ERUDIO student loans help

ptolomy

Oh god, I've just entered the nightmare that is Erudio...
I called them today to check they got my deferment application and have been told that my application has been rejected. I've had 2 people call me back and each tell me the same thing - that even though most of my income is from renting out our old flat jointly with my OH, "their policy" is to take the full rental amount into account, even though only half of it is actually mine. Can this be even remotely legal? It makes no sense to me.
It also occurs to me I may have filled it in wrong as one person mentioned the 'full profit from the rent' when the profit once the mortgage has been paid is pretty much zero!

BaffledByErudio

Give me strength!!!

I actually thought I was getting somewhere this evening.
Carried out my routine phonecall to Erudio to check on my deferment application process.
I tend to do it on my commute home, as it usually takes the full journey for them to answer the phone!

Spoke to a woman (who, to be fair, was the most polite and seemingly helpful I've spoken to yet) who assured me my deferment was now showing as 'in process', and that it hadn't flagged up that any income evidence was missing - all well and good.
This was pleasingly a change of answer to the usual 'it's only just been scanned in' or 'have we got your form?' It did put my mind at rest slightly.

She couldn't say 100% that the deferment would be processed before my current payments hold has ended, so I asked about the possibility of canceling the Direct Debit. She actually offered to do it herself and checked my account number tallied with what they have. Then told me the mandate had been removed from my account and that Erudio was now telling people it was not a legal requirement to have bank details during the deferment process.

So, a weight off, I thought.
Alas..... Just got home, logged onto my online banking, and there it sits, like it's grinning at me - the ESL LTD Direct Debit!

Now, giving benefit of doubt, I'll check again tomorrow - who knows, maybe outside banking hours, the command to cancel it can't take effect. I know I could just do it myself online, but quite frankly, I'd rather not take any risks, even though the lady told me tonight that removing the DD would not put me in a default position.

Is this farce actually ever going to end?

rizla_king

ptolomy wrote: »

"their policy" is to take the full rental amount into account, even though only half of it is actually mine. Can this be even remotely legal?

That is complete BS from Erudio! Complain and tell the morons you will take them to the FOS if they dont sort it properly and defer you.

ptolomy

Johnny_X wrote: »

Hello!

I don't have a P60 for the last year as it hasn't been given to me yet by work.

What alternatives do I have here? Has anyone been deferred using the printed letter by the way as opposed to their forms.

If I don't give them DD details as requested would I be in breach?

Many thanks!

Not sure if this is too late for you, but I called Erudio a few weeks ago as I didn't have a P60 either and was told that they no longer require one. Your payslips should be enough.

ptolomy

It's crazy isn't it. I keep explaining that their policy must be wrong as the money is not mine and they say they eventually say they understand what I'm saying and they'll go and speak to someone and get back to me. Am expecting my fourth callback in the morning and hopefully someone will have seen sense by then.
I will definitely be complaining if this doesn't get sorted out.

Rosskie

ericctheking wrote: »

That is basically blackmail!

The contract is an unfair contract with Erudio deciding on who gets deferred or not. Does anyone know contract law? Could this be the case? It is to Eudio's benefit to lose forms etc.

Stand firm people, cancel those DDs on mass and tell them to jog on as under the threshold for repayment!

I based the inital still insisting statement on another post - someone was told their deferment by letter was accepted, but that they still needed to sign the form? I dont think its something they can stick to though. They've rolled over on so much else.

CloudsinSky

Rosskie wrote: »

They have apparently rolled over on the active DD insistance, and its not a requirement anyway. You only have to pay by DD if they insist, and your not eligible for deferment. No mandate need be in place otherwise. P60's aren't needed, and the form doesn't have to be completed in full, although they are still insisting on signatures waving rights I think.

They can't refuse you for a reason that suits them thats outwith the agreement - i..e. DD - it doesnt say you need one to defer. P60 - they only have the right to assess the "revelvant month"'s income. Which is defined in the agreements as "the month before you apply to defer", so why would a p60 be required? If your self employed and earn 100k a year, but take the "relevant month" off work so receive no income, your eligible imo. Although if they ask this hypothetical person about their income for the next three months they'd be scuppered. IF they asked and assuming they went back to work.

All you need to defer is to "show that your gross income for the relevant month is not more than the deferment level".

They will grumble and whine but stick to your guns and although threats might get sent, they know if they try and get a CCJ or put you in default when your eligible to defer that they wont get away with it, provided you dont let them.

I've written a letter for my deferment, I know I'm eligible and if they refuse it they'll have to take me to court. Which they wont, as they know as well as I do that I'm eligible.

I'm with Erudio on the P60, unless anyone can explain the problem to me. Student Loans Company could have asked for more detail but chose not to, I don't know why. I would assume Erudio are asking for a P60 to check that you're being honest in claiming only one employment, for example. That could be the reason for it, and I think that's legitimate.

I have many issues with Erudio same as all of us here do, to the point where I'm becoming obsessed with it and haven't slept through the night since 29 April. But I think maybe people are getting too hung up on the change in deferment process. Just get your form in with all the evidence they ask for as soon as you can (unless anyone can tell me there's a really sinister reason behind any of the evidence/info they ask for? Too late for me because I've already sent it)

I think arguing the toss with the deferment form may not be helpful, nor arguing about the Credit record issue. It seems to be becoming clear now that they do have the right to contact CRAs about a loan in deferment, just as Student Loans Company did (but chose not to). That makes me angry too, but I don't think it's a battle we'll win, and how much difference it makes to your credit score isn't clear yet either. I suspect the tougher rules on mortgages together with this may be challenging. The timing of that is probably heightening our emotional response to it. Anytime recently when my credit score's been checked, I've been surprised that the student loan hasn't been recorded there when I've asked. Happy that it isn't, of course, but have wondered why it wouldn't be recorded.

For me the main issues are the very poor customer service, lack of transparency, concern that there won't be adequate redress for any unfairness, endless worry and anger about it all and uncertainty. I'm still trying to find out more myself and when I do, if it's helpful I'll post it. My main focus is keeping my loan deferred and avoiding any breach of my agreement, as that's the only way I'll get my loans cancelled at the end of their 25 year term. I don't want to pay them back, I'll be honest, because I was misguided in getting them in the first place at age 19. It was all very new and novel, too easy and no understanding of the future implications. I certainly don't want to pay back thousands of pounds to a private company that has only paid a fraction of that. I would rather give the full amount back to the cash-strapped government so that students of today weren't saddled with on average £36k of lifelong debt (we're the lucky ones when you look at it like that). But of course I don't have that choice.

What is of concern to me, is that I assume no one yet has had a loan cancelled due to end of 25 year term? I guess a mature student might have already reached age 50 and people unable to work through disability. I want to find out how that process is administered, and what we can expect of Erudio on this.

CloudsinSky

BaffledByErudio wrote: »

Give me strength!!!

I actually thought I was getting somewhere this evening.
Carried out my routine phonecall to Erudio to check on my deferment application process.
I tend to do it on my commute home, as it usually takes the full journey for them to answer the phone!

Spoke to a woman (who, to be fair, was the most polite and seemingly helpful I've spoken to yet) who assured me my deferment was now showing as 'in process', and that it hadn't flagged up that any income evidence was missing - all well and good.
This was pleasingly a change of answer to the usual 'it's only just been scanned in' or 'have we got your form?' It did put my mind at rest slightly.

She couldn't say 100% that the deferment would be processed before my current payments hold has ended, so I asked about the possibility of canceling the Direct Debit. She actually offered to do it herself and checked my account number tallied with what they have. Then told me the mandate had been removed from my account and that Erudio was now telling people it was not a legal requirement to have bank details during the deferment process.

So, a weight off, I thought.
Alas..... Just got home, logged onto my online banking, and there it sits, like it's grinning at me - the ESL LTD Direct Debit!

Now, giving benefit of doubt, I'll check again tomorrow - who knows, maybe outside banking hours, the command to cancel it can't take effect. I know I could just do it myself online, but quite frankly, I'd rather not take any risks, even though the lady told me tonight that removing the DD would not put me in a default position.

Is this farce actually ever going to end?

I thought direct debit was part of the original terms and conditions (I read them to check), in deferment or not, unless the lender agrees otherwise. If Erudio confirm they will take payment by other means, then that means you can cancel direct debit without being in breach. However, if they ask for a repayment because you're not deferred, if you don't pay on the day it's due, how does not having a direct debit benefit you? I would have thought a direct debit is more beneficial to the customer because of the rights it gives you over having refunds, etc. If you otherwise agree (or not) that you'll pay by credit/debit card or bank transfer, for instance, I think the funds would still have to be transferred the same day as the direct debit would be called, otherwise again you are in breach, with all that implies (losing rights to any future deferment and cancellation of loan).

If Erudio take a direct debit when they have no right to do so, as seems to have happened with a significant number of people, you can claim a refund from your bank without having to wait for Erudio to refund you. The bank then claims back from Erudio. However, somebody said here I think that the bank then cancelled the direct debit anyway, and even when it was re-instated, the bank cancelled it again? Not surprised, if they're having to refund a customer for that company's mistake. At that point you definitely take it up with the Financial Ombudsman, because you haven't done anything wrong and Erudio has.

In my experience, the Financial Ombudsman will support your complaint to Erudio even when you've only just lodged a complaint with Erudio. The Ombudsman won't progress it, i.e. investigate until Erudio have concluded their investigations, but it's only a quick phone call to start the process and that you have made contact with them and have their complaints form initiated gives your complaint more clout. Also it helps the rest of us, i.e. all of us, because then the murky practices will come to light and the authorities will insist on improvements for our benefit.

I am just wondering about this murky situation where Erudio can delay on the deferment process and then your repayments start even though you're entitled to deferment later, once they finally approve it. Again, from reading the T&C's it appears they have leeway, 3 months to backdate and I don't know more than that exactly. But to me they have blamed their "2-3 week backlog" on the transfer from SLC. On the very first letter I got from Erudio, they gave an assurance that the transfer would not cause inconvenience, so I don't accept their backlog excuse. I think we need to get the Ombudsman and regulatory body (FCA?) focused on a very common experience of many customers that the deferment process is unduly lengthy, uncertain and stressful, it is not fair treatment, and needs to be sharpened up with timescales given that actually mean something, so we know where we stand and what time we have to get forms returned etc.

I am very concerned with Erudio's shifting timescales. An acknowledgement to an email sending a deferment application almost a month after the email was sent with a 2 sentence reply that they will respond in a further 21 days is appalling in a process that is so stressful and worrying for people.

sabasa

Hi


Can anyone help with my query..

sabasa wrote: »

Hi All

Just looking some advice about whether I would qualify for deferment, I have looked at various sites including SLC and Euridio but can't see anything that would cover my particular circumstances

I earn just above the amount for deferment (£53 above per month) but last month I opted to "buy" additional leave from my employer and as a result the amount that I am paid before tax and N.I has reduced, this reduction in my salary is until December. The amounts are shown on my payslip as shown below. I think that my "gross salary" is the amount after the additional holiday is taken off, not the basic salary amount and that I would qualify for deferment. Can anybody advise if I am correct?

I fear I may have a battle on my hands to get Euridio to accept this and that they will insist on taking "Basic Salary" as the relevant figure but I would argue that this is not the amount I was paid, the amount I was paid is the figure after additional holidays have been deducted.

Payments

Basic Salary 2812.16
Additional holidays - 135.20

Total Payments 2676.97


Gross pay this employment 2812.17
Taxable pay to date 2676.97

CloudsinSky

Another reason for making a complaint if you feel you are being treated unfairly by Erudio, is that here they have STRICT timescales to respond. OK they allow themselves the full statutory 8 weeks to investigate and give a full response (Student Loans Company limit this waiting time to 15 days), but they do have to acknowledge your complaint within a few days.

Once you've made a complaint, Erudio should confirm in writing within the first few days (they have done so with myself) that "all collection activity will be suspended until we have issued our final response" (this is in accordance with the Credit Services Association Code of Practice.) Of course their final response might be very quick if it suits them (which of course suits you as well, if in your favour, but suits them if not). But then you have recourse to a full investigation by the Financial Ombudsman Service, who are interested in Creditors demonstrating fairness and acting in accordance with the Financial Conduct Authority regulations. The Ombudsman also report problems to the FCA.

I'm not sure what falls into the category of Eligible Complaints or not (i.e. if Financial Ombudsman will consider your complaint eligible for following up) each individual would need to check that themselves with the Ombudsman when contacting them, but don't let that put you off. I would have thought that the issue of direct debits taken wrongly must fall into their jurisdiction. I complained about Erudio informing me they would take repayments at the end of my deferment period before they would consider my application they'd already received some weeks previously (i.e. they wouldn't consider my application until after my current deferment period had ended - so not a seamless process as it used to be with Student Loans Company, with one deferment period rolling into another). My complaint is logged with the Financial Ombudsman Service, so I assume that means I am eligible if it came to the point of needing further investigation by them, otherwise surely they would have told me I wasn't eligible at the outset. So COMPLAIN to Erudio and Ombudsman at the same time, don't wait to begin either process, is my recommendation.

It seems to be an inconsistency and an irregularity that Erudio are not actually a member of the Credit Services Association. The CSA has confirmed that they are a Trade Association, not a regulatory body, and only members are bound by their Code of Practice.

However, Arrow Global and CalVal are both members of the CSA, so perhaps that automatically means that Erudio is. That doesn't make complete sense though, since Erudio as an entity have their own limited company entry on the Financial Services Register, I have checked that out by phoning the FCA.

However again (! sorry for my verbal diarrhoea, and I'm brilliant at spelling, but I can't spell diaorrhea, can anyone?) Since the department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) have stated that Erudio must abide by the CSA and other industry Codes of Practice, and since Erudio have stated it themselves on their website and on their Complaints Procedure, I think we have to trust them on that, or not even the Government will weasle out of that one.