ERUDIO student loans help

Jill18

Also as expected I just received the stock BIS response after attempting to email David Willets

rizla_king

CloudsinSky wrote: »

Section 15: "If the borrower does not make a repayment under the agreement when it is due, the lender may ask him to repay the loan in full immediately. The lender may do this even if the borrower's obligation to make other repayments is currently deferred."

I think that's clear that it's not worth not having a direct debit in place without clear agreement on your individual circumstances from Erudio.

That is only the case where there are some arrears built up to the extent where they can no longer be deferred.

For example where you missed deferment by say 4 months, had deferment backdated by the 3 months allowed, but were left with one months worth of arrears that had to be paid and hasn't been yet.

In that case you would be deferred but still be behind on payments, allowing them to call in the whole loan if they desired.

However, if you are not already behind like that, then they do not have the right to call in the whole loan. Even if you have no DD in place. Consequently they would not have the right to refuse deferment, again even if a DD mandate was not in place.

rizla_king

Jill18 wrote: »

Did everyone see this on the MSE news article from yesterday. So they lied about the 50 was actually 500.

Update: 7 May 2014: Erudio has today confirmed to MoneySavingExpert.com that just over 500 former students had direct debits incorrectly taken. At the time of writing it said only 50 people were hit by the mistake. Erudio adds that all those affected have been refunded, while it's also rectified the issue to prevent it happening again.

No didn't see that.

No surprise though. We knew that must be the case.

Also no surprise that Erudio and Mr Lewy told less than the truth.

JeLaw

CloudsinSky wrote: »

However, if they ask for a repayment because you're not deferred, if you don't pay on the day it's due, how does not having a direct debit benefit you?

Two reasons I don't want a direct debit set-up with them (Btw, I never cancelled my direct debit with SLC and haven't changed my bank account but it must have just been dormant for so long, SLC or my bank cancelled).

1. I don't trust them not to "mistakenly" take money despite me being in deferment (mine is not due for renewal until September).

2. The massive delays in processing deferments with the consequential potential failure to defer people before their current deferral period runs out - leaving people (often on very low incomes) at risk of having money taken from their accounts. Despite being eligible for deferment. And many people simply can't afford for this to happen even if they do get a refund at a later stage.

I am just wondering about this murky situation where Erudio can delay on the deferment process and then your repayments start even though you're entitled to deferment later, once they finally approve it.

I'm following people's attempts to get their deferrals renewed with interest - and growing concern. It would be forgiven for interpreting their excessive delays as an attempt to turn people into defaulters. Being eligible for deferment means being on a low income. And some people simply won't have sufficient funds to cover repayments whilst waiting for Erudio to confirm deferment. This could lead to them trying to claim that people are in "arrears" due to lack of funds in their account.

I think we need to get the Ombudsman and regulatory body (FCA?) focused on a very common experience of many customers that the deferment process is unduly lengthy, uncertain and stressful, it is not fair treatment, and needs to be sharpened up with timescales given that actually mean something, so we know where we stand and what time we have to get forms returned etc.

BIB - you sum the situation so far well. And I agree, this mess needs to be resolved. Can you imagine if we have to face this stress, incompetence, long delays, and seemingly obstructive behaviour on a yearly basis.

Jill18 wrote: »

Has anyone else attempted to contact David Willets? I sent an email 2 days ago and no reponse except one saying that my email has been forwarded on to another address. I fully expect to get the same bs response that BIS produced previously but thought its worth a try to try and !!!!! his conscience over the way he has sold us out to these idiots.

Didn't think of doing that. I agree with you that we'll no doubt get a BS response - but we might as well try. I'll email today. And perhaps the more people that contact him, the more likely there is of getting some kind of decent response.

ericctheking wrote: »

The registered company address of Erudio student loans Ltd.

C/O WILMINGTON TRUST SP SERVICES
THIRD FLOOR
LONDON
EC2R 7AF

Maybe there might be some protests outside this office?

Email [EMAIL="mfiler@wilmingtontrust.com"]mfiler@wilmingtontrust.com[/EMAIL]
Telephone 020 7397 3600
Fax 020 7614 1112

Maybe these numbers might start getting contacted?

Thanks for this. I'm up for joining any protest.

JeLaw

erudioed wrote: »

Mail her and explain those things to her Jelaw! This is our chance to tell people who can investigate and take the story to the wider world. We dont know when this story will run dry, and in my experience it can be very quickly, so if we dont continue to reach out now, everything thus far will be for not much because not much has changed yet, and we will be condemned to these practices for the next 10 years. Not to mention all future student...

Erudioed - you're right! There's no harm in contacting her. I'll send her a email today.

JeLaw

CloudsinSky wrote: »

I have many issues with Erudio same as all of us here do, to the point where I'm becoming obsessed with it and haven't slept through the night since 29 April.

It's ridiculous isn't it?! I was actually lying in bed last night thinking about these sharks.... Not the last thing I want in my mind before sleep!

I think arguing the toss with the deferment form may not be helpful, nor arguing about the Credit record issue. It seems to be becoming clear now that they do have the right to contact CRAs about a loan in deferment, just as Student Loans Company did (but chose not to).

I'm still not convinced about this. I had a look at an agreement (pre-1998) put up somewhere (maybe mumsnet). The wording is pretty vague as to whether they can report loans in deferment to a CRA. I also wonder whether it could be claimed that SLC have established a precedent by never doing this. I'd love for someone with legal expertise to give their view on this.

For me the main issues are the very poor customer service, lack of transparency, concern that there won't be adequate redress for any unfairness, endless worry and anger about it all and uncertainty. I'm still trying to find out more myself and when I do, if it's helpful I'll post it. My main focus is keeping my loan deferred and avoiding any breach of my agreement, as that's the only way I'll get my loans cancelled at the end of their 25 year term. I don't want to pay them back, I'll be honest, because I was misguided in getting them in the first place at age 19. It was all very new and novel, too easy and no understanding of the future implications.

I agree with all of this. BIB 1. - This is what's concerning me. They seem to be attempting to push people into "arrears" through excesive delay in processing deferment applications, and apparent lies over what is required to defer, i.e. signing their own form, etc.

BIB 2 and 3 - absolutely. I think most of us 1990s students were misguided. But not only misguided, possilby mis-sold. Whilst the small print might have made vague reference to the government having the right to "assign" the loan to another company/group, etc, the implicit message - that used to sell these loans to us was that the loans were safe because they were with the government. Not to mention that we were guinea pigs - just a few years before our time, univerisity was funded by maintenance grants. And initially, maintenance grants were still awarded - but at a much lower amount than previously leaving those without savings and/or parents able to pay reliant on topping-up with these new loans.

rizla_king wrote: »

That is only the case where there are some arrears built up to the extent where they can no longer be deferred.

This is exactly my concern. I worry that Erudio are trying to push us into this situation - through their delayed deferment processing and obstructive behaviour (trying to insist on us using their form, having direct debits set-up, etc).
.

I agree that having a direct debit set-up is NOT a requirement for deferment and not a breach of terms.

BaffledByErudio

CloudsinSky wrote: »

I thought direct debit was part of the original terms and conditions (I read them to check), in deferment or not, unless the lender agrees otherwise. If Erudio confirm they will take payment by other means, then that means you can cancel direct debit without being in breach. However, if they ask for a repayment because you're not deferred, if you don't pay on the day it's due, how does not having a direct debit benefit you? I would have thought a direct debit is more beneficial to the customer because of the rights it gives you over having refunds, etc. If you otherwise agree (or not) that you'll pay by credit/debit card or bank transfer, for instance, I think the funds would still have to be transferred the same day as the direct debit would be called, otherwise again you are in breach, with all that implies (losing rights to any future deferment and cancellation of loan).

If Erudio take a direct debit when they have no right to do so, as seems to have happened with a significant number of people, you can claim a refund from your bank without having to wait for Erudio to refund you. The bank then claims back from Erudio. However, somebody said here I think that the bank then cancelled the direct debit anyway, and even when it was re-instated, the bank cancelled it again? Not surprised, if they're having to refund a customer for that company's mistake. At that point you definitely take it up with the Financial Ombudsman, because you haven't done anything wrong and Erudio has.

In my experience, the Financial Ombudsman will support your complaint to Erudio even when you've only just lodged a complaint with Erudio. The Ombudsman won't progress it, i.e. investigate until Erudio have concluded their investigations, but it's only a quick phone call to start the process and that you have made contact with them and have their complaints form initiated gives your complaint more clout. Also it helps the rest of us, i.e. all of us, because then the murky practices will come to light and the authorities will insist on improvements for our benefit.

I am just wondering about this murky situation where Erudio can delay on the deferment process and then your repayments start even though you're entitled to deferment later, once they finally approve it. Again, from reading the T&C's it appears they have leeway, 3 months to backdate and I don't know more than that exactly. But to me they have blamed their "2-3 week backlog" on the transfer from SLC. On the very first letter I got from Erudio, they gave an assurance that the transfer would not cause inconvenience, so I don't accept their backlog excuse. I think we need to get the Ombudsman and regulatory body (FCA?) focused on a very common experience of many customers that the deferment process is unduly lengthy, uncertain and stressful, it is not fair treatment, and needs to be sharpened up with timescales given that actually mean something, so we know where we stand and what time we have to get forms returned etc.

I am very concerned with Erudio's shifting timescales. An acknowledgement to an email sending a deferment application almost a month after the email was sent with a 2 sentence reply that they will respond in a further 21 days is appalling in a process that is so stressful and worrying for people.

Yep, CloudsinSky.
You're correct, one of the agreements I signed when I took out the student loans was to provide bank details and to sign a Direct Debit mandate. They are legally within their right to ask for this information and I haven't denied them it. I've even filled in the new mandate on their deferment application form, despite the fact they already knew my details, as passed from SLC - evidenced by the fact they had set up a Direct Debit anyway, as soon as the loans changed hands.

My argument in my pervious post is based around a few points really......

(i) My loan is currently in a period of deferment, and (barring any off-the-wall technicality they might try and get me on) I should be completely eligible for further deferment from the middle of this month.
(ii) I am literally making myself sick and extremely tired with the worry I'm having to endure over the fact Erudio might mistakenly take payments, or (if they fail to defer my loans in time) they'll start taking cash 'legitimately'. I can't afford these payments either way.
(iii) I have been told, three times, over the phone, that if I'm worried, I should cancel the Direct Debit. The lady I spoke to last night told me it wasn't a requirement of deferment and even claimed she'd canceled it herself. (I subsequently discovered she hadn't).
I have in fact, been bold and canceled the DD today myself. I'm not trying to be argumentative or belligerent. I'm simply trying to avoid further sleepless nights.

I'm also hoping the letter I received from Erudio last week (mentioned in an earlier post) gives me a concrete alibi should I be penalised for cancelling the DD.

Quote: "If you do not wish to have a direct debit set up then please advise us as this is not essential to your deferment application, but it is important that you are aware that should your account revert to payment, then you are responsible for ensuring payments are made by the due date"

I definitely believe I have advised them. I've actually been told to do it by a number of their call operators!
I simply can't cope with more of this ongoing headache 'will they, won't they, will they, won't they?' situation when it comes to stray cash being taken and Erudio's deferment backlog.

Just hope I've done the right thing.

JeLaw

BaffledByErudio wrote: »

Yep, CloudsinSky.
You're correct, one of the agreements I signed when I took out the student loans was to provide bank details and to sign a Direct Debit mandate. They are legally within their right to ask for this information and I haven't denied them it. I've even filled in the new mandate on their deferment application form, despite the fact they already knew my details, as passed from SLC - evidenced by the fact they had set up a Direct Debit anyway, as soon as the loans changed hands.

My argument in my pervious post is based around a few points really......

(i) My loan is currently in a period of deferment, and (barring any off-the-wall technicality they might try and get me on) I should be completely eligible for further deferment from the middle of this month.
(ii) I am literally making myself sick and extremely tired with the worry I'm having to endure over the fact Erudio might mistakenly take payments, or (if they fail to defer my loans in time) they'll start taking cash 'legitimately'. I can't afford these payments either way.
(iii) I have been told, three times, over the phone, that if I'm worried, I should cancel the Direct Debit. The lady I spoke to last night told me it wasn't a requirement of deferment and even claimed she'd canceled it herself. (I subsequently discovered she hadn't).
I have in fact, been bold and canceled the DD today myself. I'm not trying to be argumentative or belligerent. I'm simply trying to avoid further sleepless nights.

I'm also hoping the letter I received from Erudio last week (mentioned in an earlier post) gives me a concrete alibi should I be penalised for cancelling the DD.

Quote: "If you do not wish to have a direct debit set up then please advise us as this is not essential to your deferment application, but it is important that you are aware that should your account revert to payment, then you are responsible for ensuring payments are made by the due date"

I definitely believe I have advised them. I've actually been told to do it by a number of their call operators!
I simply can't cope with more of this ongoing headache 'will they, won't they, will they, won't they?' situation when it comes to stray cash being taken and Erudio's deferment backlog.

Just hope I've done the right thing.

Thanks very much for posting this. With that - written - evidence, you (and all of us) have proof that having an active direct debit is not a requirement for deferment.

I understood the original agreement as requiring us to set-up a direct debit in order to obtain the loan in the first place. After graduation, if eligible for deferment, keeping the direct debit active is not necesary - as confirmed by Erudio in their letter to you.

That letter is so valuable, if I were you I'd take several copies!

Johnny_X

The DD is a key point - if there's no requirement for this then it effectively removes the main worry for a lot of people, i.e. Erudio nicking your cash incorrectly.

They can then be as incompetent as they like because ultimately if you have a right to defer you will win in the end.

JeLaw

Johnny_X wrote: »

The DD is a key point - if there's no requirement for this then it effectively removes the main worry for a lot of people, i.e. Erudio nicking your cash incorrectly.

They can then be as incompetent as they like because ultimately if you have a right to defer you will win in the end.

Good point. And surely they can't claim someone has defaulted if they are eligible for deferment but Erudio have delayed processing an application?

I felt fairly confident about this - but think I've spent so much time thinking about the whole mess, I've started to confuse and worry myself!

But I suppose it should be simple. Send off deferment application with all required evidence (and that doesn't include any additional unnecessary evidence they try to insist on). Send by recorded delivery in good time. Therefore if they fail to defer us in time, it's not our fault - and so we are not in default.