ERUDIO student loans help

gardenia101

Finally had an email from Erudio confirming that I had never been in arrears under the SLC - but they couldn't explain why they'd not been able to either calculate the correct interest, or explain the CCA remediation rubbish, or provide me with an accurate, complete statement. So I've asked again, sigh....

No update from FOS either; they said they'd be back in touch shortly but its been a month, sigh....

Anyone else not yet had their annual statement for 2014/5?

Anyone else fed up with how long all this is taking? Would that be all of us :rotfl: Lucky we're a stubborn bunch, eh?

plong979

Well Erudio got back in touch...with another form and letter kindly asking me to fill out and sign. No reference to my SLC or even telling me I never signed there form.

Next steps?

1 - Write back saying I signed the SLC DAF and sent my P45 proving I have no income at the moment, including a cover letter saying I am traveling.
2 - Complaint back to the FOS saying I sent them proof along with the SLC DAF so I've agreed to the T&C I am bound by. Plus a few extra bits about the BIS sale.
3 - Ignore and get it SB so in 6 years I'll be grand.

Edit: Probably do 2, why bother wasting more postage on Erudio.

GinOClock

I received a reply from the FOS adjudicator about Erudio rejecting a modified DAF.

The adjudicator said that Erudio does not need any permission to perform credit checks, it is an entirely commercial decision for Erudio to take. As such it cannot interfere with commercial decisions as they are not a regulator.

She then said she cannot take into account any previous ombudsman decisions where they have allowed others to cross out the credit check part of the DAF as they refer to only individual circumstances and cannot read across to others.

She finally goes on to say that she cannot understand why I would object to credit checks as they are not visible to other lenders.

That was it.

She did not answer any of the points made in my complaint, nor did she say why Erudio could refuse my deferment application. Her letter does read as slightly patronising, and is written as if it is constructed entirely of phrases that have been cut and pasted. Not only is the decision very wrong, the service from FOS has been pretty appalling.

I will be making further submissions to the adjudicator but have a feeling this will go to an ombudsman...

cluelessfish

gardenia101 wrote: »

Anyone else not yet had their annual statement for 2014/5?

Anyone else fed up with how long all this is taking? Would that be all of us :rotfl: Lucky we're a stubborn bunch, eh?

Still no annual statement either. But I did get 2 from Honours student loans, the first had obvious errors corrected by the second which arrived about a week later.

It does seem to take erudios mail an awful long time to arrive. I also noticed that when stuff does arrive it is dated to when it should have been posted. Is there any way to tell when stuff is actually posted or printed?

BorderReiver14

GinOClock wrote: »

I received a reply from the FOS adjudicator about Erudio rejecting a modified DAF.

The adjudicator said that Erudio does not need any permission to perform credit checks, it is an entirely commercial decision for Erudio to take. As such it cannot interfere with commercial decisions as they are not a regulator.

She then said she cannot take into account any previous ombudsman decisions where they have allowed others to cross out the credit check part of the DAF as they refer to only individual circumstances and cannot read across to others.

She finally goes on to say that she cannot understand why I would object to credit checks as they are not visible to other lenders.

That was it.

She did not answer any of the points made in my complaint, nor did she say why Erudio could refuse my deferment application. Her letter does read as slightly patronising, and is written as if it is constructed entirely of phrases that have been cut and pasted. Not only is the decision very wrong, the service from FOS has been pretty appalling.

I will be making further submissions to the adjudicator but have a feeling this will go to an ombudsman...

I had the misfortune of speaking to the FOS on the phone. Patronising must be one of their specialities... Along with side-tracking anything of real value to the fight with Erudio. I have a list of their stock phrases and mind blowing mantra. When I asked them how it was fair or reasonable to accept ESLs final answer when it quoted the wrong regulations the FOS responded with 'Erudio should not be held to task for quoting wrong regulations because they are not a legal practice'. I could only shake my head in utter disgust.

GinOClock

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

I had the misfortune of speaking to the FOS on the phone. Patronising must be one of their specialities... Along with side-tracking anything of real value to the fight with Erudio. I have a list of their stock phrases and mind blowing mantra. When I asked them how it was fair or reasonable to accept ESLs final answer when it quoted the wrong regulations the FOS responded with 'Erudio should not be held to task for quoting wrong regulations because they are not a legal practice'. I could only shake my head in utter disgust.

I can only empathise with you, BorderReiver! I gather adjudicators often have no financial or legal experience/background and start adjudicating cases after only one months training. And it shows. It really irks when I write a 12 page well researched report and they ignore it almost in its entirety. My adjudicator has clearly repeated Erudio's line verbatim with little to no independent thought.

I am going to try and phone the adjudicator next week. That will give me some time to feel less angry - if I spoke to them now I might use some of my own 'stock phrases' which probably would not help my case!

Of course, my adjudicator is not always available on the phone. A typical attempt often goes like this:

Ring at 1410: Rings for a while - then goes through to a message saying they are busy

Ring at 1420: Goes to voicemail - message saying they are in a meeting until 3.

Ring at 1505: Rings for a while - then another message saying they are busy.

Ring at 1515: Goes to voicemail - message saying they are in a meeting until 4

...ad infinitum

The irony is that FOS are supposedly professional complaint handlers!

anna2007

GinOClock wrote: »

The adjudicator said that Erudio does not need any permission to perform credit checks, it is an entirely commercial decision for Erudio to take. As such it cannot interfere with commercial decisions as they are not a regulator.

So the adjudicator fails to grasp the DPA issues, but also shows complete disregard for people's basic legal right to privacy? It's called human rights !!!!!!!! All well documented in UK and European law, but we already know that FOS can't consider that, only what's fair and reasonable... isn't the law based on what's fair and reasonable, otherwise what's the point of having a legal system?

Ombudsmen don't have to rule on any disputes that involve commercial decisions, and it looks like the adjudicator's trying to dress it up as this, when it's actually about consent, coercion, harassment and profiteering a-holes.

GinOClock

anna2007 wrote: »

So the adjudicator fails to grasp the DPA issues, but also shows complete disregard for people's basic legal right to privacy? It's called human rights !!!!!!!! All well documented in UK and European law, but we already know that FOS can't consider that, only what's fair and reasonable... isn't the law based on what's fair and reasonable, otherwise what's the point of having a legal system?

Ombudsmen don't have to rule on any disputes that involve commercial decisions, and it looks like the adjudicator's trying to dress it up as this, when it's actually about consent, coercion, harassment and profiteering a-holes.

Precisely. Deferment isn't a commercial decision for Erudio, it is a right of the borrower enshrined by statute and the loan agreements.

BorderReiver14

GinOClock wrote: »

I am going to try and phone the adjudicator next week. That will give me some time to feel less angry - if I spoke to them now I might use some of my own 'stock phrases' which probably would not help my case!

Of course, my adjudicator is not always available on the phone. A typical attempt often goes like this:

Ring at 1410: Rings for a while - then goes through to a message saying they are busy

Ring at 1420: Goes to voicemail - message saying they are in a meeting until 3.

Ring at 1505: Rings for a while - then another message saying they are busy.

Ring at 1515: Goes to voicemail - message saying they are in a meeting until 4

...ad infinitum

The irony is that FOS are supposedly professional complaint handlers!

Waiting a week, month or a year will sadly make no difference because I am sure they will leave you exasperated with their illogical 'fair and reasonable' dross. Best of luck though.
I find that using bullet points with them and other incompetents (like ESL, FCA etc) helps and pointing out that I want answers for all of said points can at least show an effort has been made to communicate with them on a very basic level and halt their side-stepping tactics. Although they are equally skilled at fudging issues too.

GinOClock

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Waiting a week, month or a year will sadly make no difference because I am sure they will leave you exasperated with their illogical 'fair and reasonable' dross. Best of luck though.
I find that using bullet points with them and other incompetents (like ESL, FCA etc) helps and pointing out that I want answers for all of said points can at least show an effort has been made to communicate with them on a very basic level and halt their side-stepping tactics. Although they are equally skilled at fudging issues too.

Very true. I've read some of the FOS decisions online and they seem rather fond of phrases along the lines of "I hope Mr X doesn't think I'm being dismissive when I do not address many of the points in his complaint." There are a few well-worn euphemisms amongst them too, e.g. "I can tell Mr X spent a long time on his complaint", and "I can tell Miss X feels very strongly about her complaint."

Evidently a more rigourous approach is required when dealing with them which will, for now, involve copying my MP into to all correspondence with FOS. I'm going to see about making a formal complaint to BIS through my MP too - the Sales and Purchase Agreement makes it clear they can no longer pretend they have washed their hands of any issue regarding deferment and DAFs, as much a they have made some rather serious attempts to previously.

The deferment algorithm in 9.3.5 of the S&P Agreement makes it clear that the only information that Erudio can consider in decideding if a borrower is eligible to defer is the aggregate totals of income declared on the DAF, together the accompanying evidence that is provided by the borrower to support the declared income. It is unequivocal - so why are we having so much trouble?