ERUDIO student loans help

kern_debug

Jumping ahead to now, my adjudicator has just suggested that I might want to apply to defer the period 2015/2016, because I haven't done that. I replied that about 21 weeks have passed since I should have received a functionally adequate application form. To be clear, no form at all has been sent/arrived.... nor any statement of account. I hadn't thought about it because my application for 2014/2015 was still in dispute.

I haven't heard anything from Erudio XYZ, on the subject.

This post [number 5043] is a question about what I should do about this deferment application which I would have made, had I received notification from Erudio. However, I did come to the forum to give information about how my complaint went/is going.

AReeves

The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998
Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 211:
Schedule 2:

9. Each year the lender will tell the borrower the new deferment level for the period between 1st September and the following 31st August. 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.

---

This is the relevant Regulation and note the wording, "he can show".

rizla_king

AReeves wrote: »

This is the relevant Regulation and note the wording, "he can show".

yes, but the FOS doesnt give a shlt that the law says that

the FOS expects you to

> fill in Erudios scammy form even if its not legally required
> agree to all the extra terms and conditions and checks Erudio want to do that were never part of your loan agreement
> agree to your loans being reported to cras

if you actually want to apply the law and your legal right to defer without that, just showing you are below the threshold, the FOS will decide against you.

only way is to go legal on Erudio, and even then you get things like lawyers who go AWOL and delete all their forum post leaving everyone in the lurch.

kern_debug

Thanks for the updated statute.

Well that letter was November 2014. Received by Erudio before the deadline, with all relevant wage reports. I was and still am earning about 112 pounds per week, with no state benefits, nor other income.

I got a letter from Erudio saying my application needed to be signed, so I phoned them up for an hour of me explaining and appealing to reason, while they insisted that my deferment could not be accepted without me signing their contrivance.
My application was signed at the end of my NOTICE to them.

I checked my bank for the two months following the deadline, and no money left my account to them so I forgot about it. So six months later I get a paper statement from this bank account, which handles my council tax payments, and I see six payments out to ESL.

Obviously I tell the bank all about it. Then I called Erudio and told them to stop it.

I asked my bank to claim the money back as per the Direct Debit Guaruntee, and my account was credited, also I got a written apology from the bank [which was overly polite of them, I thought]. I wasn't sure if Erudio had stumped up though, or if my bank would need to fight Erudio... anyway...

The following letters were sent recorded delivery to Erudio, as they continued to take three more payments:

#########


This letter is for the company calling itself Erudio Student Loans, Arrow Global, CarVal Investors, and their representatives.

Following communication with #telephonist#;
#manager#;
#manager#;
at length with #my employee wage office#.


You are not authorised to take money from my account.

I authorised my bank to pay you under conditions, but those payments should not be demanded by yourselves unless I earn more than the threshold amount. As I have made very clear to you, you are not authorised to demand money from my bank unless I am earning above the threshold amount.

You have been provided with the necessary documents, as set out in statute. I have also made clear that I will provide you with relevant information. If you have evidence contrary to my presentation of the facts, then you should present that evidence.
I discussed this, and other issues at length with your representatives last year. Your organisation has had the necessary information, and understanding, and yet has proceeded to wilfully take money with no attempt to resolve the simple situation, or any 'misunderstanding' there may have been. Neither did you give notice of when, nor of how much money you intended to take.

Further removals of money from my account will continue to be regarded as unauthorized. Cease and desist, you are taking that money against my will, and in breach of the agreement which I made with The Student Loans Company.

You should return all money you have taken from my account to my bank relating to their refund procedure, or to the account from which you took it.

You appear to be abusing that trust which was extended to you in the form of direct debit details, and my authorisation of my bank, which was arranged exclusively for the condition of my earning above the threshold amount. I still do not earn above the threshold amount, nor have I this year.


Your reference number for my loan account with Student Loans Company: #### #### #### ####.



From
#my name#

#################

*here another payment was taken*

So I sent this withdrawal of implied right of access:

#################


Erudio Student Loans Limited,
PO Box 580,
Rotherham,
S63 3FR.







16th September, 2015.

NOTICE

To whom it may concern,


Erudio Student Loans Company and your employees and representatives, including agents acting on your behalf, may not call at my address nor access my property. You are hereby served notice of this fact. This notice provides you with prior written warning that such a visit will constitute trespass and harassment. I am withdrawing any implied right of access to my property from your organisation and agents of the same. DO NOT IGNORE THIS DOCUMENT.

I am the lawful occupier of this property :

#my address#

You have my bank account details, and the contents of that bank account are also my property. You have no right to access my property, nor to take my possessions.

My name is #my name#

Your Erudio Student Loans Company Limited reference number for my Student Loans Company account is:#### #### #### ####.


######

I then telephoned Erudio, and informed the telephonist that I was recording the conversation. I asked if my letters had been received, and she[telephonist] confirmed that they had, and informed me that due to their nature, they had been forwarded to [some unnamed recipient]. This phone call was a month after the "cease and desist", eight days after the "withdrawal of implied right of access" and 3 days BEFORE the next payment was taken.

anna2007

Lungboy wrote: »

Why do you think this?

Because I was told as much, from a legally qualified person. Not that I trusted it as true - maybe that's just me - but quick google seems to back it up, e.g. here:

http://findlaw.co.uk/law/dispute_resolution/litigation/trial/rules-of-evidence.html

Perhaps the most basic rule of evidence is that for a party to introduce an item of evidence at trial, it must be relevant to some issue that is before the court.

Where the relevance of an item is not obvious, the party introducing it must explain how it is relevant.

The court has control over the flow of evidence in a case. It can request that the parties present evidence relating to particular issues, and can also limit the use of evidence as well as the extent of cross-examination.

Seems to me the S&P agreement is relevant to any case we might bring against Erudio (at least in part, but especially a claim for unfair relationship) and no exemptions under FOI allowed, so the whole document would have to be produced as evidence.

We already know that parts of the document may support a legal claim against Erudio, so we can request the whole agreement as evidence in court.

anna2007

kern_debug wrote: »

This post [number 5043] is a question about what I should do about this deferment application which I would have made, had I received notification from Erudio. However, I did come to the forum to give information about how my complaint went/is going.

You should apply for deferment each year in the usual way (which doesn't mean signing their form if you don't want to, you only have to give them proof of income, but be prepared to fight if they insist on signed DAF), regardless of what crap Erudio come up with for previous applications, even if they haven't accepted last year's application. That way, you've abided by what's required by the Regs, and Erudio are in breach of contract if they don't defer.

anna2007

rizla_king wrote: »

yes, but the FOS doesnt give a shlt that the law says that

Yes, but no-one who's been on the forum a while really gives a shlt that FOS doesn't give a shlt about what the law says!

Anthony was rightly directing the previous poster to the 1998 regs, when they'd been misquoted the 96(?) regs.

It's also a bad idea to give the impression that complaining to FOS is futile. I agree FOS's reasoning is mental and leaves a general feeling of !!!!!!, but people have to continue to complain, so that it goes on public record how !!!!ing awful this consortium is at handling student loans. It surely causes the Government a little bit of embarrassment when their chosen "servicer" performs worse than Wonga?

Lungboy

anna2007 wrote: »

Because I was told as much, from a legally qualified person. Not that I trusted it as true - maybe that's just me - but quick google seems to back it up, e.g. here:

http://findlaw.co.uk/law/dispute_resolution/litigation/trial/rules-of-evidence.html


Seems to me the S&P agreement is relevant to any case we might bring against Erudio (at least in part, but especially a claim for unfair relationship) and no exemptions under FOI allowed, so the whole document would have to be produced as evidence.

We already know that parts of the document may support a legal claim against Erudio, so we can request the whole agreement as evidence in court.

Wouldn't you already need to know what was in the document to be able to request using it? I also thought you meant the due diligence paperwork rather than the s&p document, no idea why.

gardenia101

Not properly caught up with the thread, but thought I'd update where I am regarding Erudio.... Sigh.

Still waiting for the last statement that FOS said Erudio must supply. FOS can't do anything about Erudio sticking up 2 fingers to them, so I've complained again to Erudio about the lack of statement (& other things). Oddly enough, no reply within the 8 weeks, so another complaint has gone in to FOS & now just waiting for them to say Erudio have to send me a statement, for me not receive anything & complain again.....

No idea when this farce will end. I agree with Anna that is has to be worth complaining to FOS though, as they can't dispute the figures even if they can't make Erudio behave. At the least there should be some more compensation so I'm hopefully to cost them more than they'll ever get back from me. A minuscule victory perhaps?

plong979

Well had my response of Erudio to the FOS about my complaint. They are once again not accepting my complaint that i should be deferred or even my cheeky offer of paying off the loan at the price they paid for it. Shock horror. But if sign away my rights then they will remove 2 years of arrears and defer me...not happening.

Emailed FOS with Erudio response along with a rant. See what happens...probably nothing but I am never signing that form.