ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

gavvy wrote: »

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?

At the moment, Erudio can't touch your credit file, as the later agreement from 1998 states the specific circumstances where loans will be reported e.g. if you default on repayments, or if you give consent for them to do it.

But Erudio have been making deferment for some borrowers conditional on agreeing to their new terms set out in the DAF, allowing them to do credit searches and report your loans to CRAs. This isn't part of your original loan agreement or the Student Loan Regulations, so it's not only unfair and unreasonable, it's illegal for them to try and stipulate new conditions in order to get deferred.

If you agree a partial settlement, they'll mark your credit file showing the loans as a partial settlement, regardless of which agreement applies to your loans... unless you get in quick before they start reporting the loans, which is the gist of what they've said in Paloma's article. Sounds a bit like coercion or extortion... pay up now and we won't mark your credit file.

Former_MSE_Paloma

Afternoon all,

I've had the following information back from Erudio regarding 'payment holidays' which are only for those in deferment:

"A payment holiday is where a creditor agrees that you can stop making payments of your debt for a fixed period of time.

"This status is not usually viewed by other creditors as positive or negative and is commonly used where no payment is required or expected. The decision to report customers as being on a payment holiday followed consultation with Experian on best practice in listing such accounts."

Kind regards, MSE Paloma

erudioed

'Not usually' is 'not definitely'. If they cannot guarantee it is not negative, surely that is putting Erudio's interests ahead of its CUSTOMERS, and again is not treating customers fairly if there is a small chance it will be seen as a negative!

Pluthero

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

Afternoon all,

I've had the following information back from Erudio regarding 'payment holidays' which are only for those in deferment:

"A payment holiday is where a creditor agrees that you can stop making payments of your debt for a fixed period of time.

"This status is not usually viewed by other creditors as positive or negative and is commonly used where no payment is required or expected. The decision to report customers as being on a payment holiday followed consultation with Experian on best practice in listing such accounts."

Kind regards, MSE Paloma

Yes that is what a Payment Holiday is. Well done Erudio. Outstanding.

You agree with your lender a variation in your original loan terms if you are in financial difficulty.

Deferment is not a payment holiday: it is not seeking an agreement with the lender to stop payments or vary the original loan terms.

In deferment you are granted the right to not repay if you earn under the threshold. This is the deferment mechanism in the Original student loan terms and conditions. Conditions set in stone and not subject to change by Erudio.

However as being in deferment is not something that a CRA recognises or has a category for because these student loans were special govt top up loans and given without credit checks. The ONLY eligability was to be an undergraduate on a university course.

Erudio are trying to shoe horn them onto CRA's under the guise of being 'a payment Holiday' but they do not fit that description and explicitly contradict the ICO guidelines on accurate reporting of a persons financial standing. If you NEED a payment holiday it is a signal/indication that you are under financial pressure and lenders will read this on your credit file. It will be seen as a negative no matter what Erudio claim.

Jill18

Well said Pluthero, I totally agree. There is no valid way of reporting our loans in deferment as they were never meant to appear on our credit files.

rizla_king

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

"This status is not usually viewed by other creditors as positive or negative and is commonly used where no payment is required or expected.

Complete utter bolls!

Putting a credit account on a payment holiday is a classic sign of someone subject to financial pressure. companies who check and see that will score you down accordingly.

anna2007

If Erudio really wants to treat customers fairly, it really should stop trying to dress up the reporting as a 'payment holiday', with all of the negative connotations that wording brings. Experian told me the following in March:

I would like to re-assure you again that the payment history on deferred student loans will show as "u" on Experian?s records. Different credit reference agencies may have different ways of showing this. Status "u" is not seen as negative. Experian does not have a "PH" status code.

I understand your concerns about "payment holidays" being negative. The payment history reflects how you pay against the contract you have with the lender. So - if your contract requires a payment but you arrange to pay less or not to pay, this would be recorded as a late/missed payment. A flag would be added to show an arrangement had been made. Late payments would be considered negatively.

If you have a "payment holiday" in your contract, for example, you don't need to pay for the first few months, then no payment is due. This would be recorded as status "u" with Experian. The status "u" means there is no payment due. This is how your deferred student loan will show and is very different to making an arrangement not to pay or pay a reduced amount.

So Erudio is telling a big fat lie when it says it agreed a "payment holiday" status after consultation with Experian, as Experian don't have a "PH" status.

This has all been discussed between Experian and Erudio, so why don't Erudio come out and say the payment status would be "U", no payments due? Probably because telling the truth would be too much of a wasted opportunity to further intimidate and threaten customers into paying up when no payment is due.

BorderReiver14

Thank you again Paloma for making their threats public. As far as I can tell, they are digging a big hole for themselves and handing us a shovel to bury them with this.

They have admitted to the FOS that reporting of loans is not part of the original terms and conditions. Their DAFs have tried to gain permissions. They have not yet to date reported any loans to CRAs and I can't see how they ever will because they know legally they cannot.

It's nothing but a threat to maximise their profits.

Now I know our soft touch regulators won't move on this until the threat becomes an action but in my book, if you threaten someone you should be prepared to face the consequences Erudio!

anna2007

Some FOS news - my second complaint has been upheld by the ombudsman, so another one to add to Erudio's dire and ever-growing complaints record.

It was to do with all of the errors on the first annual statement, the final decision reads:

For the reasons given above, to put things right I require Erudio Student Loans Limited to (if it hasn't already):
a) issue a letter setting out the correct details of the account(s);
b) waive the interest for the period of the incorrect statement(s); and
c) pay Mrs P £150 compensation

Not quite what I asked for, which was a statement showing all 3 loans, correct dates, etc and the right amount of interest, but I did say I was ok with interest being waived if ratified in the ombudsman's decision, so it's then legally binding on Erudio. It means this year's statement is incorrect too, as it's showing the wrong opening balance, so no interest on the account from 1 September 2013 until... they issue a correct statement? FOS aren't instructing Erudio to issue a correct statement, but until Erudio does that, they can't show that they've complied with the FOS decision (they have 28 days or so to do that) and "waived the interest for the period of the incorrect statement(s)" - that seems a little f'd up.

An accurate statement must be beyond Erudio's capabilities, or there's some ulterior motive for not providing one, but I'm kind of past caring - it's ultimately Erudio's problem they can't get it right, not mine. I'm still going to insist that the decision, especially part b), is complied with in full

FOS also refused to decide on the enforceability issue of not providing a correct annual statement, they said (same as first complaint on different issue) that's for a court to decide.

gardenia101

anna2007 wrote: »

Some FOS news - my second complaint has been upheld by the ombudsman, so another one to add to Erudio's dire and ever-growing complaints record.

It was to do with all of the errors on the first annual statement, the final decision reads:



Not quite what I asked for, which was a statement showing all 3 loans, correct dates, etc and the right amount of interest, but I did say I was ok with interest being waived if ratified in the ombudsman's decision, so it's then legally binding on Erudio. It means this year's statement is incorrect too, as it's showing the wrong opening balance, so no interest on the account from 1 September 2013 until... they issue a correct statement? FOS aren't instructing Erudio to issue a correct statement, but until Erudio does that, they can't show that they've complied with the FOS decision (they have 28 days or so to do that) and "waived the interest for the period of the incorrect statement(s)" - that seems a little f'd up.

An accurate statement must be beyond Erudio's capabilities, or there's some ulterior motive for not providing one, but I'm kind of past caring - it's ultimately Erudio's problem they can't get it right, not mine. I'm still going to insist that the decision, especially part b), is complied with in full

FOS also refused to decide on the enforceability issue of not providing a correct annual statement, they said (same as first complaint on different issue) that's for a court to decide.

I'm still frustrated that FOS can't/wont act to ensure Erudio supply us with correct statements :mad: Why is it so difficult?

FOS have just skirted around the issue about not providing annual statements - each time I've queried whether the CCA applies to my loans FOS haven't answered. But then they have been quite selective about which questions they answer.

Now it would seem that FOS are also ignoring me - 7 weeks & a follow up email & I've no idea if my complaint is even still open I have a feeling it won't be since I accepted the Ombudsman's decision & Erudio did pay me my compensation - the ombudsman didn't tell them to send me another statement since she was satisfied that they'd already sent me one, so Erudio have done what she asked them to do.

Should I have assumed from that decision that she thinks I'm lying about these statements, or I've forgotten I've received them? Maybe its enough that Erudio send me an incorrect list of numbers & just call it a statement :rotfl:

Anyone else still waiting for last year's annual statement? Has anyone received a correct statement yet?

Any thoughts about whether Erudio can overturn deferments previously granted by the SLC?