ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

Part of the redacted info in the agreement is headed "Special CCA Claims". It's obviously important to them that we don't find out about these claims. I think that little redaction could be claims WE could bring against THEM (surely in the public interest), rather than claims BIS/Erudio might have against each other - could be mis-selling, or unenforceable agreements, or unfair relationship. Any ideas on what that "special" claim could be? Too many to choose from!

I'm only asking, because ICO refuse to give even an inkling about why BIS think commercial interests will be prejudiced. But they want me to blindly argue why I think differently. It's madness.

anna2007

patanne wrote: »

Well Price Waterhouse have always seemed to be reputable. However they are an accountancy co so caution is a good idea until you have proof.

The close links between pwc and current (and past) MPs have already been made on this forum, and elsewhere.

pwc were no doubt delighted to advise on remediation, and were probably paid handsomely, out of the taxpayers' pockets.

I'm getting to the stage of thinking why bother your @rse fighting it? I'm not trying to sound all tin-foil-hat, but always "seeming to be reputable" is what some accountants, and the majority of politicians, have spent a working lifetime practicing to perfection.

Here's an example (I know nothing about how the stock market works, so I hope someone will set me right if I've got the wrong idea). Gideon sold a chunk of the Government's (i.e. the taxpayers') shares in RBS last August, to private investors. At a loss of around £1 billion to the taxpayer. He also drip-fed the Lloyd's shares to private investors, again at a loss and even agreed a discount (at the taxpayers' expense) to entice buyers, not that they needed enticing. Now, when Lloyd's shares are at the same price as they were when sold (discounted) to private investors, Gideon says the market's a bit volatile so not a good time, AND he wants to make a profit on the public sale, so the price needs to rise another 20-odd pence before he'll even consider it. And it was taxpayers' money used to bail out the banks. How many times can you con the taxpayer over the 'banking crisis'? And at the same time, bankers continue to collect a big bonus... something's not quite right, is it?

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

Part of the redacted info in the agreement is headed "Special CCA Claims". It's obviously important to them that we don't find out about these claims. I think that little redaction could be claims WE could bring against THEM (surely in the public interest), rather than claims BIS/Erudio might have against each other - could be mis-selling, or unenforceable agreements, or unfair relationship. Any ideas on what that "special" claim could be? Too many to choose from!

Someone on another forum speculated that the loans are unenforceable, thus the need to Arrow and Cargill to force people to sign new agreements.

Given most people have signed the forms due it being stated that it's the only way of exercising their right to defer (a lie), could they escape the new T&Cs due to having been coerced?

As to the problem of the FOS and FCA being complicit and aiding Erudio's blatant cheating of it's customers, could these people be any help?

http://www.eba.europa.eu/contacts/complaints/complaints-against-a-national-competent-authority

BorderReiver14

Given most people have signed the forms due it being stated that it's the only way of exercising their right to defer (a lie), could they escape the new T&Cs due to having been coerced?

Absolutely. Especially if you have a paper trail with Erudio, FCA and FOS spelling out the objections. Erudio have always maintained the terms and conditions have never changed. It's their interpretation vs ours. The fact that they won't risk court shows they just want to pull a fast one. Let's face it, they are taking in massive profits already from this. Why risk taking on one of us in a court. I hope moo22 takes some comfort from what has been said on here.

BorderReiver14

anna2007 wrote: »

Part of the redacted info in the agreement is headed "Special CCA Claims". It's obviously important to them that we don't find out about these claims. I think that little redaction could be claims WE could bring against THEM (surely in the public interest), rather than claims BIS/Erudio might have against each other - could be mis-selling, or unenforceable agreements, or unfair relationship. Any ideas on what that "special" claim could be? Too many to choose from!

I'm only asking, because ICO refuse to give even an inkling about why BIS think commercial interests will be prejudiced. But they want me to blindly argue why I think differently. It's madness.

Would a court have the power to access this? Meaning a request for a court to rule on it if it really was commercially sensitive vs FOI? I have to say, I am amazed what you have managed to get out of them thus far.

BorderReiver14

moo22 wrote: »

...reading on the forums people saying they have been deferred when not signing the form and the ombudsman giving in their favour, is this fact do these people exist? If so do i have any case for precedent.

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?

I am one of those people. I will never sign their DAF (version 1 or 2). I have a deferment in place.

The fact that you have letters and/or emails from Erudio about the dispute surely shows they had your application? I can honestly fully empathise with the stress and grief... and it's your call alone how you proceed. Personally if it was me I would be inviting Erudio to take you to court. Point out to them that you will ask the court to show you where its a requirement to use their DAF and whether the court feels they have acted fairly in clearly defining the true legal requirements. From what you have said, you showed you are under the threshold, made your application on time and exhausted all avenues to resolve this. As others have said, they will not want a court looking at their practises too closely.
Have they marked your credit file or done a soft search?

moo22

Wow thanks for the response everybody,sorry late getting back to you.

Looked through the paperwork and the ombudsman decision was made by an adjudicator. I did'nt appeal as the general consensus was that they rarely change their decision and in their explanation of there decision they barely touched on any of the evidence i had provided them so did'nt hold out much hope.

Regarding court. I lived my life so I'd never have to go to court but maybe i have no other choice. I am quite naive in this area..what would be the costs of going to court, i can't afford that and if it ended up costing me money to go through courts would i not be better just taking that money and paying it to erudio, at least then i'd have paid off a bit of my loan( and sold my soul). As i say this is all new to me. Has anyone else been successful with this? i can't be the only one in this situation.

I am looking into how far they have gone with my credit rating. One thing i just noticed in my complaint decision from them is that they tried to throw out my deferment by saying that the DAF form does not ask for you to send in an SA302 form for self employed, while earlier in the same letter acknowledging that after listening to recorded phone calls that there phone operatives had on two occasions told me that's all i needed to send them.

BorderReiver14

Why not appeal for an ombudsman to look at it. Doesn't cost you and there have been cases where they have ruled differently to an adjudicator. Nothing to lose and you don't have to accept it. Equally, if you are positive you have met all your obligations to defer, sit back and let Erudio take you to court. They won't want to because they can't win if you have met your obligations. Please check to see if they have marked your credit file.

anna2007

moo22 wrote: »

Wow thanks for the response everybody,sorry late getting back to you.

Looked through the paperwork and the ombudsman decision was made by an adjudicator. I did'nt appeal as the general consensus was that they rarely change their decision and in their explanation of there decision they barely touched on any of the evidence i had provided them so did'nt hold out much hope.

Regarding court. I lived my life so I'd never have to go to court but maybe i have no other choice. I am quite naive in this area..what would be the costs of going to court, i can't afford that and if it ended up costing me money to go through courts would i not be better just taking that money and paying it to erudio, at least then i'd have paid off a bit of my loan( and sold my soul). As i say this is all new to me. Has anyone else been successful with this? i can't be the only one in this situation.

It doesn't cost much to raise a court claim:

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees

I don't know how much Erudio 'claim' you owe, but it can't cost more than £70 to raise a claim against them? The last thing Erudio want is a proper reckoning on the legal position, so threaten them with legal action with an LBA, unless they pay you whatever amount you think compensates for their pants service so far. A reasonable estimate of what you think your time's worth, because they're hardly in a strong position if challenged in court.

My ethos is if I cost Erudio more in FOS complaints and court than they could ever claw back on my loans, then that's a job done. If it costs them more on every loan, it's not a good investment and they might think twice about buying up more. That works on a personal level, but unless the majority of borrowers do the same, it's probably a fart in a sieve - we'll see the likes of Arrow Global in control of our children's future finances. I don't want that for my kids.

moo22 wrote: »

I am looking into how far they have gone with my credit rating. One thing i just noticed in my complaint decision from them is that they tried to throw out my deferment by saying that the DAF form does not ask for you to send in an SA302 form for self employed, while earlier in the same letter acknowledging that after listening to recorded phone calls that there phone operatives had on two occasions told me that's all i needed to send them.

If the evidence provided proves your income, there's not a thing they can do, unless they want to be in breach of contract.

Erudio, or Arrow Global, want to make us believe that the DAF is somehow magically linked to the legal right of deferment. It's not!

anna2007

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Would a court have the power to access this? Meaning a request for a court to rule on it if it really was commercially sensitive vs FOI? I have to say, I am amazed what you have managed to get out of them thus far.

My understanding is that anyone with a legal claim against Erudio would have the right to request the whole document as evidence, and Erudio/BIS wouldn't have the FOI exemptions to hide behind?

I've made further submissions to ICO about the redacted stuff, they said probably late March for the decision notice. Then it's appealing to the tribunal. The FOI request was made more than a year ago.. I thought FOIA was meant to speed things up!