ERUDIO student loans help

ericctheking

Basically fraud by BIS and Erudio.

plong979

will be interesting to see if this gets any press.

also in a dream world i'd like everyone affected by the sale be given the option of paying off their loans for the price erudio paid for them.

Brooker_Dave

Has Erudio actually paid for anything yet?

GinOClock

9.3.5 In determining whether a Borrower is entitled to defer, the Deferment Administrator will:

(A) ascertain the Deferment Level each year for the period between 1 September and the following 31 August in accordance with Clause 9.3.6; and

(B) assess the Borrower's gross income by aggregating all the amounts which Borrowers are required to disclose in the deferment form and which are included in the calculation of gross income; and

(C) check the evidence specified in the deferment application form as required to support the application provided.

In other words, there is no requirement for credit checks, or for the Borrower to give permission for the same, in the Sales and Purchase Agreement.

Pluthero

plong979 wrote: »

will be interesting to see if this gets any press.

also in a dream world i'd like everyone affected by the sale be given the option of paying off their loans for the price erudio paid for them.

Can HELEN or MARTIN on MSE not DO a piece on this?

Brooker_Dave

Perhaps its time to contact http://carvalinvestors.com/ to as why we are being treated by them in this way?

Brooker_Dave

Pluthero wrote: »

Can HELEN or MARTIN on MSE not DO a piece on this?

http://www.paullewis.co.uk/

erudioed

Concerning clause 10.2.2 down to B, maybe someone more skilled that I could copy it to this forum. If reporting to CRAs and credit checks were reasons why the price of the deal was fixed as it was, it also suggests to me the reason why the whole legality of this new step by Erudio has been so hotly debated. No one has been able to give an answer that rings true for the last 2 years, from BIS to Lewy to us looking at it. Something has always seemed to not make sense. We were told SLC decided against reporting the loans to CRAs. However, if it was in the power of SLC to do so ad the issue is clear cut, why this Clause in the sales agreement? It again doesnt quite add up that it is ok. And for it to be key to a deal agreeing a sales price of £160 million and be worded and listed in the sales agreement like it is, it has clearly been an issue between BIS and those working on the deal. It would be interesting to have been a fly on the wall and hear how it was discussed.
I still hold that a student loan cannot affect another person who isnt the borrower, especially when they have not breached the T&Cs in anyway. I was told by a key woman at BIS involved in this very discussion with the Erudio gang at the start of all this that this is the case, that a loan cannot affect another individual. But, as well all know, reporting any info to a CRA can affect others related to your credit file, including random people who may have moved into your old address and family members...this is the nature of CRAs and how they web people together to get a more rounded picture. This whole issue has grey areas and may be the reason why our loans havent been reported yet. Time will tell i guess whether Erudio want to take that risk, a decision i guess will fall on Arrow Global as the operator (subcontractor) of the loan portfolio.

Either way though, for this issue to be the heart of the purchase price, and for it to be so ambiguous when looking more closely at all the wording used by Arrow Global and BIS, suggests to me that there is something rotten about it all.

As an aside, i think Paul Lewis is following my twatter account, so he should be aware. If others also mail him i think it would only pique his interest that it is an issue of worth. I also contacted Andrew Mcgettigan, so hopefully he is having a look as well. He is more interested in the figures, which this lacks, but maybe he will see something of note that helps him connect dots. I think its a good idea for some of the MSE stalwarts to contact Martin Lewis and ask him to have a look because he is pretty damn good on the details having being involved with such issues for so long.

erudioed

Simon Read is looking now, he just twatted me. Hope he gets back on it...

Pluthero

I have written a quick letter to the person I have been in contact with in the FCA:

I would like to make the FCA aware of some information regarding the Govt/BIS sell off of my student loans. Under the sales agreement BIS have given ERUDIO the right to change the terms and conditions of deferment and collection. See section 10.2.2 of the sell off, here is the relevant clause:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nplvr6tjoyeoz1q/CLAUSE%2010.2.2.JPG?dl=0

Sale and purchase DOC LINK: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjzix1oh1awpi0z/Sale%20and%20Purchase%20Agreement.pdf?dl=0

Now the GOVT/BIS assured me at the time of assignment that the Terms and Conditions of my loans would not change as indeed the NOA from ESL did as well. This is a lie. They have actually written into the sale terms an agreement that 'ESL are allowed to use 'procedures .....materially different than those of the SLC....in order to increase the purchasers return [maximise profits]....'

I believe that assigned debt terms and conditions cannot be changed without consent?

Also you can see the effects of these 'materially different procedures' have had on honest deferrers with the FOS complaints DATA: http://www.ombudsman-complaints-data.org.uk/ A Horrendous record I am sure you will agree.

How much suffering and lies do 250,000 ex students have to endure before some legal body makes ESL behave in a responsible manner?

Thanks ...etc



I suggest we all contact the FCA to raise the profile of this. Indeed it surely needs investigating under the FCA unfair terms reporting section. More people complain to them the better.

Its http://www.fca.org.uk/site-info/contact and

this email: [EMAIL="consumer.queries@fca.org.uk"]consumer.queries@fca.org.uk[/EMAIL]

Awesome work all concerned