ERUDIO student loans help

BorderReiver14

erudioed wrote: »

Was this for the pre-1998 loans Erudio stated this about or post-98?

!

Both pre and post 98. this is what the FOS have told me. Not sure if they understand what ESL argue but its a binding decision.

anna2007

GinOClock wrote: »

Here is another FOI to BIS on the DAFs:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/erudio_student_loans_and_dafs

That's a clever FOI, a bit of a rock and a hard place for BIS - if they were acting in the borrower's best interest, then there's nothing to hide... if they were (most likely) favouring Erudio, release of that information would not look good for BIS.

Can't see what exemption they could reasonably hide behind either?

Edit: @ erudioed Didn't see your post until after I posted - we're clearly on the same wavelength!

anna2007

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Both pre and post 98. this is what the FOS have told me. Not sure if they understand what ESL argue but its a binding decision.

FOS don't seem to understand much about any of this, but that is an amazing result! Well done

erudioed

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Both pre and post 98. this is what the FOS have told me. Not sure if they understand what ESL argue but its a binding decision.

Just playing devils advocate...and hope you will set me to rights. I reread the wording, and it could suggest Erudio are saying that they accept this was not part of the T&Cs for ALL the loans. This could mean it is for some but not for others (to Erudio), not necessarily meaning both pre and post 98 loans (after all, they tried to get us to agree to allow them to report to CRAs for the post-98 loans). Well that is one way i could interpret it the way i read it this time. If this was the meaning of the ombudsman, then this is still the same bone of contention as always is it not. We dont think they should be allowed to report to CRAs because we are in deferral etc but Erudio think they can. And the Sales and Purchase Agreement seems to suggest BIS gave them the go ahead as this was part of the reason for CarVal paying the price it did. I only think it is us all causing a storm about the CRA reporting issue and suggesting huge legal problems that has stopped them from doing it. After all, why would Erudio admit that reporting ALL loans is not part of the T&Cs, when their regulatory boss (BIS) has given it the go ahead.
Set me straight if you think im wrong...i am rather tired, so it may just be me.

BorderReiver14

I agree with you erudioed but look at the exact wording again and take it from me that I left the FOS in no doubt with my complaint that I objected to both pre and post 98 loans being reported.

"...they have accepted this was not part of the terms and conditions of all his original loans."

The FOS ombudsman moves on to say they uphold my complaint.
Surely you are not suggesting that the FOS as a key cornerstone of financial rights are guilty of not using plain English in expressing their findings? This is now a binding agreement. What would a court say?

Brooker_Dave

So Eurdio have been forced to accept now twice that reporting to CRAs is not acceptable under the contract as it stands

"...they have accepted this was not part of the terms and conditions of all his original loans."

Which is presumably why they try to bully loan holders into signing away their rights on the last page of their flawed DAF?

It now seems that said flawed DAF was a joint effort between the chaps from the tax havens and the BIS - leading me to wonder if the BIS can be sued for neglecting their duty of care towards the loan holders?

But now the inept and slow moving FOS have ruled that the last page of the DAF is misleading surely the whole thing needs to be ignored, if at least one part of a document is misleading then surely it can not be used and anyone who has signed it can take action if their loans are reported to CRAs?

Brooker_Dave

And if Erudio is making misleading claims to its customers, does that leave the American company Carval Investors open to action under the rico fraud and racketeering laws?

erudioed

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

I agree with you erudioed but look at the exact wording again and take it from me that I left the FOS in no doubt with my complaint that I objected to both pre and post 98 loans being reported.

"...they have accepted this was not part of the terms and conditions of all his original loans."

The FOS ombudsman moves on to say they uphold my complaint.
Surely you are not suggesting that the FOS as a key cornerstone of financial rights are guilty of not using plain English in expressing their findings? This is now a binding agreement. What would a court say?

Im not suggesting anything, what i am questioning is the wording of that statement because we need to be 100% right about such things, especially when it is mentioned it relation to court action. I can read it both ways, wishing your interpretation to be the correct one. As i said, i was just playing devils advocate. I air on the side of your interpretation but it is a very important issue/statement because of its knock on effect, so it needs to be very clear.

BorderReiver14

I concur with your point but I am sure Erudio will be happy to clear this up in court. Along with the right to defer without a DAF.

Tommygunn

I received my complaint refusal letter the other day and, as mentioned earlier, my complaint has been rejected on the grounds that the DAF needs to be signed in an original, unmodified form blah blah.

So what to do?

I have 17 days left to run on my 3 months of overun from when my deferment ended (14th July to 14th October).

I have made a complaint to the FOS, but that will take up to 90 days or something.

Going to court simply is not practicable at present, financially and geographically.

It feels like I will have to be a surrender monkey and sign their damn DAF form, which, of course, I do not want to do.

Any final ideas before I have to put pen to paper?

Tom.