ERUDIO student loans help

kern_debug

Wow. Thanks for the info, people.

I won't be straying into Erudio's website in the near future, but I might ask some foreign friends to take a look at it, and take some pictures.
Prospective students need to know all about this. I'm sure some groups will be interested in the involvement of "Cargill" too.

Unfortunately I missed the following documentary :

" American multinational Cargill trades in food commodities. It purchases, trades and distributes all of the basic ingredients on our plate - from meat to oil and cereal. At €121 billion (US$130 billion) a year, its turnover is twice that of McDonald’s and Coca Cola combined, and larger than the GDP of Hungary - yet few know the name. Today, this giant is at the center of controversy regarding the destruction of food crops (and local jobs), pollution and deforestation. In France, the US and Latin America, farmers and residents are sounding the alarm about the negative consequences of the global agri-business.

We investigate this multinational, which is also suspected of having indirectly caused the 2008 hunger riots by speculating on certain commodities. The vice president of Cargill goes exclusively on record for us to respond to various charges."

Hearsay, obviously.

kern_debug

I'd love to take Erudio to court for these reasons:

1) Attempting to procure by coercion, information (and the use thereof) to which they have no legal right.

2) Attempting to obtain consents and legal obligations by asserting that deferment is conditional upon signing a declaration of honesty, where that declaration intentionally conflates legal agreements to which the applicant could not otherwise be held. The use of financial levers, and implied harassment being effective menaces.

3) Theft of funds from my bank account, which they obtained by fraudulently presenting (electronic authentication)/documents after explicit verbal, and written notice to stop.

erudioed

kern_debug wrote: »

Unfortunately I missed the following documentary :

" American multinational Cargill trades in food commodities. It purchases, trades and distributes all of the basic ingredients on our plate - from meat to oil and cereal. At €121 billion (US$130 billion) a year, its turnover is twice that of McDonald’s and Coca Cola combined, and larger than the GDP of Hungary - yet few know the name. Today, this giant is at the center of controversy regarding the destruction of food crops (and local jobs), pollution and deforestation. In France, the US and Latin America, farmers and residents are sounding the alarm about the negative consequences of the global agri-business.

We investigate this multinational, which is also suspected of having indirectly caused the 2008 hunger riots by speculating on certain commodities. The vice president of Cargill goes exclusively on record for us to respond to various charges."

Hearsay, obviously.

Cargill Inc basically owns all our student loan data and are collecting further data on the back of processing our deferments! Still hoping to see this documentary that played on russia today a while back.

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

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

Sorry Brooker Dave, I missed this post. I read a few weeks ago (think it's in the CCA) that if a creditor wants to amend an agreement, the whole agreement has to be presented to the borrower for acceptance - Erudio's attempts to force acceptance of a few new terms via the DAF (nothing more than an admin form) clearly doesn't include all of the terms of our agreements. I think that alone means the new terms are unenforceable in court. Add to that breach of contract/DPA/UTCCRs, unfair relationship - it really doesn't look too good for Erudio?

On unenforceability, it may well hinge on mis-selling (possibly more because of our age and naivety when taking out the loans, as well as the crap situation we're now in, dealing with these profiteering scumbags). There's (a lot) of extra stuff in the S&P agreement on assigning the Scottish loans - could be down to differences in the legal systems, or not, so that's worth exploring.

There's also the fact that Erudio seems so unwilling to give anyone an accurate annual statement - I don't know anyone that has had one. I'm still waiting on a correct account, months after a FOS decision telling Erudio to put it right. Why are Erudio so reluctant to get that part of the agreement right, it's surely not so difficult, SLC managed it for many years? Usually for someone in deferment, you add a year's RPI interest to the opening balance, get a closing balance, job done. It does look like Erudio are deliberately getting balances wrong via 'CCA Remediation' ... but how does that legally benefit Erudio and/or BIS? Probably more to do with damage limitation...

Edit: I'd encourage anyone (that could be everyone?), if your annual statement's wrong, make a formal complaint to FOS. That would be a mighty amount of complaints. I can post up my own complaint if it helps - just don't expect FOS to be consistent in its decision

kern_debug

I have gathered from this thread that some people might not be surprised if I reported difficulty in getting acknowledgement from the Financial Ombudsman Service that they comprehended the complaints which I was making.

Rather than post another dozen letters up here, I will try to put the whole conversation on a blog somewhere, and link it here. I'll try to give a sense of the apparent delusion here though, in case it helps to ease the sanity of someone whom is assuming their own words mean the same thing to financial policy administrators.

My case is going to an ombudsman, because I did not agree with the adjudicator's final decision. As I have hinted at, the statements of the FOS adjudicator are often conceptually at odds with my own description of the situation, but more on that later.

Here is the first decision of the FOS adjudicator, in their words to ESL:

"...Based on what I’ve seen, I agree with Mr kern_debug that Erudio hasn’t acted fairly. I’m
writing to let you know how I think the situation should be sorted out.

about the complaint

Mr kern_debug's application for deferment wasn’t accepted even after he provided all
the necessary documents.
Mr kern_debug is unhappy Erudio are constructing legal obligations by saying the
deferment is conditional upon signing the form.
Erudio have taken money out of Mr kern_debug’s account without providing notice.
Erudio have misunderstood Mr kern_debug’s complaint and insist the complaint is
regarding the transfer of rights.

my findings

Mr kern_debug provided all the necessary information

I don’t think Erudio are disputing that Mr kern_debug didn’t provide all the necessary
documents. I appreciate Mr kern_debug was unhappy with Erudio’s decision, and has asked
them on several occasions what other information they require to accept the deferment.
However, each time Erudio has made it clear they only require Mr kern_debug to sign and
date the form.
Therefore, it’s important to look into whether a signature is actually required. And, whether
Erudio should’ve accepted the deferment without the signature.

is signing the form required?

It appears Mr kern_debug’s main reason for not signing the deferment form is because of the
fair processing notice. I’ve listened to the telephone conversations that took place between
Mr kern_debug and Erudio throughout 2014 and mid-2015, from these calls I can’t see that
Erudio advised Mr kern_debug that the terms of the fair processing notice were optional.
I’m not satisfied that Erudio had sufficiently mitigated their own position by having clearly
explained to Mr kern_debug that he was able to opt out of the fair processing notification,
without impacting his deferment application.

Erudio have taken money without providing notice
I agree with Mr kern_debug that Erudio shouldn’t have taken funds out of his account,
especially because I believe the deferment application should have been successful.

Erudio have misunderstood Mr kern_debug’s complaint
In Erudio’s final response letter dated 25 August 2015, they respond to three point, which
includes the transfer of the loan, but isn’t just limited to that. Erudio have commented on
the main aspect of Mr kern_debug’s complaint which is regarding the deferment form.

my conclusions
Having considered all the information I’ve been provided , I’m of the opinion that had
Erudio informed Mr kern_debug that the fair processing notice was optional, he would have
signed the deferment form and his application would have been successful. Especially
because he set up the direct debit and provided wage slips.
I recommend the following in full and final settlement of Mr kern_debug’s complaint:



Remove all arrears from Mr kern_debug’s account from November 2014 onwards.
Remove any arrears markers placed on Mr kern_debug’s credit file regarding any
arrears from November 2014 onwards.
Pay Mr kern_debug £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused."

kern_debug

Six weeks later I get another letter from FOS, containing mostly this:

"2 February 2016

Dear Mr kern_debug

your complaint about Erudio Student Loans Limited (Erudio)
Thank you for waiting while I’ve been looking into your complaint.
I’ve now received further information from Erudio. Having looked at all the information you
and Erudio have given me. I’m afraid that, based on what I’ve seen, I’m not asking them to
do anymore.
I know this isn’t the answer you were hoping for. But I’ve explained below why I think this is
the right outcome – taking into account everything that’s happened.

your complaint
The main aspect of your complaint is that Erudio didn’t accept your deferment form, even
though you signed an additional paper confirming the details you provided were true and
accurate.

my findings

should the deferment form be completed?
You took out this loan in 1995. Erudio have provided me with a copy of the original contact
with Student Loans Company (SLC). From this it appears that Erudio are allowed to record
deferred payments with credit reference agencies. However, they have said they do not
report to credit reference agencies now, but this may change in the future.
You haven’t made clear which specific terms you disagree with and feel weren’t part of
your original contract with SLC. However, Erudio have provided a copy of the welcome
pack that was sent to you, which explains the terms of your loan haven’t changed.
Therefore, I don’t think it’s fair for me to say Erudio acted in error by not accepting your
deferment form. The terms remained the same, so the actual form should’ve been signed.
Our service doesn’t get involved with a business’ processes. In my earlier assessment I
said Erudio should’ve explained the terms and conditions were optional and so should’ve
accepted the signature you provided, even though it wasn’t on the form.
However, as the terms and conditions were the same for you, because your loan was
taken out in 1995. Erudio were correct in asking you to sign the deferment form.
I appreciate you believe there’s no requirement for you to complete the deferment form, as
you’ve provided evidence of your income and this was sufficient for SLC. However,
Erudio’s policy is that borrowers need to complete deferment forms. Erudio isn’t required to
follow the same approach as SLC and I don’t think they’ve acted unreasonably by asking
you to sign it. In any case, we can’t ask a business to change its processes.

what has Erudio done to help?
Erudio has explained to you many times over the phone that the form wouldn’t be accepted
without you signing it. Therefore, I’m satisfied they’ve done everything they could to make
you aware of the consequences of not signing it.
You provided them with a deferment form and separate declaration dated
14 November 2014. They wrote to you on 26 November 2014, informing you the deferment
was declined. So you were aware shortly after sending the form that it wasn’t acceptable.
Erudio’s wrote to you in August saying if you signed and returned the deferment form
within 60 days (subject to assessment), they would backdate the deferment to November
as a gesture of goodwill. However, you didn’t do this. They then made the same offer in
October, but you didn’t sign the form.
They’ve explained this offer is no longer available.

my conclusions
I don’t think Erudio have done anything wrong by not processing the form. I believe Erudio
have acted reasonably by offering to backdate the deferment on two previous occasions.
And, I can’t change the processes they have in place.
I understand you haven’t submitted the deferment form for 2015-2016, if your financial
circumstances are the same and you believe you’re eligible for deferment. You may wish to
sign and return a deferment form for 2015-2016.

what happens next
If you don’t want to take your complaint further, you don’t need to reply.
But if you don’t agree with what I’ve said, please let me know why by 16 February 2016. I’ll
look at any new information you give me and let you know what I think.
If we don’t hear from you by 16 February 2016, we might not be able to look at your
complaint again. So if you want to reply but you think you’ll need longer, please tell me as
soon as possible.
In every case, both the business and their customer can ask an ombudsman to make a
final decision. But I think it’s unlikely the outcome would be different – unless there’s any
important information that you haven’t already given us."

To which I responded.

kern_debug

What follows is one of my letters to the FOS Adjudicator of my case, following their final decision. Bear in mind that their comments are taken out of their fully presented context. Several shorter letters were exchanged before this one. I was mindful of the fact that only certain information finds its way to the public via the published decision.

I haven't actually calculated what my debt will be in four years time, but I thought interest was well below 5% so I made a rough calculation. Incidentally, the relatively low amount of my overall debt empowered me to make a stand, in the knowledge that a court order for me to pay the full amount would be mitigated by... my very low income.

Thanks to some posters here for information used.

The letter:

*kern_debug:

February 12, 2016.

Dear #FOS Adjudicator,
with reference to your recent letter dated February 2nd 2016 ref: xxxxxxxxxx, this is my response, but I will not here detail all of the observations I have made relating to the handling of this case.


#FOS Adjudicator:
"The main aspect of your complaint is that Erudio didn’t accept your deferment form, even
though you signed an additional paper confirming the details you provided were true and
accurate."

*kern_debug:
That is one aspect of my complaint, but can hardly be regarded as the most serious. The issue of Erudio apparently attempting to either coerce or deceive loan holders by their conflation of applicant authentication with agreement to liability, might seem key to resolving this dispute. However, you have clearly failed to address that this was the cause of my providing a written, signed declaration as part of my application.

Neither have you addressed the fact that money was taken from my bank account by fraudulent means, despite verbal and written legal notices to Erudio, that they should cease and desist, and explicitly informing them that any implied rights of access were withdrawn. Erudio would need a court order to take money without my consent.

Also, even if Erudio were entitled to claim repayments,they should be divided into 60 equal parts according to the original loan terms, yet Erudio took payments of about £36. Sixty payments of £36 would be £2160, yet the debt is around £1750; making repayments closer to £29. So they appear to be taking 48 larger payments, presumably because my loan is due to be written off, unless they find a way to engineer some technical claim to their right to collect it.

Each of these complaints could stand alone as matters requiring action, and certainly could not be regarded as fair treatment under the terms of the original agreement, yet you have not addressed them. Furthermore, these few examples are removed from a context of many other indicators of Erudio's choice of approach to solving this very simple dispute. Even if you cannot assume an intention of financial accumulation, and ambitions to exploit loan holders' personal data, then surely you can see the potential for continued abuse if you allow or intend for Erudio's actions to be hidden from the public record.


#FOS Adjudicator:
"You haven’t made clear which specific terms you disagree with and feel weren’t part of
your original contract with SLC. However, Erudio have provided a copy of the welcome
pack that was sent to you, which explains the terms of your loan haven’t changed.
Therefore, I don’t think it’s fair for me to say Erudio acted in error by not accepting your
deferment form. The terms remained the same, so the actual form should’ve been signed.
Our service doesn’t get involved with a business’ processes. In my earlier assessment I
said Erudio should’ve explained the terms and conditions were optional and so should’ve
accepted the signature you provided, even though it wasn’t on the form.

However, as the terms and conditions were the same for you, because your loan was
taken out in 1995. Erudio were correct in asking you to sign the deferment form.
I appreciate you believe there’s no requirement for you to complete the deferment form, as
you’ve provided evidence of your income and this was sufficient for SLC. However,
Erudio’s policy is that borrowers need to complete deferment forms. Erudio isn’t required to
follow the same approach as SLC and I don’t think they’ve acted unreasonably by asking
you to sign it. In any case, we can’t ask a business to change its processes."



*kern_debug:
Firstly, the terms of my loan haven't changed because I haven't signed any new agreements with Erudio. Even if the terms of the loan remained the same, the new consents and liabilities which Erudio were trying to obtain (with coercive levers applying) would become legally contestable upon agreement to the certificate and warranty. Therefore it was impossible to sign that "certificate and warranty".

The D.A.F. is not solely an application form. Such a situation would be easily remedied by a reasonable Loan Administrator by the provision of a form which clearly establishes that a loan holder wishes to apply for deferment. Alternatively, the applicant could make clear which parts of the combined legal device they were willing to consent to. These two, and other solutions have been rejected by Erudio, whom instead insist that their demands for new consents and obligations be agreed to by signing exactly where, and under which conditions, they have clearly set on paper.

Even though there is no question that I have clearly applied for deferment, and qualify, I shall mention that even the "form" part of my application did bear my name. My application was signed, but let us explicitly address the function of the signature anyway. What are the interests of Erudio in insisting that my application was signed exactly where they insist it must be signed? If there are no new conditions, consents, or liabilities involved then what is the function of Erudio's insistence that:

"BY SUBMITTING THIS APPLICATION YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU CONSENT FOR ERUDIO TO:
...pass your personal data onto other agencies that provide services to us i.e. debt collection agencies, solicitors and tracing agents.
...process your personal data, for the purposes set out above, outside the European Economic Area...
...access and analyse personal data relating to you provided to us by the CRAs."?

Why would Erudio demand that I consent that:

"...The information which we and other organisations provide to the CRAs about you may be used by us and/or supplied by CRAs to other organisations and used by them to:
: Check the operation of credit and credit-related accounts;
: Manage your personal, your partner’s and/or business (if you have one) credit or credit related account or other facilities;
: Trace your whereabouts...;
: Undertake statistical analysis and system testing."?

"...The information which we provide to the fraud prevention agencies about you may be supplied by fraud prevention agencies to other organisations, including ..."?

"..We and other organisations may access and use from other countries the information recorded by fraud prevention agencies."?

None of which I personally consent to because they threaten my human rights and privacy, and put me at risk of further fraud.


My application was complete. Providing evidence of my income was not a sufficient qualification idiomatic to SLC Ltd., but sufficient qualification as specified by the applicable statute:

The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1996, states:

11. (1) Subject to the provisions of this regulation, a borrower shall be entitled to defer making repayments of his loan if—

(a)he satisfies the loans administrator—

(i)that this gross income for the month preceding the month in which he applies for deferment does not exceed the product of £1,267 and the annual adjustment, and

(ii)if the loans administrator so requires, that his gross average monthly income during the three months immediately following the month first referred to in sub-paragraph (a) will not or is unlikely to exceed that amount; .

I have made this clear on more than one occasion. By you stating that
"Erudio isn’t required to follow the same approach as SLC", are you informing me that Erudio is not subject to this statute?

As for company policies, Erudio may very well have a policy, but loan holders are not obliged to comply with all of Erudio's policies. If "completion" of forms involves abuse of process, or the law, or of people, then those policies can of course be regarded as unfair,or unlawful. It might be acceptable in the world of business for a company to ASK a loan holder to agree to consents and obligations, or even enter into new contracts, but it certainly is not reasonable for Erudio to make agreement to such requests conditional to applications being considered complete.

#FOS Adjudicator:
"In my earlier assessment I said Erudio should’ve explained the terms and conditions were optional and so should’ve
accepted the signature you provided, even though it wasn’t on the form."

*kern_debug:
I assume that by "terms and conditions" here you are referring to the "fair processing notice" which you address in your decision dated 18DEC, ref: xxxxxxxxxx, (xxxx).

#FOS Adjudicator:
"is signing the form required?
It appears Mr kern_debug’s main reason for not signing the deferment form is because of the
fair processing notice. I’ve listened to the telephone conversations that took place between
Mr kern_debug and Erudio throughout 2014 and mid-2015, from these calls I can’t see that
Erudio advised Mr kern_debug that the terms of the fair processing notice were optional.
I’m not satisfied that Erudio had sufficiently mitigated their own position by having clearly
explained to Mr kern_debug that he was able to opt out of the fair processing notification,
without impacting his deferment application."

*kern_debug:
I will say here that I do not object to FAIR processing. I have detailed my reasons repeatedly elsewhere. Regarding the question of Erudio making clear that the "terms and conditions" were optional, again Erudio's following text is not ambiguous:

ERUDIO DAF:
"...THEREFORE BY SUBMITTING THIS APPLICATION YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU CONSENT FOR ERUDIO TO..."


*kern_debug:
So even if you missed the explicit attempt to create liability in the "certificate and warranty" via this device:

ERUDIO DAF CERTIFICATE AND WARRANTY:
"(a) I have taken all necessary care in the completion of this application form, there are no mis-statements or omissions,
whether intentional or otherwise,";

then you can re-experience the threat in block capitals.

ERUDIO DAF:
"...
OMISSIONS OR MIS-STATEMENTS MAY ALSO RESULT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST YOU."

Making clear that if you do not supply non statutorily required personal information, and you sign this form, then you are agreeing to liability.



I also do not stand under the following demanded new condition to application acceptance, though I had made identical functional provision for the confirmation described therein, at the time of application.

ERUDIO DAF CERTIFICATE AND WARRANTY:
"I understand that Erudio Student Loans reserves the right [in terms of its statutory powers] to request further
information and/or to verify the information which I have provided and I authorise the organisation or persons from
whom my income is derived to give Erudio Student Loans such confirmation or information about that income as
Erudio Student Loans may request."



*kern_debug:
There is no authorisation for any such contact with third parties in the loan terms, this prospect was explicitly excluded by the Minister responsible for their introduction in 1990. These loans were, and remain, ‘top-up loans’ for maintenance grants with deferment available on the basis of self-certification of income by graduate borrowers. Deferment was not and never has been conditional on agreement to allow ‘checks’ or ‘verification’ with any third parties. This would be a change in the terms of these loans. The Government Ministers responsible for the sale of my loan to Erudio promised that would not and could not happen.

The following statements by the Minister responsible for introducing these loans describes the evidence legally required for deferment. It is a test to be met by 'self-certification'. It was on this basis that Parliament voted both for the introduction of this 'top-up’ ‘loan scheme for maintenance grants, and the necessary provision of public funds.

House of Commons Debate, 19 June 1990 vol 174 502W:
Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford East) To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if a student in agreeing to the terms and conditions of a student loan authorises the Student Loans Company to make future searches on their income, via employers and banks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson) The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks. Borrowers wishing to defer repayments will be required to produce evidence that their income falls below 85 per cent. of national average earnings.


House of Commons Debate, 09 July 1990 vol 176 cc123-48:
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) There is then the detailed matter of the deferment of the arrangements that apply. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was told by the Minister: “The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks. Borrowers wishing to defer repayments will be required to produce evidence that their income falls below 85 per cent. of national average earnings."—[Official Report, 19 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 504.]” Hon. Members were pleased to hear that, but how does his answer square with information that the Secretary of State gave in press notice 6590 on 26 February 1990? It said specifically: “Verification could be required of banks.” Paragraph 6 of the press notice states: “In applying, the borrower authorises checks of current income with employer, bank, etc.” Are banks to be consulted without the direct knowledge of the student application?

Mr Jackson The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked about the use of the banks to verify graduate income. Policy has developed since February. The Student Loans Company will not contact a graduate's employer or a bank for evidence of income, but it will seek evidence from the graduate. That may include information that is available to the graduate from such sources as employers.

The source of the above transcript is [ hansard.millbanksystems.com ] which contains parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v.1.0.


#FOS Adjudicator:
"what has Erudio done to help?
Erudio has explained to you many times over the phone that the form wouldn’t be accepted
without you signing it. Therefore, I’m satisfied they’ve done everything they could to make
you aware of the consequences of not signing it.
You provided them with a deferment form and separate declaration dated
14 November 2014. They wrote to you on 26 November 2014, informing you the deferment
was declined. So you were aware shortly after sending the form that it wasn’t acceptable.
Erudio’s wrote to you in August saying if you signed and returned the deferment form
within 60 days (subject to assessment), they would backdate the deferment to November
as a gesture of goodwill. However, you didn’t do this. They then made the same offer in
October, but you didn’t sign the form.
They’ve explained this offer is no longer available."

*kern_debug:
Signing the application is not what Erudio are asking for; the application included a signature anyway. Erudio is insisting upon agreement to terms, this seems abundantly clear. Erudio have offered no other solution to this problem of their intentional creation, than signing exactly where they direct (thereby agreeing to new terms) . Even if they had included a form with their backdating offer (which they did not do), I doubt they would have been able to accept a form marked under duress, at least under British law.
Your "satisfaction" that Erudio has "done everything they could to make you aware of the consequences of not signing" up to their new conditions, indicates your recognition of the harassment and coercion which Erudio were using in their attempts either to obtain my consents and obligations, or to engineer some technical default in order to claim the right to deny loan expiry and collect the full amount.


#FOS Adjudicator:
"my conclusions

I don’t think Erudio have done anything wrong by not processing the form. I believe Erudio
have acted reasonably by offering to backdate the deferment on two previous occasions.
And, I can’t change the processes they have in place.
I understand you haven’t submitted the deferment form for 2015-2016, if your financial
circumstances are the same and you believe you’re eligible for deferment. You may wish to
sign and return a deferment form for 2015-2016."

*kern_debug:
Erudio can claim that not processing the form is consistent with their procedures, but again you fail to address their failure to implement a reasonable handling procedure for this inevitable outcome of their contractual construction. Shouldn't you be examining how fair their treatment of loan holders is, and what efforts they have made to solve the situation which has emerged? Giving a loan holder another identical opportunity to accept unreasonable terms, in the same coercive context, with the same threats of prosecution, and continued theft of financial resource, is neither fair nor reasonable administration of these loans. Notwithstanding the fact that I am not legally obliged to enter into contracts in order to apply for deferment.

I haven't been sent a deferment form for 2015-2016. I suppose I should spell out that 21 weeks have passed since I should have received a functionally adequate deferment application form. Did Erudio perhaps prefer that I did not see the revised D.A.F., or have the opportunity to use it? You have referred on several occasions to your lack of power to alter Erudio's processes. You have not however, provided me with details of what you do have power to implement in this case. What then is the function of the Financial Ombudsman Service?


So I lose another 12 hours of my most useful time, visit the bank a couple more times, and suffer more lost sleep and stress modifying my house to resist the henchmen which Erudio refer to as "debt collectors" and "other organisations".

Sincerely,

*kern_debug.


...and so it continued, but you know this stuff.

BorderReiver14

kern_debug wrote: »

I have gathered from this thread that some people might not be surprised if I reported difficulty in getting acknowledgement from the Financial Ombudsman Service that they comprehended the complaints which I was making.

A mighty understatement by any stretch. I've said before that the FOS in Erudio cases could merit a whole other thread.
They have a habit of fudging the issues we raise or just ignoring them completely. Reading your posts they use the same language in mine and several other cases I've read. Its almost as if they have a script... and that ain't just the adjudicators but ombudsmen too. With that said it is still worth putting in complaints to them because it all stacks up against Erudio and they have to stump up the FOS fees for cases. The adjudicator may say (and they often do) that the ombudsman is not likely to alter any outcome but that is not always the case. In my first FOS case regarding Erudio, the adjudicator said as much to me, but after pointing out several of their shortcomings shall we say to an ombudsman, the ombudsman gave me just enough to accept it.

ymeu

Turned 50 recently with old style mortgage loans and would have been expecting my annual deferment pack to arrive any day now.

Instead got a letter from Erudio confirming loans had been cancelled - no prompting - no chasing - quite a relief!

Although being 50 isn't quite so cheering.

erudioed

Thanks for those great posts kern_debug, i didnt want to post anything before in case it pushed your posts down.

I have tracked down the French documentary 'Cargill: Feast or Famine' about the owners of our loans. It really is a very sordid story, involving death threats, a continual wall behind which they dont want to let anybody see and the kind of business/operational practices that will be the death of us all at some point in the future. Its in 4 parts and here is the first:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzBY0X_j4i0