ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

Yes, a procedural change, according to BIS anyway, isnt a T&C change. However, if a procedural change impinges on a T&C, that is a different animal.

Brooker_Dave

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/24/proposed-student-loan-changes-would-affect-women-and-poor-most-study

Good news for the men from the tax havens?

Or nothing to do with our loans?

fermi

Not your loans, but may be the next lot to be sold off to debt collectors.

AReeves

Just a short note to say I am looking at this interesting development and will consider it.

However, I am not going to make public posting of my views but will be happy to speak to known contacts directly when I have had a chance to consider it.

Anthony Reeves

ericctheking

Erudio may be back to fraudulently trying to obtain money.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?452680-Can-Erudio-Raise-My-wifes-Monthly-Payments-Because-she-ll-be-50-Soon-and-need-it-paid-off-!!&

fermi

That old scam again. They don't learn.

If anyone here has a CAG account, and reply that could be helpful.

anna2007

Lungboy wrote: »

They've flat out stated they will not accept an amended DAF and that anyone that has been successful using it was a mistake.

If you look at 9.3.4(C) of the sale & purchase agreement, Erudio have the right to cancel deferment if it "discovers that the Borrower's Loan was deferred in error".

Whose "error"? Doesn't say it has to be the borrowers... so I can expect a new fight when Erudio cancels my current deferment due to their mistake in letting me defer with an amended DAF!

There have been and continues to be countless mistakes and "errors" made by Erudio - gaps in deferment, self-employed income being understated due to the "error" in Erudio's guide on deferment, etc, etc. It's outrageous that the agreement permits cancellation of deferment, simply because Erudio is inept and not fit for purpose.

More worryingly, 9.1.4 of the agreement states that the Purchaser:

may immediately seek repayment of the Loan if deferment is cancelled by the Deferment Administrator

Do they mean normal repayments resume? Recall the loan in full? The wording's too vague to know for sure, but we can all guess which interpretation Erudio will use. Even if it were normal monthly repayments, are Erudio then entitled to repayments between the date the DAF was accepted "in error", and the date deferment is cancelled, even though the borrower's income has remained below the threshold?

It's a complete shambles, by design no doubt. Bunch of corrupt crooks.

Brooker_Dave

But surely the BIS can put whatever they like in the sales contract to help their friends in the tax haven but our loan agreements still stand?

Our contracts and the student loan act protect us?

ericctheking

The deferment administrator has no right to cancel deferment.
The term and conditions state that the borrower just has to SHOW the lender that they are under the threshold.
It is clearly show and not satisfy the lender!

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

But surely the BIS can put whatever they like in the sales contract to help their friends in the tax haven but our loan agreements still stand?

Our contracts and the student loan act protect us?

Of course they do, and our rights under the original loan agreements can't be taken away - we know that, and so do BIS/Erudio. But BIS/Erudio don't seem too concerned about those rights, the emphasis in the S&P agreement is on Erudio using procedures and processes to maximise their returns (this is supposed to be done in accordance with the credit agreements and all other relevant law/regulations, but Erudio have never given a crap about any of that, they're not about to change now).

The way to maximise profits is to make their procedures and processes as difficult/awkward as possible, so what should be a simple, straightforward process of deferment for the borrower becomes a major PITA. And BIS have given a rubber-stamp of approval to these processes via the agreement (e.g. by allowing cancellation of deferment), even though it contradicts our legal right to deferment (by simply showing income's under the threshold).

Although Erudio's complaints data is bad, it's still only around 0.06% of all Erudio prisoners who complained to FOS over the 6 month period (with a handful threatening/using the courts). Erudio are far more interested in the other 99.94% who don't use FOS or court to enforce their rights under the agreement, because that's where the money's to be had.