ERUDIO student loans help

Edwood_Woodwood

Right, have had a gutful of these clowns and I am taking legal action against them.

I have previously complained to them to which they partly upheld my complaint and fudged the rest, they also gave me £50 to say sorry.

Have not bothered with a FOS/FCA complaint as they appear useless judging by the replies on here.

I earn well below the threshold to repay, in fact, I always have and have deferred since 1993 yet Erudio put me in arrears within months of getting their grubby little hands on my account.

I refused to complete their invasive DAF but I "showed" (proved) I earnt below the threshold and I signed a letter constructed by myself with this evidence.

They told me an incomplete DAF meant they could/would not proceed with my deferral.

I intend to bring a Breach of Contract claim with the remedy of specific performance by Erudio ie a court order for Erudio to defer me as I believe they should have.

This will resolve the DAF issue.

Any thoughts?

Edwood_Woodwood

Can somebody please give a brief resume of where we all stand thus far concerning Erudio?

Things like the DAF, credit reporting, etc.

This thread is too long to digest everything.

Lungboy

I'd definitely put in an FCA complaint, the more they get the harder it is for them to not look into Erudio's shady behaviours.

Brooker_Dave

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Can somebody please give a brief resume of where we all stand thus far concerning Erudio?

Things like the DAF, credit reporting, etc.

This thread is too long to digest everything.

"Here is the section from an FOS complaint :

Firstly I can understand that Miss Z didn’t want to allow Erudio to carry out credit checks but Erudio has agreed that she can delete that portion. They have accepted that this was not part of the terms and conditions of her original loans. Like our adjudicator I believe that Erudio can share information that they hold on Miss Z. That said, our adjudicator confirmed that Erudio should remove any adverse data that has been recorded on Miss Z’s credit record. I believe this is a fair outcome."

(typical FOS toothless and confused response)

fermi

What was allegedly used by Anthony Reeves last year?


https://www.dropbox.com/s/vzkyatilr0mub17/Erudio%20-%20particulars%20of%20%20claim.doc?dl=0

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the COUNTY COURT___________ Case Number[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]BETWEEN[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif] Claimant[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

---

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]And[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Erudio Student Loans Ltd Defendant[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

---

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Particulars of Claim[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

---

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

1. This is an application under section 140B(2) (a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for the court to determine that the relationship between the Claimant and Defendant arising out of a Credit Agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreements) is unfair to the Claimant. In addition to and or the alternative, the Claimant claims a breach of contract and seeks specific performance of the contract[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
2. The Claimant entered into a consumer credit agreement with the Defendant on___________[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif].[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] The terms of the agreement are attached to these particulars of claim and marked “C1”. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
3. The E[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ducation (Student Loans) Regulations 1998, hereafter the "1998 Regulations", prescribed key terms which all loan agreements are required to include. These prescribed terms are attached and marked “C2” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
4. On 25 November 2013, the Claimant’s loan was sold to Defendant. It was stated by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills that the borrower’s terms and conditions would not change as a result of the sale. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]5. On the _______ the Claimant applied for a deferment of the loan under section 9 of the 1998 regulations which state:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"Each year the lender will tell the borrower new deferment level for the period between 1 September and following 31st of August. The borrower can defer making repayments of the loan if - [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]a. The lender has not already asked him to repay the loan in full, and[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]b. He can show -[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](i) that his gross income for the relevant month is not more than the deferment level, and[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](ii) if the lender asks, that his gross average monthly income during the 3 months immediately following the relevant month will not or is unlikely to be more than the deferment level[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]6. The Claimant submitted evidence of his gross income in form of his Tax Return he submitted to HMRC. The Defendant has refused to consider the Claimant’s application for deferment because the Claimant has refused to complete the Defendant’s application for deferment (“DAF”). A copy of the DAF form is attached marked C3. The Claimant received from the Defendant a Notice that the[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Account is in arrears and requested payment of the arrears. Prior to the Claimant’s loan being purchased by the Defendant, the Student Loans Company had for a number of years accepted a copy of his Tax Return as sufficient evidence of his gross income to be grant a deferment. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]7. The Claimant [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]avers that the 1998 Regulations do not require that the application be in any prescribed form and that the Claimant only has to prove that his gross income level is within the deferment level. However, the Defendant’s DAF requires the Claimant to sign a form consenting to the passing of the Claimant’s personal information to be shared with Credit Reference Agencies. Page 6 of the DAF under the heading, “Fair Processing Notice Relation to Applications for Deferment”, it states:[/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]We may also make periodic searches of our own group records and at CRA’s to manage your account with us, including whether to permit deferment.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]8. It is averred that the Defendant can process an application for deferment without the need to conduct a search of the Claimant credit file. Indeed, the Student Loans Company from 1998 to 2013 processed deferment applications without requiring the application to give consent to a search of Credit Reference Agencies. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]9. Students who took out loans post 1998 had agreement which contained the terms that are attached to these particulars of claim and marked C4 states that information will only be passed to Credit Reference Agencies if the borrower has breached the agreement or if they are in arrears. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]10. It is averred that clause 16 of the loan agreement which the Claimant has with the Defendant does not permit the Defendant to pass information about the Claimant to Credit Reference Agencies under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is averred that after the transitional arrangements of the Data Protection Act 1998 ended, data processing that was previously governed by the 1984 Act was required to comply with the principles of the 1998 Act. It is submitted that Clause 16 on its own does not permit the Claimant’s data to be passed to Credit Reference Agencies. Even if it does permit the passing of information to Credit Reference Agencies, it is averred that this clause is unfair in light of related agreements. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]11. The Claimant avers the agreement and the way that the Defendant is exercising its rights under the agreement is an unfair relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended. The particulars of why the Claimant avers that there is an unfair relationship include:[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Requiring the Applicant for a Deferment to complete a form that contains unnecessary and personal detail[/FONT]
2. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Requiring the Claimant to sign a form that gives the Defendant permission to search the Claimant’s credit reference file[/FONT]
3. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By pressuring applicants into signing and agreeing to the information in the “Fair Processing Notice” at the end of the deferment application form it is an unfair attempt to make changes to the terms of the original agreement despite assurance at the time of assignment of the loan that the terms and conditions would not be altered. Student loans taken out after 1998 contains a term which states that it will only pass on information to Credit Reference Agencies if the borrower is in default. [/FONT]
4. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Refusing to even consider the application for deferment unless the Applicant sign the Defendant’s Application form. Student Loan Company had for many years processed the a deferment application without requiring the information the Defendant has put on the deferment application[/FONT]
5. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Stating to applicants that it requires the setting up of a Direct Debit to enable an application for deferment to be processed where as the terms of the loan only states that repayment be made by Direct Debit; if the loan is deferred, there are no repayments to make.[/FONT]
6. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Chasing for arrears when the agreement is not arrears because the arrears have arisen only because of the Defendant’s wrongful refusal to consider a deferment application. [/FONT]
7. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The way the Defendant is considering what is “gross income” in light of the fact that the “Student Loan Company” for many years considered gross income on a different criteria.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]12. The Claimant also avers that the clause 16 of the loan agreement is unfair under the Unfair Contract Terms Regulations 1994 which were in existence at the time the loan agreement was signed. The terms of the agreement were not individually negotiated. The clause causes an significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]13. Further, the Claimant avers that the Defendant is in breach of contract by failing to consider his deferment application. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]AND THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]A Declaration that there is an unfair relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the Court make an Order that it thinks fit under Section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974[/FONT]
2. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]An Order for Specific performance of the contract in that the Defendant be required to consider his application for deferment[/FONT]
3. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Any other order or relief that the court thinks fit[/FONT]
4. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Costs[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]STATEMENT OF TRUTH[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Signed Dated[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Claimant[/FONT]

Edwood_Woodwood

Excellent, the particulars above are what I have had in my head for a while.

IMO Erudio are not performing the contract, the refusal to defer valid applications, and a court must determine this.

I am self employed and there are various ways to prove I am below the threshold and I did so but Erudio refused to defer.

I work fewer hours than full time as I devote x amount of hours per week to care for my father who has dementia.

I am sick to death of Erudio sending me letters every now and then stating I am in arrears and threatening me.

I do not need this and I intend to construct a letter tonight to put Erudio on notice for legal action.

gardenia101

anna2007 wrote: »

Did you get a copy statement Gardenia? If not, I'll email you mine tomorrow - if I can find it - definitely filed in my Erudio drawer, but it's a bit cram-packed

Yes thanks Anna - I did get a copy. Quite a lot of info that I wouldn't have got otherwise. Impressed you've only got the one drawer for Erudio carp, I'm on my second box file :rotfl:

erudioed wrote: »

Just been twaated and notified about a rather significant change to proceedings. Erudio are sending out letters (see my twatter page for a photo of the letter...but you may have to look in the "tweets and replies" section) saying they have changed "to a new customer servicing platform"....

Would anyone be surprised to hear that I haven't had such a letter yet, in any format? No, thought not

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Excellent, the particulars above are what I have had in my head for a while.

IMO Erudio are not performing the contract, the refusal to defer valid applications, and a court must determine this.

I am self employed and there are various ways to prove I am below the threshold and I did so but Erudio refused to defer.

I work fewer hours than full time as I devote x amount of hours per week to care for my father who has dementia.

I am sick to death of Erudio sending me letters every now and then stating I am in arrears and threatening me.

I do not need this and I intend to construct a letter tonight to put Erudio on notice for legal action.

Best of luck :T

Mr_McGuffin

Re: Point 7 of the Particulars of Claim above:

Under the loan terms set out in the 1998 regulations deferment is available to those who can ‘show’ that their income is below the deferment level. It is not necessary to ‘prove’ this, and not necessary to provide additional authorisation to the lender in the form of any consent to contact with third parties for ‘checking’ or ‘verification’ that might be contained in any DAF, or specifically, any Certificate and Warranty.

Nothing I have learned has changed my opinion on this. If I were not correct it would be straightforward for Erudio, or BIS, or the FOS, to state why and where there exists any legal or contractual basis to compel completion of a ‘DAF’ and consent to its terms, including any additional authorisation contained within it. This has not been done, because it cannot be done.

Nothing I have learned has changed my opinion that the following statements by the Minister responsible for introducing these loans describes the evidence legally required for deferment. It is a test to be met by 'self-certification'. It was on this basis that Parliament voted both for the introduction of this 'top-up’ ‘loan scheme for maintenance grants, and the necessary provision of public funds.

HC Deb 19 June 1990 vol 174 502W
Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford East) To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if a student in agreeing to the terms and conditions of a student loan authorises the Student Loans Company to make future searches on their income, via employers and banks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson) The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks. Borrowers wishing to defer repayments will be required to produce evidence that their income falls below 85 per cent. of national average earnings.


HC Deb 09 July 1990 vol 176 cc123-48
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) There is then the detailed matter of the deferment of the arrangements that apply. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was told by the Minister: “The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks. Borrowers wishing to defer repayments will be required to produce evidence that their income falls below 85 per cent. of national average earnings."—[Official Report, 19 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 504.]” Hon. Members were pleased to hear that, but how does his answer square with information that the Secretary of State gave in press notice 6590 on 26 February 1990? It said specifically: “Verification could be required of banks.” Paragraph 6 of the press notice states: “In applying, the borrower authorises checks of current income with employer, bank, etc.” Are banks to be consulted without the direct knowledge of the student application?

Mr Jackson The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked about the use of the banks to verify graduate income. Policy has developed since February. The Student Loans Company will not contact a graduate's employer or a bank for evidence of income, but it will seek evidence from the graduate. That may include information that is available to the graduate from such sources as employers.

From hansard.millbanksystems.com
Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v.1.0


I do not believe Erudio will argue this point in court. It has no valid argument. As far as I am aware, it will however refuse to defer anyone who does not sign its form, unless they take legal action against it or employ a lawyer to do so.

Despite this, BIS, the Shareholder Executive, HM Treasury, the FOS and FCA will support Erudio. Erudio bought an opportunity to exploit, and bought the support of the Government.

Edwood_Woodwood

Letter Before Action sent to Erudio and received by them today.

Unless they remove the alleged arrears & place my account in deferment, until the summer of 2016 as it should have been, within a fortnight, then I will instigate legal proceedings against them without haste.

Lungboy

They won't, so get ready to fight.