your application before 1 September, as they'll assess it based on the threshold in place on the date of receipt - they've said as much in the latest news article on their website, and MSE said the same in one of their articles. If I remember right, they treated the change in threshold the same way last year, so any applications received by 31 August were assessed against the lower threshold.

Lungboy

anna2007 wrote: »

Sorry for the late reply Lungboy, I see you've sent your DAF now, but I just scanned page 5 and printed double sided with the amended page 6.

Good luck with your deferment - maybe the Erudio monkeys are only trained to spot lines through terms and handwritten amendments!

That's what I did too in the end.

Thanks! Here's hoping for poorly trained monkeys :-)

gardenia101

anna2007 wrote: »

Here's a copy of my annual statement and covering letter - I had the same issues with interest not being charged for some months, and the interest for some months being lumped together... it's almost as if Erudio want to get the stated interest wrong (I did check the interest calculation at the time, based on the dates they said they'd waived interest and no surprises, it was wrong!). I've marked the other errors/blatant lies, there's plenty of them.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/43c75mjo14j8upx/Annual%20Statement%201%20of%202%20redacted.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/66v5ohwl173pl43/Annual%20Statement%202%20of%202.jpeg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ut8g077nk9rzch4/Annual%20Statement%20Covering%20Letter%20Redacted.jpg?dl=0

It would be good to know if Erudio missed some of the interest from everyone's statements? The fact they lied about a CCA remediation letter being sent makes me think they're deliberately getting the interest figure wrong.

I made a complaint to Erudio on the annual statement last October, which has been with the ombudsman for a few weeks now (after Erudio didn't bother to reply to the adjudicator on my conditional acceptance). If there's anything helpful in the final decision, I'll post it up here, but best not hold our breath

Thanks Anna, that's really helpful & proves that my statement isn't a statement at all :mad: I wonder if there is a legal requirement to include certain information on these annual statements, such as IR? I've got none of the "useful information", no stated closing balance (although I'm guessing its the last number in my table of figures).

Honestly, how useless are Erudio & how difficult would it be for them to simply enlarge my standard print statement into an A3 size :wall: Although the last time they tried enlarging the DAF, they managed to get it done as such a poor quality copy it was illegible.

The dropbox link to the covering letter doesn't work for me - I get a 404! message. Also don't follow the comment about the CCA remediaton letter; don't think I had one of those either? I did get a NOSIA & an FCA info sheet about arrears back in Oct 14 (& both in standard print :mad:) if that's the same thing?

Anna - do you mind if I pass on those copies to FOS along with my "statement" so they can see what info I'm still not getting please? I know FOS should have enough Erudio paperwork to wallpaper their offices several times over, I want to drive home the point that Erudio are still not treating me fairly.

I suppose the next batch of annual statements will be landing on our doorsteps soon - wonder if they'll be any more accurate?

erudioed

Heres a semi-related piece of news by Andrew Mcgettigan some may find interesting on new student loans and the government looking into shafting more of the lower earners with student loans from 2012-16: http://andrewmcgettigan.org/2015/07/23/government-confirms-preference-for-retrospective-price-hike-on-undergraduate-study/

gardenia101

Got a cheque from Erudio for my compensation - what could they possibly do wrong when writing a cheque?

Yep - not spell my name correctly (there are only 6 letters in my surname :rotfl:). So they've corrected in with a squiggle & initialled the mistake so hopefully the bank will accept it....

Guess whomever wrote the cheque didn't have the collective Erudio/Arrow brain cell for that day

Glad my deferral is for almost another 2 years so they can't ask me to declare it as "other income" in this year's deferral faff. Not a chance of it taking me over the threshold thought, it's not that much money, but I'd be so p'd off if their compensation then took me over the threshold.

anna2007

gardenia101 wrote: »

Thanks Anna, that's really helpful & proves that my statement isn't a statement at all :mad: I wonder if there is a legal requirement to include certain information on these annual statements, such as IR? I've got none of the "useful information", no stated closing balance (although I'm guessing its the last number in my table of figures).

Gardenia, here's an extract from my FOS complaint, which covers the legal requirements for the annual statement:

By Erudio’s own admission in their response, there was an error in the migration of data between the Student Loans Company and Erudio, which resulted in my three loan accounts being “merged” under the first loan account number. The annual statement provided by Erudio is therefore inaccurate and misleading, as it looks like my total borrowing for all three loans was taken out in one year, under the first loan agreement. This is not compliant with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Information Requirements and Durations of Licences and Charges) Regulations 2007, Schedule 1, Part 1, which sets out the information that must be included on the annual statement.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...chedule/1/made

Paragraph 3(a) states that the annual statement must show:
"a description of the agreement sufficient to identify it", so by merging all three of my loans against one loan agreement number, it is not possible to identify each loan agreement.

There was a similar error made by Erudio, regarding the correct date - the “First Loan Payment Date (from SLC to You”) - of my loan agreement. Again, it is Erudio’s responsibility to rectify any errors, provide an accurate annual statement, which is compliant with the law. Under the same Regulations, Paragraph 3(d) states that the annual statement must show:

"(i)the date on which the agreement became an executed agreement; or
(ii)the date of first movement on the account".

The date Erudio have entered on the annual statement is neither of these dates, instead they have put the date my loan account was established (which was before the date I signed the agreement and obviously before the loan was paid to me).

Erudio considers that there is no detriment to me as a result of these errors; however they are not meeting their legal obligation to provide me with an accurate annual statement that shows the required information. The one loan agreement detailed on Erudio’s statement is no longer recognisable as the three separate loan agreements I took out with SLC, which had different loan agreement numbers, different loan values and were executed on different dates to the date stated by Erudio.

gardenia101 wrote: »

The dropbox link to the covering letter doesn't work for me - I get a 404! message. Also don't follow the comment about the CCA remediaton letter; don't think I had one of those either? I did get a NOSIA & an FCA info sheet about arrears back in Oct 14 (& both in standard print :mad:) if that's the same thing?

Try this link, I've no idea what went wrong with the first!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ut8g077nk9rzch4/Annual%20Statement%20Covering%20Letter%20Redacted.jpg?dl=0

The CCA remediation thing only applies to those who had arrears between 2008 and 2014 - doesn't apply to me, but Erudio claimed interest was waived on the statement because of the CCA remediation letter they sent me last June (I didn't get a letter). The whole CCA remediation thing stinks, I'm sure Erudio has motives other than trying to put right SLC "potentially" breaking the law. Same goes for the errors on the annual statement - Erudio trying to look like the numpties we know and hate, or some other motive?

gardenia101 wrote: »

Anna - do you mind if I pass on those copies to FOS along with my "statement" so they can see what info I'm still not getting please? I know FOS should have enough Erudio paperwork to wallpaper their offices several times over, I want to drive home the point that Erudio are still not treating me fairly.

Not at all, here's hoping FOS will wake up and notice the difference in the statements!

gardenia101 wrote: »

Got a cheque from Erudio for my compensation - what could they possibly do wrong when writing a cheque?

Yep - not spell my name correctly (there are only 6 letters in my surname :rotfl:). So they've corrected in with a squiggle & initialled the mistake so hopefully the bank will accept it....

Guess whomever wrote the cheque didn't have the collective Erudio/Arrow brain cell for that day

I had to :rotfl: when I read this, they did exactly the same with my cheque, and I really disliked the new name they gave me! They corrected mine too and the cheque cleared ok. At first I thought it's just the Erudio chimps getting confused again. Then I thought it might be a pathetic attempt to make me feel crap (they don't care enough to even get the name right). But knowing the same happened to you Gardenia, I'll go with the chimp explanation - which, when you think about it, is extremely insulting to real chimps

Edit: So many quotes and none of them went pear-shaped - that's a first!

Gardenia, that dropbox link still isn't working, if you need a copy PM me and I'll email it to you.

fermi

The link isn't working because of the long filename. The forum breaks up very long strings of characters so it doesn't mess up word wrapping, but on a few internet links with very long strings this breaks them. A space gets converted %20 on a url so counts for those characters.

Look carefully and you can see the forum inserted a space just before the jpg file extension part

You can get around it by doing a formatted link.

click

---

> This is the link that wouldn't work.

gardenia101

anna2007 wrote: »

Gardenia, here's an extract from my FOS complaint, which covers the legal requirements for the annual statement:




Try this link, I've no idea what went wrong with the first!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ut8g077nk9rzch4/Annual%20Statement%20Covering%20Letter%20Redacted.jpg?dl=0

The CCA remediation thing only applies to those who had arrears between 2008 and 2014 - doesn't apply to me, but Erudio claimed interest was waived on the statement because of the CCA remediation letter they sent me last June (I didn't get a letter). The whole CCA remediation thing stinks, I'm sure Erudio has motives other than trying to put right SLC "potentially" breaking the law. Same goes for the errors on the annual statement - Erudio trying to look like the numpties we know and hate, or some other motive?

I do wonder what their other motives could be? How can they be so consistently rubbish at everything? Surely it defies the laws of statistics :rotfl:

The CCA thig doesn't apply to me either, which may explain why I didn't get a letter about it. I guess they'll explain the missing interest away somehow.

Not at all, here's hoping FOS will wake up and notice the difference in the statements!

Thanks - I'll pass them all on & hope that they'll investigate it as an ongoing case rather than having to start a new complaint & waiting months for it to start.

My worry is that they'll say I'm not disadvantaged by not having a correct, complete statement since I'm deferred (as that seems to be their line on a few things I've argued about). Yes, I may not be suffering any harm today by not having such a statement, but that isn't really the point. I'll certainly need an accurate statement before deferment ends. I hope FOS don't let Erudio get away with this but I have a horrible feeling they won't actually be able to do anything about it after all.

I had to :rotfl: when I read this, they did exactly the same with my cheque, and I really disliked the new name they gave me! They corrected mine too and the cheque cleared ok. At first I thought it's just the Erudio chimps getting confused again. Then I thought it might be a pathetic attempt to make me feel crap (they don't care enough to even get the name right). But knowing the same happened to you Gardenia, I'll go with the chimp explanation - which, when you think about it, is extremely insulting to real chimps

Edit: So many quotes and none of them went pear-shaped - that's a first!

Gardenia, that dropbox link still isn't working, if you need a copy PM me and I'll email it to you.

I wonder if they've got anyone's cheque correct?

Anna - have PM'd you.

Fermi - thanks for the info about link sizes; would never have occurred to me.

anna2007

I made an FOI request to BIS for the new deferment threshold calculation, as I couldn't figure out why my calculation was £83 less than the BIS calculation of £28,828.

At the risk of sounding like a complete anorak... the difference is due to BIS including the pennies in the two AWE figures, whereas they've always rounded to the nearest pound in previous years. They also haven't rounded the annual % change in AWE to 2 decimal places, which they did do in previous years. You wouldn't think such small amounts would make much difference, but because they're projecting earnings growth forward 9 months to January 2016, it compounds the difference to the tune of £83.

I'm guessing BIS use a spreadsheet for the calculation, so would have had to manually change the formatting in the spreadsheet for these changes to happen. Why would they do that, when they've consistently calculated it another way in previous years? Or maybe Crapita have taken over the calculation?

I know I'm paranoid, but I simply don't trust the motives for these subtle changes (it's the same with the annual statement information, although those changes are more obvious).

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

Heres a semi-related piece of news by Andrew Mcgettigan some may find interesting on new student loans and the government looking into shafting more of the lower earners with student loans from 2012-16: http://andrewmcgettigan.org/2015/07/23/government-confirms-preference-for-retrospective-price-hike-on-undergraduate-study/

How true to form - the Tories want to make changes that hit middle and lower earners, and benefit the highest earners! :mad:

How can these retrospective changes even be legal (it might be in the loan t&c's that the Government can make the changes, that doesn't mean it's fair, or legal)?

I'm sure Martin Lewis blogged about this issue, saying he'd be on the warpath if the Government went ahead with the change.

Edit: Here's Martin's blog, which was updated in July -

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/01/09/a-deliberate-threat-to-the-government-u-turn-on-the-21000-student-loan-repayment-threshold-i-will-organise-mass-protest/