ERUDIO student loans help

BorderReiver14

anna2007 wrote: »

Both years of deferment with Erudio, I've backed up the paper copies sent RM registered post with email and read receipts.

They were fine with it first time, but said last deferment (May this year):


Our information's hardly secure with Erudio anyway and I'd rather have that extra paper trail when thing's go wrong (and they will).

You're not sending original documents through the post - if you get a read receipt, and even more so if they acknowledge receipt of emailed copies, they can hardly refuse to process your application on the basis that they think email's "not a secure method" of getting the info to them?

Had the same reply with my second application but I don't see why they won't accept our info via email other than the fact they want to make things as difficult as possible. Afterall, you can do alot of things online including major transactions and applications for legal documents. If its good enough for everyone else then why not a student loan?
It costs to send things recorded delivery and that would be the only other alternative short of turning up at their offices.
personally I think I will stick to emailing them regardless because as far as I can see you are still meeting the obligations of the regulations by 'showing' them you can defer. If they don't want to process the info then that is just going to cause more expensive FOS complaints.

GinOClock

I've emailed payslips to SLC in the past with no difficulty. More to the point, organisations scan incoming mail electronically and store copies digitally, so there should be no extra work involved for Erudio. In any case, Erudio don't require originals.

I think they are bound to accept them. If they don't, it's a £550 FOS case fee. Though what FOS will rule is anybody's guess.

BorderReiver14

I would hazard a guess what the FOS would say having read a few scripts thus far in the Erudio saga...
'The FOS has no remit to get involved in commercial decisions'

Edwood_Woodwood

I have today issued legal proceedings against Erudio.

I gave them the deadline of today to defer me and to remove any alleged arrears on my account or else I would start legal action.

They failed to do this, instead they sent me a letter inviting me to make (another) complaint to them. The complaint I did make to them in November 2014 was just fudged by them not addressing any of my complaint.

I'm not going to get messed about by these people any longer.

GinOClock

Quite. Given that FOS decisions are based on stock phrases and templates, I can probably guess the decision from the Ombudsman here, before it FOS has even read the complaint:

Mr A feels what our adjudicator said means Erudio can do whatever they wish as long as they’re making their own commercial decisions. I don’t believe this is the case. What I’d say is we don’t interfere if businesses are operating fairly. And I’m satisfied this is the case here.

I’m satisfied there’s no reason why Mr A cannot send Erudio his correspondence by post. The walk to the post office has no impact on Mr A. Mr A has walked to the post office many times, including as part of the process of originally applying for his student loans. I'm satisfied Erudio are acting fairly.

dizzybuff

Well my second complaint regarding the fact that not being allowed to change the dd date is a breach of thw terms and conditions ( as it says no where in the t and t that I can not and it's linked to my loan) was covered when I asked why I could not change the dd. Completely different topics , however it's not even got past the adjudicator as they have said the ombudsman in question says the question has been answered. Erudio stated it was linked to my dd therefore couldn't be changed but gave me other forms of payment. So apparently they can do what they want.once I'm through Xmas I'll attempt deferral again. Not that I'll get it as thwy will say my child tax credit qnd my children's maintenance takes me over the threshold even though I only earn 21k

fermi

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/our-service-standards.htm

complaints about our service

1. tell the team manager

In the first instance, please tell the member of staff you are dealing with – or their team manager – if you are unhappy with the level of service we have provided. You can do this either by phone – or in writing.
The team manager will try to put right – as quickly as possible – anything we have done wrong. Usually things can be sorted out straight away at this stage.

2. raise your concerns with a senior manager

If a team manager hasn't been able to sort out your complaint about the service we have provided, you can ask a senior manager to look into your concerns. The member of staff you are dealing with will tell you how to do this – if you want to take the complaint further.
The senior manager will respond within 20 working days. If we need more time, we will let you know and explain why.
Where relevant, we will tell you how we will put things right – and how we plan to make sure the mistakes do not happen again.

what to do if you are still not happy - the independent assessor

If we have responded to your complaint about the level of service we have provided, but you’re still not happy, you can contact the independent assessor, Amerdeep Somal.
more information

There is more information about our complaints procedure and the role of our independent assessor in our special factsheet:

• factsheet on complaints about our service

Mr_McGuffin

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/293966/response/729171/attach/html/2/FOI2015 20513 Internal Review response.pdf .html

Anthony Odgers, Deputy Chief Executive - Shareholder Executive, BIS states:

BIS is not responsible for the actions of the purchaser following sale. As you will be aware from information already released, the terms of sale require the purchaser to act within the law, and in line with loan terms and industry codes of practice. BIS had no ongoing duty in this respect, which is a matter for the Financial Conduct Authority.

The sale of the mortgage style loan book led to the full transfer of legal ownership from
BIS to the purchaser. However, the Department took steps at the time of sale to ensure,
as far as it could, that the purchaser acts within the law, and in line with loan terms and
industry codes of practice. BIS had no ongoing duty in this respect, which is a matter for
the Financial Conduct Authority.

The Department did not act ‘as far as it could’ to ensure such an objective. It did as little as possible. It did not follow the precedents of the two former sales, as promised before the introduction of the enabling legislation in 1998:

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The borrower will be safeguarded through our sale agreement with the purchaser, which will set down minimum requirements as to administration.

We shall introduce a number of important and significant safeguards. We shall specify in the sale agreement with purchasers minimum collection standards that must be adhered to. They will be based on the present procedures adopted by the Student Loans Company. A purchaser's failure to abide by the minimum collection standards could lead to legal action. The borrower will be safeguarded by the terms of the loan agreement and, more generally, by consumer and data protection legislation.

Clause 1 also allows the Government to buy back some of the loans that have been sold and assign them to a third party. Our intention in taking this power is to enable the Government to buy back loans that we want to cancel for social policy reasons… We do not believe that it would be reasonable to pass such a burden to the private sector. It is a matter of public policy and it is therefore right that that power should reside with the Secretary of State.
(HC Deb 21 July 1997 vol 298 cc707-30 hansard.millbanksystems.com
Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v.1.0)

In Clause 1, the 1998 legislation allows the Government to specify circumstances in which the loans can be returned to public ownership:

Education (Student Loans) Act 1998
1A Transfer of public sector student loans to the private sector
(2) The Secretary of State may make such arrangements as he thinks fit for the purpose of facilitating, or otherwise in connection with, an assignment under subsection (1) above.
(4) Such arrangements may authorise the Secretary of State in specified circumstances—
(a) to take an assignment from the purchaser of all or any of his rights in respect of any loan to which the arrangements relate, or
(b) to direct the purchaser to assign all or any such rights to some other person under subsection (1) above.

Of course, these loans were sold to Erudio with none of the ‘safeguards’ promised to Parliament in 1997 when the legislation was framed prior to the original sales. Far from any penalty of ‘legal action’, the agreement for the Erudio sale provided that any dispute between the Government and purchaser be resolved by secret arbitration, rather than in a British court.

To impose any limitation or penalty of enforcement on the behaviour of the purchaser was incompatible with what BIS offered for sale in 2013. BIS sold the opportunity to abuse and exploit for profit those whose loans were approaching cancellation. BIS sold the opportunity to exploit the core term of deferment contrary to its promised purpose and intention.

Mr_McGuffin

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/293966/response/729171/attach/html/2/FOI2015 20513 Internal Review response.pdf .html

In this response Anthony Odgers, Deputy Chief Executive, Shareholder Executive, BIS, states:

The sale of the mortgage style loan book led to the full transfer of legal ownership from
BIS to the purchaser. However, the Department took steps at the time of sale to ensure,
as far as it could, that the purchaser acts within the law, and in line with loan terms and
industry codes of practice. BIS had no ongoing duty in this respect, which is a matter for
the Financial Conduct Authority.

The Deputy Chief Executive of the Shareholder Executive considers the regulation of the owner of these ‘mortgage style’ loans to be ‘a matter for the Financial Conduct Authority’. However, BIS can affect the scope of FCA regulation. BIS has worked to ensure that the operation by the SLC of the deferment process for the tranches of loans now owned by Thesis/Link and Honours/Arrow Global is exempt from FCA regulation.

The former SLC Company Secretary John Brown, familiar from several FOI requests, was apparently replaced on 3rd December by a G Womersley:

https://companycheck.co.uk/company/02401034/STUDENT-LOANS-COMPANY-LIMITED/about

In 2014 Gary Womersley was Legal and Compliance Manager of the SLC.

Minutes of Meeting of the Board of Directors, SLC
16th December 2014 http://www.slc.co.uk/media/3423/12_minutes_for_december_2014.pdf
FCA Regulation
JB [John Brown, Company Secretary] introduced this topic and reminded the Board that the issue of FCA regulation has been included as one of the projects in the Corporate Governance Programme. He introduced GW [Gary Womersley, Legal and Compliance Manager] who had recently reviewed this project’s progress to date. GW presented his briefing paper that described the exclusion of ICR loans from regulation, the impact of regulation on MSL activities, and the application of the Approved Persons regime to the SLC.

GW went on to outline the impact of FCA regulation of MSL activities, including the requirement to change the SLC’s approach to handling complaints about MSL deferments. As MSL activities are a very small part of the SLC’s work programme and regulation would result in disproportionate costs and bring no tangible benefits to customers, GW advised the Board that he had considered an alternative approach. This would require the introduction of legislation that would also exclude MSL activities from FCA regulation. Ministerial approval would be required to introduce this type of Negative Resolution and PP [Polly Payne, BIS] advised that should the Board decide to go down this route, the BIS Sponsorship team would consider how best to take this forward. GW confirmed that a decision would be required by the end of January in order to meet the Parliamentary timetable. CB [Chris Brodie, Chairman] asked that GW prepare a paper for the Board to assist them in deciding whether or not to seek a Negative Resolution in respect of MSL activities. This paper should highlight the costs and benefits of both options and would be discussed at the next Board meeting.

Minutes of Meeting of the Board of Directors, SLC
27th January 2015 http://www.slc.co.uk/media/3424/1_board_minutes_january_2015.pdf
GW GW [Gary Womersley, Legal and Compliance Manager] went on to describe the options around FCA regulation of the SLC’S MSL activities. The Board acknowledged that under the existing legislation SLC is regulated by FCA for these activities and work should continue to prepare the formal application to FCA by June 2015. PP [Polly Payne, BIS] advised that BIS had been in discussions with HMT about this issue and HMT were now discussing the options with FCA. PP agreed to keep the Board advised of any developments.

Minutes of Meeting of the Board of Directors, SLC
24th February 2015 http://www.slc.co.uk/media/6054/board-minutes-february-2015.pdf
BC [Ben Coates, BIS] advised that the request to exclude the SLC’s activities on MSL
Deferments from regulation by the FCA had gone to the Treasury Minister and suggested that further work on the FCA application be put on hold until the Ministerial response was received.

In March, exemption from FCA regulation of ‘MSL deferments’ was provided by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2015 (SI 2015/447), as described in this response from the FCA on 7th April:

If a person is exempt, then it does not require FCA authorisation even if that person carries on a regulated activity in the UK. So, for example, the Student Loans Company Limited is an exempt person in relation to the regulated activity of debt administration in respect of certain types of loans to students, by virtue of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2015 (SI 2015/447).

This means that the SLC is exempt from regulation by the FCA in its operation of the deferment process for the tranches of loans sold in 1998 and 1999 and now owned by Link and Arrow Global, a public limited company. These minutes indicate that the idea for introducing legislation to achieve this originated in the SLC and BIS. An exemption from FCA regulation of its deferment of ‘mortgage style’ loans made under the Consumer Credit Act was proposed by the SLC. BIS sought a bespoke statutory instrument to make this possible. The Treasury apparently provided the legislation to this effect, as requested.

Brooker_Dave

How is this legal?