ERUDIO student loans help

GinOClock

One thing that is troubling me in particular is the following conflict:

On the Erudio FAQs it states under 'Why do I need to sign the deferment form?'

A signature is required to verify the information provided and is not intended to provide any additional consent above the original terms and conditions.

Yet in the DAF in the box underneath the Certificate and Warranty it states:

By confirming your agreement to proceed you are accepting we may each use your information in this way.

How can both be true? Neither Erudio or FOS seem interested in answering this. Perhaps someone can point MSE Helen to this post so this can be addressed? I do not understand why Erudio is not communicating with its customers or listening to their concerns.

On the subject of listening to concerns (or not): FOS.

It seems recently FOS have taken a firm blanket view that credit checks have become 'fair' since they have become 'soft'. They appear to have taken a pragmatic view that a 'soft' check on its own will mean a borrower will incur no financial loss, and will not investigate further. Concerns about borrower privacy or lack of consent in the 'freely given' sense, are not acknowledged. Concerns that permissions are not granted in the terms and conditions are shamefully given similar treatment. Erudio saying they can perform credit checks under the 'terms and conditions' is no good. They have to cite the clause(s) they seek to rely on. They quickly pointed to Section 12 and 16 in terms of loan reporting to CRAs. Why is this different?

Furthermore, any complaint to FOS referring to a modified DAF being refused as the borrower does not consent to credit checks is simply reframed as a complaint about credit checks. And the DAF issue is ignored. Perhaps it might be time to start making complaints to FOS itself about the way complaints have been handled by the Ombudsman? Although they are certainly very pleasant to deal with, their complaint handling seems to be rather unsatisfactory.

There was a FOS decision some time ago that borrowers could delete the credit check portion on last year's DAF. The same ombudsman referenced to it on a recent complaint in a decision on the 29 September 2015. She said:

I felt they couldn’t add what they were trying to add to this customer’s terms and conditions and ask her to agree to that.

In other words, Erudio were found by FOS to be found to trying to change the terms and conditions with last year's DAF. Yet the wording on this year's DAF doesn't seem any better - so why is nothing being done?

anna2007

AReeves wrote: »

I should state that I did not authorise this to be posted in an open forum nor did I authorise its distribution to others.
If people are taking legal action then they should draft particulars of claim that are specific to their dispute [although the issues are similar] and that are correct at the current time.

Anyway, good luck to those taking court action.

Anthony

fermi wrote: »

What was allegedly used by Anthony Reeves last year?

It was me who initially posted a copy of the particulars of claim. Fermi reposted a copy in response to Edwood Woodwood's request for information, who clearly found it helpful. That is the point of the forum/thread after all, to help each other where we can - I'm not sure why you would have a problem with that.

When you emailed the particulars of claim before Christmas last year, you said:

I don’t want this being mentioned in an open forum because I don’t want Erudio to get advance notice.

Erudio received the claim in January, a hearing was set for 6 March (which we all know didn't go ahead), and I posted the particulars of claim on 31 March. There's nothing in the particulars of claim that Erudio weren't already aware of, no element of surprise, most of the legal issues are common to all of us, and these templates (thanks to GinOClock for posting) are merely a starting point for anyone wanting to take legal action against Erudio. I'm sure everyone's aware already that it would need adapting to make it specific to their own claim.

I didn't see a problem with posting a copy, as it wasn't giving Erudio "advance notice" of anything. And although I don't need you to "authorise" my posts, I would have ok'd it with you out of courtesy prior to posting, if it wasn't for the fact you had done a 'Houdini' by then.

GinOClock

I have to say, I cannot see any harm myself in particulars being available online. The arguments will be well known to Erudio by now if the case commenced in January this year in England.

I myself used a Govan Law Centre template to reclaim bank/credit card charges back in 2006/7. It worked out just fine. On each case I got a full refund, together with the court lodging fee of £39 and 8% judicial interest.

On the subject of FOS... As many people have displayed discontent at recent cases, is there a way a FOS Representative can be directed to this thread? It is unsatisfactory that people are, for example, being told to start a fresh complaint to enforce an Ombudsman's previous decision. And they could also discuss Erudio's position in the complaint table of shame in the recent published statistics.

FOS decisions, anonymised, are published online so someone from FOS should be able to elaborate on the current FOS position of what is happening with Erudio at the moment. We are at page 246 on the thread which has been going on for 18 months or so. This issue is not isolated and far from being settled. This is long overdue...

BorderReiver14

I cannot see why any FOS rep would want to incur the wrath they would likely receive should they raise their head here. There are more than enough examples of FOS illogical 'rulings' to start a whole new thread elsewhere. I'm sure a few pages back on here it was mentioned that the FOS do visit other threads or forums from time to time? Despite my own misgivings about the FOS (and that is being polite) I would still urge everyone to complain to them about Erudio because it all stacks up.
I'd also remind everyone that according to the FOS, Erudio admitted to them that the original terms and conditions don't allow them to report to CRAs. They MUST have that consent via their DAF or else they ain't got a leg to stand on. I have finally got my deferment using a modified DAF. They had to accept it because the FOS said they had to accept it 'corrected'.
Keep fighting!

Pluthero

The FOS have been useless in dealing with the need or legal requirement to sign the DAF. They have made some stunning jumps in logic in doing so. Maybe its just not within their remit/legal powers or they are just genuinely hopeless. However they have made rulings that have cost ESL £££ and embarrassment AND so many complaints did have an effect or ESL would not have bothered their Ar*e re designing the DAF. They have also made rulings about aspects of the DAF which ESL have backed down upon; DD issues, Credit checks allowed etc. These will be useful for people fighting for the right not to sign the DAF in any future court actions as they can cite them as examples of how the DAF is not fit for purpose.

So everyone should complain to the FOS about every dam thing ESL does wrong or badly. If you do also fire a copy of to the FCA too.

gardenia101

GinOClock wrote: »

<cut>On the subject of FOS... As many people have displayed discontent at recent cases, is there a way a FOS Representative can be directed to this thread? It is unsatisfactory that people are, for example, being told to start a fresh complaint to enforce an Ombudsman's previous decision. And they could also discuss Erudio's position in the complaint table of shame in the recent published statistics.

FOS decisions, anonymised, are published online so someone from FOS should be able to elaborate on the current FOS position of what is happening with Erudio at the moment. We are at page 246 on the thread which has been going on for 18 months or so. This issue is not isolated and far from being settled. This is long overdue...

The service that I have received from FOS has been patchy, & I was assigned a specialist adjudicator (whatever that is). Can't fault her manners & patience, & I can tell she has tried hard to explain certain points which she has done well, but other points have been totally ignored, some more than once. I asked again why they couldn't enforce their own Ombudsman's decision & her reply was "[FONT=&quot]I would like to assure you that the ombudsman service doesn’t accept that it’s acceptable for any consumer to receive a poor service. However, the final decision is the final stage in our process, and therefore as we cannot assist you any further on the same complaint matter we close our file on the complaint. As explained previously, if you are unhappy with the statement you’ve received we can consider this as part of a new complaint."[/FONT]

Seems a bit mad to me - it it right that FOS can make a decision that is final & binding on a company, that company can continue to stick 2 fingers up to me & FOS, yet FOS can do nothing about it as their decision has been made? No wonder Erudio couldn't give a toss about what FOS say :rotfl:I can see I'll go round & round in circles with this one.

So another complaint has gone to Erudio & the 8 weeks are counting down. So far Erudio have at least improved how quickly they reply to emails, even if the emails are utter rubbish, so maybe I'll get a response soon.

I also ranted about how many complaints FOS had found against Erudio for, but how they were still getting away with treating customers badly - not surprisingly I was told "[FONT=&quot]I understand your comments about Erudio and that it’s not delivering a good service. Unfortunately, we can only look at individual complaints and are unable to comment on Erudio’s business practices. However, you can raise any concerns you have with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as they regulate the financial businesses and are able to consider their overall conduct." [/FONT] As expected, I guess, as its not in their remit. I never even had a reply or acknowledgement when I emailed the FCA, but I may try again. Sigh.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
I can't remember if anyone else's account has also been frozen/unfrozen at random points during the last few years? Anyone else had odd interest added some months but not others, & with no explanation.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

GinOClock

Hi Gardenia101,

What you are being told by FOS is nonsense. There is a 'Memorandum of Understanding' between FOS and the FCA which obliges FOS to pass on information to the FCA if they find practices that warrant regulatory action. It's available online, but I'm severely hungover and dashing to work so can't find the link at the moment!

I think what you need to do is raise a formal complaint to FOS about the service level. The support you have received since the Ombudsman's final decision is appalling. What I hope you can do is complain to Juliana Francis, the senior ombudsman who is operationally in charge of the banking and credit division of FOS. I probably shouldn't post her email address in public, but if you send me a PM I can happily pass it on.

AReeves

Anna,

Thanks for your post. Your points are noted.
I am glad that the point of adapting to each case is noted.
I did not intend to offend by my post. I am sorry that it did. Maybe I had "a senior moment". :embarasse

You have obviously spent a lot of time and hard work in this area and I sincerely wish you and others the best of luck in this matter.

Anthony

anna2007 wrote: »

It was me who initially posted a copy of the particulars of claim. Fermi reposted a copy in response to Edwood Woodwood's request for information, who clearly found it helpful. That is the point of the forum/thread after all, to help each other where we can - I'm not sure why you would have a problem with that.

When you emailed the particulars of claim before Christmas last year, you said:



Erudio received the claim in January, a hearing was set for 6 March (which we all know didn't go ahead), and I posted the particulars of claim on 31 March. There's nothing in the particulars of claim that Erudio weren't already aware of, no element of surprise, most of the legal issues are common to all of us, and these templates (thanks to GinOClock for posting) are merely a starting point for anyone wanting to take legal action against Erudio. I'm sure everyone's aware already that it would need adapting to make it specific to their own claim.

I didn't see a problem with posting a copy, as it wasn't giving Erudio "advance notice" of anything. And although I don't need you to "authorise" my posts, I would have ok'd it with you out of courtesy prior to posting, if it wasn't for the fact you had done a 'Houdini' by then.

anna2007

@ Anthony What you said wasn't offensive, I just didn't understand why you were objecting to the particulars of claim being shared, when you're here, same as everyone else, to help others having to fight for their legal right to deferment.

I know the last part of my reply to you was nippy, I apologise for that, but it's because I was genuinely upset when you (and all of your posts that could have actually helped people reading the forum) disappeared. I was upset precisely because we need legal minded people like you to help us beat Arrow Global, you were our legal opinion and then !!!!!!ed off! Why would anyone having to face Erudio's crap not be upset by that? Whichever way we go - FOS, FCA, ICO, BIS - it's ignored, so it seems the main grievances have to go to court.

End of long day, I'm not upset at you, just them.

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

Signature no. 50, which is rubbish.

I'm sure MSE's Martin would support this petition and give it some publicity, we all should contact him.

Even better, Martin should start the petition, it would be guaranteed to gain momentum.

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/12/14/ive-hired-lawyers-to-investigate-judicial-reviewing-govts-retrospective-student-loan-hike/