ERUDIO student loans help

Former_MSE_Paloma

Hi all, thank you for your feedback on the story. I've had the following response from Erudio:

"We are legally allowed to report to CRAs at anytime, subject to the terms and conditions laid out in the individual loan agreements.

"We are not listing with CRAs at this moment in time due to the on going remediation work we are carrying out. Once we start listing accounts will be listed with the CRAs as a payment holiday. For loan agreements signed before or during 1997, we have permission to report details of the loan to CRAs every month, including if you are in deferment. For loan agreements signed during or after 1998 we will not be listing accounts in deferment unless the customer has agreed that we may do so."

I've just asked for more information about the 'payment holiday' and the impact this will have on CRAs so I'll be back with more details here.

Kind regards, MSE Paloma

fermi

I know that some people have had Erudio try to falsely increase monthly payment amounts when you are getting close to the age/time write off.

i.e. if there are say 36 out of the 60 monthly payments left on the loan, but only 12 months before you can have it written off, Erudio may falsely state your monthly repayments are (balance + interest to accrue)/12 rather than the correct (balance + interest to accrue)/36.

In other words, they are trying to fiddle and increase the monthly repayments to get it all paid off before the write off deadline, rather than respecting the original terms and having to accept that what is left unpaid at that point must be written off.

Can anyone who has had this please speak up, or give a link to your previous post on it?

Thanks.

BorderReiver14

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

Hi all, thank you for your feedback on the story. I've had the following response from Erudio:

"We are legally allowed to report to CRAs at anytime, subject to the terms and conditions laid out in the individual loan agreements.

"We are not listing with CRAs at this moment in time due to the on going remediation work we are carrying out. Once we start listing accounts will be listed with the CRAs as a payment holiday. For loan agreements signed before or during 1997, we have permission to report details of the loan to CRAs every month, including if you are in deferment. For loan agreements signed during or after 1998 we will not be listing accounts in deferment unless the customer has agreed that we may do so."

I've just asked for more information about the 'payment holiday' and the impact this will have on CRAs so I'll be back with more details here.

Kind regards, MSE Paloma

If that is the case why have they admitted to the FOS that reporting of loans is not part of the terms and conditions of the original loans?

My FOS decision stated this when I raised a complaint about both pre and post 98 loans being reported

Firstly I can understand why Mr BR didn't want to allow Erudio to report information on his loans to credit reference agencies. But they have accepted this was not part of the terms and conditions of all of his original loans.

I thank you Paloma for giving this issue some publicity but it seems that Erudio want to lure the majority of ex students in to thinking they have every right to legally report inaccurate information on our credit files in the hope it will frighten and bully those 'customers' in to paying up. It is nothing more than DCA tactics to threaten.

The reason I believe SLC never did this was because they knew they legally could not and they were fully aware that the student loans given to us were sold on the premise that as long as we stuck to the original terms and conditions, this finance agreement would not harm our future financial health.

The DAF they insist we use (unless courts have been involved they will not accept any other way to defer) is nothing but a method of unilaterally attempting to introduce additional variations to the terms and conditions of our original agreements and gather data they have no business collecting. That is a fact.

We are not required to offer any data protection consents to Erudio and as such, we do not have to consent to the processing of information contained on the form except to the extent such consent is required by the Credit Agreement. End of. Yet we are unable to defer unless we do.

Apart from the overwhelming evidence showing Erudio cares not one bit about its 'customers' the alarming part in all this shameful episode is the soft touch regulators that will not act on our behalf and leave us with no option other than to back down as if we have done something wrong or else seek remediation in court.

I can tell you now that hell will freeze over before I budge an inch with these bullies.

anna2007

It's inaccurate for Erudio to say they can legally report to CRAs, as it hasn't been tested in court yet.

My pre-98 agreements do not give Erudio permission to report my loans to CRAs, in fact CRAs aren't mentioned at all. If Erudio is relying on the part that says they may disclose to "any person", then I haven't given specific and informed consent. Without that, Erudio aren't complying with the DPA, so would be illegally reporting the loans.

It's only Erudio's opinion that they can legally report the loans - it's not a matter of fact and there are many borrowers who disagree with that opinion.

I don't know of any company that has held off indefinitely on reporting my financial data to CRAs, it's always done within the first few months of making a credit application (maybe that's the real reason for stalling, given that none of us are making a credit application to Erudio?).

The longer Erudio leaves the reporting the better, as it makes their already weak arguments to justify reporting even more untenable, and only proves the reporting's not necessary (again, not DPA-compliant) to administer our loans.

JeLaw

Seems like ages since I last checked in here. Haven't been well but haven't abandoned the fight (although would be lovely if there was no longer the need, i.e. Erudio nightmare ended!).

Haven't had time to go through the thread to see most of what I've missed - and I'm sorry for returning to something I've gone on about before, but surely it becomes misselling (when we originally took out our loans) if Erudio do report our loans to CRAs - when as Anna2007 says below we haven't given specific and informed consent?

I also don't have proof sadly because it was verbal but I do clearly remember being assured by the university finance office that these loans would NOT impact on my credit rating/file (sorry, not sure exactly what wording they used).

ETA - just seen comments regarding this on the previous page. Also want to add how grateful I am to those here (and anywhere else) keeping up the fight.

anna2007 wrote: »

My pre-98 agreements do not give Erudio permission to report my loans to CRAs, in fact CRAs aren't mentioned at all. If Erudio is relying on the part that says they may disclose to "any person", then I haven't given specific and informed consent. Without that, Erudio aren't complying with the DPA, so would be illegally reporting the loans.

gavvy

If it will affect my credit file I wont bother then! Carry on differing :rotfl::rotfl:

gavvy

Forever wrote: »

I would recommend emailing them with your request, stating your dad is giving you the money. They will then decide to accept or reject your offer.

When I went down this route earlier this year, they did say you do have to agree to have it recorded as a partial settlement on your credit file.

Whatever you do, good luck

Me again - just been reading more posts here. The loans I have with Eurido were signed in 1999 and 2000 some posts here seem to suggest its only loans from 1998 and earlier that Eurido are wanting to report to credit files to - so would a partial settlement figure actually affect my credit file?

erudioed

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

I've just asked for more information about the 'payment holiday' and the impact this will have on CRAs so I'll be back with more details here.

Kind regards, MSE Paloma

Thank you Paloma. If they cannot say definitively that it wont affect a persons credit worthiness (and everyone knows they cannot say that, not even the CRAs), then surely by continuing to report our pre-1998 loans would definitely not be TREATING CUSTOMERS FAIRLY, and could be construed as a rather malicious act. They must have a reason for wanting to report our loans...are they making a profit out of our private data, or something equally despicable?

erudioed

Slightly off topic, but also very on topic is this speech by Yanis Varoufakis at a Portuguese university a few days ago. He speaks about exactly what is going on in a wider sense in Europe right now, as well as the dangers of treating students like 'customers'. Its one of the best and most important speeches i have ever heard and hes arguably one of the best speakers on the planet right now!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQNN9U65-HI

johnbhoy10

johnbhoy10 wrote: »

Not going to read the thread but i get the sentiment!!!

In a word they are 'IMCOMPETENTS'. I've had more calls to this shower in a couple of years than i did with nearly twenty years with The Student Loans Company. Never had an issue with them.

I provided this lot with all the evidence they required and they still get it wrong.

Long story short.....after they said my deferment request had been denied and if i wanted to contest i would have to reapply i told them to sod off and i was going straight to ombudsman!! End of! They phoned me back the next day and told me deferment was now granted and they would send me a cheque for £50. What's that all about???:think:

Cynical side of me thinks this lot are trying it on!!!

Don't want their compo cheque for silence next year just want them to get it right. Very unprofessional shower who give me no confidence whatsover. I'll be ready for them next year if they're still allowed to run this by then.

Got my £50 a couple of weeks ago. Next year i just want them to not try it on and just defer me if i clearly show i qualify. Silence money tis what it is. I told them in no uncertain terms i was no way re-applying for deferment and if it went to regulator i was 100% confident with my case. Still think they're not fit for purpose and i would love it if they get into serious soapy for the way they are treating people.