ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

Maybe Erudio has decided bullying people with disabilities still doesnt read too well in the media, especially with all those following how successful Erudio is for the future coming loan sales, which are the real 'gold' at the end of the tunnel considering the nature of those loans and not messing about with deferments. The people behind Erudio (whoever they may be... today we only know some of them) have already won or ended up acquiring at least 2 of the last (1st) 3 loan portfolio's. I think they realise they have made a real public gaff with how they have treated us and they are now applying their version of damage limitations, which is basically blackmail for shutting up and not complaining to the FOS or elsewhere. It will be the FOS statistics anyone checking Erudio's customer service record will be checking during any future 'due diligence' process, or that civil servants will get in their report on the Erudio loan sale, titled 3rd successful student loan sale, continuing the path to student loan privatisation.
In my opinion, its the shut the people up by filling their mouths full of cheap sweets approach, or in marketing lingo 'treating customers fairly', well those people who have a case that could embarass them and bring them emotive negative publicity.
That said, £100 is no throw away and it is £100 less in Erudio's coffers, which can add up. However, a few years ago, an hour of trouble was £10 in a compensation claim. If its taken more than 10 hours and much more stress get on to the FOS and tell them you feel you are not being compensated accordingly.

zombi

Hi, been away a long time but can now say that I escalated my case from an Adjudicator to Ombudsman who upheld my complaint. I received £100 compensation from Erudio and a letter of apology.


Just waiting for deferral time to swing round now so the whole palaver can begin again


How many of us have had success through the ombudsman now? I'd like to get some idea of how many complaints to the FOS have been successfully upheld...

Lungboy

I emailed the Deferment address for Erudio about them saying i didn't sign or date my forms, and I've had a reply! They say:

"In order to complete your deferment application we require you to fill in our section 9 and not edit the form as we are unable to accept the form if you do not agree with our terms and conditions. We also require your May, June July payslips in order to work your deferment as you signed the deferment form on 23/08/2015."

This is completely different to the letter they sent me. I've also not been asked for any new payslips at any time, as this is still my deferment application from back in April.

fermi

Lungboy wrote: »

"In order to complete your deferment application we require you to fill in our section 9 and not edit the form as we are unable to accept the form if you do not agree with our terms and conditions.

The extra terms and conditions that they swear blind are not being imposed on top of the original loan ones?

:rotfl:

The 'unable' is also a straight lie. They don't want to. They are not 'unable'.

BorderReiver14

@Zombi and @Lungboy

I will be in a very similar situation to yourselves and cannot say too much online at the moment. The FOS have screwed up in my case and court will be the only way to go.

I am not sure what you plan to do next Lungboy but there is no way I would be signing anything on section 9 that was not edited to reflect my stance on what the original T&Cs are.

anna2007

Some good news (about time!) about the FOI request for the sale and purchase agreement between BIS and Erudio. I raised a complaint with the ICO back in March, when BIS still refused to release the info, following their internal review.

ICO confirmed yesterday that the "vast majority" of the agreement will now be released - some of the redactions initially made by BIS have been reinstated after the Information Commissioner reviewed BIS's submissions - he's satisfied that the remaining redactions meet the 'commercially sensitive" exemption. Hopefully we'll at least be able to see subject headings for any redactions (if not, I can take this up with the Case Officer) and if we think it's info we should be getting to see, there's still the option of a tribunal appeal for the redacted info to be released.

ICO have passed my email address to BIS, so it should by arriving (over several emails, as there's a lot of it) in the next few days - I'll post it on the forum once I have it.

I hope this has cheered a few people up - if nothing else comes of it, at least it proves it's worth persevering - we do have rights in all of this, and BIS/Erudio shouldn't get away with trampling all over them!

Lungboy

I don't know what to do either. I know people in this very thread have successfully deferred using the modified DAF but I don't know how to get them to accept it in my case.

plong979

Lungboy wrote: »

I don't know what to do either. I know people in this very thread have successfully deferred using the modified DAF but I don't know how to get them to accept it in my case.

Have you thought about sending in the SLC DAF?

After all Erudio inherited those T&C and that form was fine for the SLC. Plus the FOS mentioned that we should complete the DAF as it's "needed" for Erudio, so why not give them the SLC DAF. When they say no, escalated to the FOS saying the SLC form contains all the information required as well as the original T&Cs which you agreed to. Plus it's the same form that we've been using for years without problem.

rizla_king

Lungboy wrote: »

I don't know what to do either. I know people in this very thread have successfully deferred using the modified DAF but I don't know how to get them to accept it in my case.

Only way to force them with any certainly is to take them to or threaten court.

rizla_king

anna2007 wrote: »

Some good news (about time!) about the FOI request for the sale and purchase agreement between BIS and Erudio. I raised a complaint with the ICO back in March, when BIS still refused to release the info, following their internal review.

ICO confirmed yesterday that the "vast majority" of the agreement will now be released - some of the redactions initially made by BIS have been reinstated after the Information Commissioner reviewed BIS's submissions - he's satisfied that the remaining redactions meet the 'commercially sensitive" exemption. Hopefully we'll at least be able to see subject headings for any redactions (if not, I can take this up with the Case Officer) and if we think it's info we should be getting to see, there's still the option of a tribunal appeal for the redacted info to be released.

ICO have passed my email address to BIS, so it should by arriving (over several emails, as there's a lot of it) in the next few days - I'll post it on the forum once I have it.

I hope this has cheered a few people up - if nothing else comes of it, at least it proves it's worth persevering - we do have rights in all of this, and BIS/Erudio shouldn't get away with trampling all over them!

You can bet those are the parts we need to see.