ERUDIO student loans help

Brooker_Dave

Take them to court, court is the only thing that they seem afraid of.

Brooker_Dave

Erudio will try to scare you into paying the £2500 you don't owe them, as you know we were sold these loans on the basis that if abided by the terms as you have, the would not effect our ability to borrow, as you have discovered we were all mis-sold.

If Erudio were to go to court to get the £2500, they would have to convince a judge that someone who earns less than the yearly limit should pay.

Seek proper legal advice, and take Erudio to court for breach of contract, you should also be able to get damages as their breach has caused you genuine problems through no fault of your own.

Brooker_Dave

Bcob regulations anyone?

Brooker_Dave

moo22 wrote: »

Do i have any legal rights?

You have *loads* of rights.

"BCOBS is just one part of a larger set of FSA rules - the Conduct of Business Sourcebook - COBS. In particular, COBS contains a set of principles which are legally binding on all firms which are regulated by the FSA.

The 11 principles are laid out here. The principles which seem to be of most relevance to ordinary retail customers in respect of loans or credit cards or other products not covered by BCOBS are:-

6 Customers' interests A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. 7 Communications with clients A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading. 8 Conflicts of interest A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.



As with the fairness requirements in BCOBS, the fairness rules contained in the COBS principles are hugely powerful. They are capable of being applied to every conceivable kind of wrong-dealing meted out to you by your bank or lender.

Schedule 5.4 of the COBS transitional provisions provides a direct right of action in the county courts for aggrieved customers.
http://www.fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/COBS/Sch/5



Right of action under section 138D Chapter/ Appendix Section/Annex Paragraph For private person? Removed? For other person?
All rules in COBS with the status letter "E" No No No
Any rule in COBS which prohibits an authorised person from seeking to make provision excluding or restricting any duty or liability Yes No Yes Any other person Any rule in COBS which is directed at ensuring that transactions in designated investments are not effected with the benefit of unpublished information that, if made public, would be likely to affect the price of that designated investment Yes No Yes Any other person The fair, clear and not misleading rule Yes In part (Note 1) No
All other rules in COBS Yes No No



Notes 1. COBS 4.2.6R provides that if, in relation to a particular communication or financial promotion, a firm takes reasonable steps to ensure it complies with the fair, clear and not misleading rule, a contravention of that rule does not give rise to a right of action under section 138D of the Act.

This is in keeping with the direct right of action given in all the other COBS regs - BCOBS, ICOBS, mcobs

The COBS obligations came in force in 2007"

Brooker_Dave

"For the past three years, bank customers in the UK have had an excellent set of legal powers to tackle their banks if they think they have been treated unfairly.Unfortunately, hardly anyone knows about them, and the relevant authorities have failed to give the powers any meaningful publicity.


The rules were been laid down by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).


They are known as the Banking: Conduct of Business sourcebook (BCOBS) and they apply to small businesses as well as to private individuals.


Most significantly, they give any aggrieved customer the right to sue their bank in the county court.


This may not obvious to the first-time reader, but it is spelt out right at the bottom of the document in Schedule 5.


This explicitly links breaches of these rules to the right of individuals to take legal action under section 150 of Financial Services and Markets Act.


Under BCOBS, your bank has a duty to operate your current account so the consequences are not unfair to you.


Your bank cannot just go ahead and apply your contractual terms regardless of the consequences.


It is obliged to have regards to your interests, when making decisions.


Your bank may want to say they are only obliged to treat you fairly within the limits of the account contract.
H
owever, fair treatment under BCOBS means you are entitled to receive fair treatment despite the limits of the contract (otherwise BCOBS would be rendered completely ineffective by the bank's terms and conditions).

"It is hardly surprising that the British Banking Association's guide to BCOBS makes no mention whatsoever of this powerful consumer right.Rather more surprising is that the FSA's own Know Your Rights guide makes no mention either.


The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) website only makes passing references to BCOBS.


Under the previous Banking Code, it was the FOS which dealt with breaches of it.


I am doubtful about the ability of the FOS to apply the new rules.


According to the FOS, it seeks to achieve outcomes that are fair to both sides.


But BCOBS is much more one sided - in favour of customers - and requires fair treatment of bank customers in order to offset the inherent inequality in your bargaining-power."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19511542

Brooker_Dave

moo22 wrote: »

The ombudsman absolutely screwed me.

"
In fact, Fos, the great elephant in the room, has proven over the years to be the classic example of how industry can capture the commanding heights of financial regulation.
Even its most die-hard supporters cannot say in all honesty that Fos is fit for purpose. It is secretive, perceived to be grossly incompetent and, most of all, seems to work to its own rules without any sense of accountability to the general public.
As a quasi-judicial body, it appears to make up the rules of natural justice as it goes along: no one knows if its so-called assessors are qualified, and even the common administrative courtesies, such as acknowledging complaints and operating on the principles of fairness, seem alien to its core values.
There are numerous examples of Fos’s operational arrogance: the way it can often be dismissive about complaints that, to its assessors, may seem routine but to the individuals are matters of grave concern. It sometimes draws conclusions from the outline of complaints, which by definition are brief due to the space on their complaints forms, which to most people would be irrational and simply crying our for further explanation.
Further, the right of appeal, embedded in the common law of England and Wales for centuries, is denied the complainant since Fos is its own judge and jury.
And there is the implication that Fos, for a variety of reasons, but mainly due to its lack of institutional expertise, is easily intimidated by the big battalions of financial services, in particular the retail banks and insurance companies."


http://www.ftadviser.com/2013/02/27/opinion/hal-austin/fos-is-not-fit-for-purpose-mvgdwTUWVCBgdzsdhhHcPO/article.html

anna2007

moo22 wrote: »

So please people help me! What do i do? Should i pay the money? Should i pay back in installments? Is there anything i can do about my credit file? Is there anyone or anything i can turn to? Do i have any legal rights?
What can they do?

You don't owe Erudio a penny, as you've shown them your income's below the deferment threshold, which is all that's legally required of you. Everything else is bluff and bluster from Erudio aka Arrow Global, persuading you to pay them money you don't owe. I take it they had no issue with the income evidence you supplied, only your refusal to sign the DAF? If that's the case, they can't legally chase you for arrears, and certainly can't mark your credit file. They're in breach of contract, as they're legally obligated to defer repayments if you prove your income level is below the threshold.

This FOS decision shows Erudio will back down when challenged in court, and it will likely cost them more than the £2,500 they're claiming from you, in legal representation and a settlement figure - way more I'd have thought, if they've marked or damaged your credit record/rating and you can show that. If it's ok with you, could you link to your FOS decision? They're all published here - then we can see FOS's reasoning (which is usually pretty bizarre) on your specific case.

If you're in England, it's easy enough to start a claim online:

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome

A Letter Before Action might be enough to get them to crawl back into the swamp they crawled out of, make sure they agree to a decent amount of compensation to avoid court, for breach of contract and harassment, but especially for false marks on your credit file. Do you have any legal cover through your house or car insurance, they might be able to advise you? Even more important if you're considering a mortgage application, if Erudio have left a false black mark that prevents you getting the best mortgage deals, then I think Erudio/Arrow Global are liable for any financial loss resulting from that.

In the meantime, you can dispute the record with the CRA (details here for Experian), which is then investigated. Even if Erudio maintain they're in the right, you can put a 'notice of correction' on your credit file, explaining the situation and informing other lenders of the impending court case

Was it your Experian report that they marked, and did you check either of the other two CRAs?

Edit: If anyone has legal cover through their house or car insurance, they may well be willing to consider this type of dispute? First link when I bing-ed (don't do Google anymore, shysters) was MoreThan, and they cover £50k for consumer protection claims. From personal experience involving a car accident, if it's a clear cut case as to who's at fault, they can't wait to jump on it and offer legal assistance - I didn't even have the legal cover on my policy.

anna2007

moo22 wrote: »

I was FUMING. The ombudsman absolutely screwed me.

Believe me, this is how we ALL feel when we receive the ombudsman's decision!

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Erudio will try to scare you into paying the £2500 you don't owe them, as you know we were sold these loans on the basis that if abided by the terms as you have, the would not effect our ability to borrow, as you have discovered we were all mis-sold.

The following is pretty much speculation on my part (sorry), but thought it was worth posting.

I've been reading over the S&P agreement again, as I have to make further submissions to the ICO by end of next week, over the redacted stuff. At clause 11, on CCA remediation (I know, or at least I hope, it's not just me who thinks there's another motive besides Erudio wanting to stay on the right side of the law on statements/notices), it mentions a remediation report by pwc. So I googled (this was before reports on their tax situation and I swore myself to Bing) "pwc consumer credit act remediation" - the second result shows this:
http://www.pwc.co.uk/industries/insurance/insights/mis-selling.html
Seems to me that "bringing finality to historical liabilities" over mis-selling is exactly the area our Government would be interested in. It's in their own interest, of course. pwc might have been directing this article at PPI claims, but the same principles apply to our Government, our loans are governed by the CCA, as well as the student loans legislation. Hardly your usual creditor/debtor relationship, and only adds weight to the mis-selling argument. The Googlebots could be way off course with this particular search (unusual), or "pwc CCA remediation" maybe has a lot to do with dodging claims over mis-selling.

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

If Erudio were to go to court to get the £2500, they would have to convince a judge that someone who earns less than the yearly limit should pay.

I think this might be the best summing up of the legal situation in 5020 :eek: posts!

anna2007

After seeing the pwc page, I got no further with the ICO stuff and did some digging on part 26 of the CCA 2006 (not 1986 as stated in the article, there is no 1986 Act, and no part 26 in the 1985 Act either). Part 26 seems to involve setting up schemes so that you can dodge your usual legal obligations. This case shows how these schemes under part 26 are used. It's also useful in that it clearly sets out the 3 claims that can be made under CCA, and it looks like a claim of unfair relationship is the way to go? The extortionate bargain claim is interesting (superseded by S140?) , as that definitely applies to any of us, taking out a loan with our trusted Government, 18 years old with no prior experience of financial transactions/relationships - it's so !!!!ing obvious how wrong things have turned, when that was the original position and intention.