ERUDIO student loans help

rizla_king

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.

Yes. Not having a DD in place does not give them the right to refuse deferment under the agreements and regulations.

Direct Debit Mandates.

If you analyse the agreement terms, having a direct debit mandate is NOT a requirement for deferment and they should not be able to refuse you deferment if you dont.

Apart from being over the income threshold, the only reason they can refuse deferment under the agreements is if the loans have previously been demanded back in full. Under the agreement they can ONLY demand the loans back in full if you fail to make a required payment under the agreement.

In other words not having a DD in place is not a breach of the agreement that allows the to demand the loan back in full, so it is not a breach that gives them legal grounds to refuse a deferment.

Again Erudio do their best to make you think otherwise with deceptive wording on the forms.

rizla_king

ptolomy wrote: »

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.

Correct as I have heard of at least one person away from here who has had deferment granted on wage slips for the previous 3 months alone.

P60 is not and was never a requirement for deferment.

rizla_king

CSA are a complete waste of time, as they just represent the interest of their member and could not give a !!!!!! if members break their code of practice. No one else gives a !!!!!! what the CSA thinks or does, neither the government or regulators.

rizla_king

sabasa wrote: »

Hi


Can anyone help with my query..

Think some one on mumsnet concluded that it must be counted as income regardless?

Rather_Confused

Thanks to Rosskie for the information over filling in the DD stuff. I wrote on my form that they already have my information, so they don't need it again. It's been scanned and sent off recorded delivery. I now sit back and await the mess that's likely to follow....

Jill18

Has anyone else attempted to contact David Willets? I sent an email 2 days ago and no reponse except one saying that my email has been forwarded on to another address. I fully expect to get the same bs response that BIS produced previously but thought its worth a try to try and !!!!! his conscience over the way he has sold us out to these idiots.

ericctheking

The registered company address of Erudio student loans Ltd.

C/O WILMINGTON TRUST SP SERVICES
THIRD FLOOR
LONDON
EC2R 7AF

Maybe there might be some protests outside this office?

Email mfiler@wilmingtontrust.com
Telephone 020 7397 3600
Fax 020 7614 1112

Maybe these numbers might start getting contacted?

CloudsinSky

sabasa wrote: »

Hi


Can anyone help with my query..

In the terms I have got for loans between 1990 and 1998, it is headed schedule 2 and I quote from section 9... "The borrower can defer making repayments of the loan if (a) the lender has not already asked him to repay the loan in full, and (b) he can show - (i) that his gross income for the relevant month is not more than the deferment level, and (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."

above that, in section 1 it says "relevant month" means the month before the month in which the borrower asks for deferment

I don't know if your loan is pre 1998, as mine is, I am quoting from those terms. I don't now if and how the terms changed post 1998, other than the credit reference agency reporting issue.

CloudsinSky

rizla_king wrote: »

Yes. Not having a DD in place does not give them the right to refuse deferment under the agreements and regulations.

Direct Debit Mandates.

If you analyse the agreement terms, having a direct debit mandate is NOT a requirement for deferment and they should not be able to refuse you deferment if you dont.

Apart from being over the income threshold, the only reason they can refuse deferment under the agreements is if the loans have previously been demanded back in full. Under the agreement they can ONLY demand the loans back in full if you fail to make a required payment under the agreement.

In other words not having a DD in place is not a breach of the agreement that allows the to demand the loan back in full, so it is not a breach that gives them legal grounds to refuse a deferment.

Again Erudio do their best to make you think otherwise with deceptive wording on the forms.

I was given and kept Schedule 2 Terms of Loans for my pre 1998 loans. Part 1 Section 14: "Unless the lender agrees otherwise the lender will collect the borrower's monthly repayments by direct debit. If the borrower's account changes he must give the lender a new direct debiting instruction"
Section 15: "If the borrower does not make a repayment under the agreement when it is due, the lender may ask him to repay the loan in full immediately. The lender may do this even if the borrower's obligation to make other repayments is currently deferred."

I think that's clear that it's not worth not having a direct debit in place without clear agreement on your individual circumstances from Erudio.

The only grey area I'm not sure about is if you have a 12 month deferment in place, do you still need the direct debit in place then? I can't see that covered in this "Schedule 2" (where's Schedule 1 then? I don't seem to have that). Perhaps the lawyers drawing up this document didn't anticipate all of this happening.

I think the Government now at least owes us all new copies of all the relevant documentation we need to clearly understand all of our rights and obligations, instead of potentially misleading or confusing each other on this forum. That would include all the original terms and conditions and an explanation of what can be changed/different under Erudio, aside from the "key terms and conditions", which we have been told can't change.

Also, I don't expect consultation, but at the first loan sell off "HM Government" did at least have the courtesy to make an announcement to all borrowers, through a letter from SLC, informing us of their intention, offering reassurances and setting up a "special phone line to handle enquiries about the debt sale" (letter dated April 1999)

Jill18

Did everyone see this on the MSE news article from yesterday. So they lied about the 50 was actually 500.

Update: 7 May 2014: Erudio has today confirmed to MoneySavingExpert.com that just over 500 former students had direct debits incorrectly taken. At the time of writing it said only 50 people were hit by the mistake. Erudio adds that all those affected have been refunded, while it's also rectified the issue to prevent it happening again.