ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

Not really the best place to put this, but for reference, concerning Erudio being contractually obliged to mail out DAFs 'not less than 8 weeks before expiry of the deferment period' see 9.3.4 (A1) of actual BIS/Erudio Sale & Purchase agreement.
I think Erudio recently claimed they would send stuff out 6 weeks before but i cant remember where.
Heres the Sale and Purchase Agreement again where you can see the above part stated in stone:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjzix1oh1awpi0z/Sale%20and%20Purchase%20Agreement.pdf?dl=0

This is one area where virtually all of us could make official complaints to Erudio, wait for its answer and then hammer them with the Ombudsman. Erudio may even try to compensate us as well to stop us going to the ombudsman with the fines that entails.
I know signing the DAF is a more pertinent issue for a number of reasons, but this is a cast iron example where Erudio would be hammered if they were to try and reduce the deferment period, if enough of us complain. Dont forget, they already introduced the reduction in deferment time last year for those deferring around april/may time when the DAFs arrived around 4 weeks before deferment (although they blamed this on the new DAFs not being printed out).
I say, if they try it again, lets hammer them!

edit: i just had a tweet telling me the DAF arrived only 4 weeks before deferment deadline for one this month!

GinOClock

I didn't get very far with FOS about the amended DAF. I did accept their decision, however, as they requested Erudio give me another chance to sign the form again.

Erudio did say they would send a DAF, but have served me with a 'Notice of Default' instead. I'm getting rather fed up!

Chadsman

I didn't receive a DAF again this year. After phoning them three times last year they eventually emailed me a copy which I completed but didn't send in the page (I think p5) that suggested they had the right to vary terms but substituted a page saying I did not consent to any changes to the original T&Cs.

Lungboy

GinOClock wrote: »

I didn't get very far with FOS about the amended DAF. I did accept their decision, however, as they requested Erudio give me another chance to sign the form again.

Erudio did say they would send a DAF, but have served me with a 'Notice of Default' instead. I'm getting rather fed up!

Unfortunately, waiting for an FOS decision doesn't stop the clock on Erudio collections, so if you weren't paying when you should have been, they will default you.

Brooker_Dave

Lungboy wrote: »

Unfortunately, waiting for an FOS decision doesn't stop the clock on Erudio collections, so if you weren't paying when you should have been, they will default you.

At which point you use the courts to reclaim the value of the default?

Thus removing the default and a handy chunk of the loan?

GinOClock

Lungboy wrote: »

Unfortunately, waiting for an FOS decision doesn't stop the clock on Erudio collections, so if you weren't paying when you should have been, they will default you.

FOS had already made the final decision. They told Erudio to give me another opportunity to defer. I was loathe to sign the DAF, but just decided to do so for pragmatic reasons.

FOS asked them to send a new DAF, but Erudio sent a Notice of Default. This breaches the Ombudsman decision, which is binding on Erudio. Erudio are cooperating with FOS just now to find out why this happened.

erudioed

maybe one reason is the sub-contracting situation and the usual level of chaos/cr*p customer service that usually brings with it where one hand doesnt know what the other hand is doing. in my kingdom, all such practices would be outlawed and a company should have an appropriate structure to be able to handle the entirety of the tasks needed in the field in which it operates. it would stop such situations from these asset funds buying debt and then subcontracting the real work out to companies that have no real interest in putting the customer first, and instead see them as mere revenue streams, dancing in and around the legality of the laws under which they are suppose to operate.

either way, it must feel rather deliberate considering the issue you have with them. sounds like a situation ripe for compensation.

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

Not really the best place to put this, but for reference, concerning Erudio being contractually obliged to mail out DAFs 'not less than 8 weeks before expiry of the deferment period' see 9.3.4 (A1) of actual BIS/Erudio Sale & Purchase agreement.
I think Erudio recently claimed they would send stuff out 6 weeks before but i cant remember where.
Heres the Sale and Purchase Agreement again where you can see the above part stated in stone:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjzix1oh1awpi0z/Sale%20and%20Purchase%20Agreement.pdf?dl=0

This is one area where virtually all of us could make official complaints to Erudio, wait for its answer and then hammer them with the Ombudsman. Erudio may even try to compensate us as well to stop us going to the ombudsman with the fines that entails.
I know signing the DAF is a more pertinent issue for a number of reasons, but this is a cast iron example where Erudio would be hammered if they were to try and reduce the deferment period, if enough of us complain. Dont forget, they already introduced the reduction in deferment time last year for those deferring around april/may time when the DAFs arrived around 4 weeks before deferment (although they blamed this on the new DAFs not being printed out).
I say, if they try it again, lets hammer them!

edit: i just had a tweet telling me the DAF arrived only 4 weeks before deferment deadline for one this month!

I just saw this email from Erudio in my inbox, weirdly it arrived yesterday, 6 minutes before your post erudioed (can they alter the time of the email I wonder?):

It has come to my attention through our Quality Assurance testing I]the monkey who sits and monitors the MSE thread?[/I that you have been provided with incorrect information within an email response sent to you on Tuesday 12 January 2016 at 11.01am.

In accordance with the regulations governing the Mortgage Style Student Loans (as prescribed by the department of Business, Innovation and Skills), we automatically issue all deferment renewal application forms eight weeks prior to the end of the current deferment period, not six as stated in the email. This was unfortunately a human error by an administrative colleague dealing with your email. I apologise for any confusion this may have caused.

If you require any further clarity on the issue above please contact me on customerservices@erudiostudentloans.co.uk and I will be happy to assist you.

Again, please accept my apologises (sic) for this error.

Obviously, it would have been down to human error that the person who tweeted erudioed received their DAF only 4 weeks before deferment end... so it's worth keeping an eye on when deferment comes around, and firing off FOS complaints if they're not playing fair.

Looking at the IP addresses for these latest emails, they're coming from Capquest (Leeds and Glasgow).

Brooker_Dave

"Client Relationship Manager

"Farnborough

Competitive Salary plus excellent benefit package.

Arrow Global is a leading buyer of consumer receivables. Further to the merger of the Arrow and Capquest heritage business the company is experiencing a period of significant growth therefore we are looking to recruit an experienced Customer Relationship Manager to support us in the growth of Arrow Global."

capquest farnborough = erudio camberley ?

erudioed

anna2007 wrote: »

I just saw this email from Erudio in my inbox, weirdly it arrived yesterday, 6 minutes before your post erudioed (can they alter the time of the email I wonder?):


Obviously, it would have been down to human error that the person who tweeted erudioed received their DAF only 4 weeks before deferment end... so it's worth keeping an eye on when deferment comes around, and firing off FOS complaints if they're not playing fair.

Looking at the IP addresses for these latest emails, they're coming from Capquest (Leeds and Glasgow).

that is interesting. i actually fired off a tweet to paul lewis who put in the tweet asking for recent erudio !!!!-ups quite a while before i posted on this forum. i think erudio's designated internet bad press police follow things very closely. at least they know its an issue they are being watched on. i bet they have some fun reading through our musings most days during slack periods. i hope they muck it up though, it will give me a reason to file yet another complaint off :eek:.