ERUDIO student loans help

kern_debug

I did eventually get a letter from Erudio saying that they would not debit any more money from my account... but only months after me telling them to stop, after my written notices to cease and desist, and after withdrawing implied rights of access, and after complaining to Erudio, and I think also after complaining to FOS. I don't believe FOS was instrumental, I think maybe Erudio recognised their legal liability outweighed any intimidatory advantage. They said they would not take any more money from my account until I authorised them. They then immediately told me that this resulted in my account going into arrears, and that I should make arrangements... I'll probably find the letter later. I suppose they will be in touch when I reject the FOS decision.

I'm wondering if the fact that Erudio consider me to be in arrears is the reason they did not send me a DAF when it was due last year. I did send them more wage reports in a letter fortunately... with one of my complaints probably. Should Erudio send out DAFs to people whom are in arrears anyway, in case they want to apply for deferment?


I got the final decision from FOS, they did not uphold my complaint. Their summing up of my complaint is closer to my actual complaint than the adjudicator felt able to print, but still misrepresents me in some crucial ways. I need to challenge FOS on what they intend to print, questioning their intentions to withhold descriptions of the actual complaints.
I'll post a few details after that.
Then I'll probably take a closer look at the other excellent information in this thread.
Unfortunately I was late to the current FOI challenge. Thanks for that solid action.

Moneyer

My wife is a "shared borrower" with two deferred loans sold to Thesis and one to Erudio. This means deferment applications are still handled by SLC.

In late Feb she received an SLC deferment pack as usual, referring to all 3 loans, and sent the application by return of post. Mid-March she received a letter from SLC confirming renewed deferment for the Thesis accounts, but not mentioning the Erudio account!

Spoke to SLC but their call centre flatly denies SLC have any responsibility for morgage-style loans. Next spoke to Erudio, who said they had heard nothing about a deferment application, but would chase it up with SLC and get back to us.

Anyone in the same position, or know what is going on? AFAICS there are no circs under which SLC can legitimately defer two loans and not the third. It seems highly unsatisfactory that they have made an error, but we can communicate with them only through Erudio, who stand to benefit from the error so have no motivation to sort it out....

fermi

Moneyer wrote: »

Spoke to SLC but their call centre flatly denies SLC have any responsibility for morgage-style loans.

Sadly, the call centre staff do this. It is a lie of course.

email: [EMAIL="deferment_enquiries@slc.co.uk"]deferment_enquiries@slc.co.uk[/EMAIL] and CC to [EMAIL="customer_complaints@slc.co.uk"]customer_complaints@slc.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Include: Customer Ref (if you have it), name, DOB, Address, NI number, and loan account numbers.

Title the email a formal complaint.

Complain that:

- SLC call centre staff have misinformed you that SLC no longer process deferment applications for shared borrowers.

Under clause 9.3.1 of the service agreement between SLC and Erudio/Thesis SLC remains responsible for issuing, processing and deciding deferment applications for such shared borrowers, and for communicating the outcome to the borrower and Erudio/Thesis

Erudio confirm that this is the case and that they have not heard from the SLC.

- That SLC appear to have failed in this responsibility to process deferment for the 3rd loan and communicate this decison to both you and Erudio.

- That you require SLC to confirm deferment of the Erudio loan by return, and to inform Erudio of this outcome.

Forever

I'm going through the awful deferment process again.

This year, Erudio have decided to tell me that marking page 6 with "I do not accept any changes to the original terms and conditions' goes against their deferment rules.

They have asked me to fill in a new form - without giving it to me!

Fun and games!

erudioed

Include it on a separate piece of paper...they may be able to claim they never got it but it should still do the same job (whatever that is) if theyre not throwing customer data directly into the shredder.

Forever

erudioed wrote: »

Include it on a separate piece of paper...they may be able to claim they never got it but it should still do the same job (whatever that is) if theyre not throwing customer data directly into the shredder.

I really wouldn't put that beyond them...

I think you might be onto something there though, so thanks for the suggestion. They did previously send me two deferment packs, so I might sign page 6 again, then add the extra page as you said, and then email these to them.

For now though, I have already responded saying there is nothing in the guidelines to say I can't write something else on page 6. And the guidelines do say that the agreement is not changing. So, there really shouldn't be any problems with me writing this sentence on the form.

Anyway, I've now raised a complaint with Erudio for deliberately trying to make my deferment process difficult. This is because I have three years of previous experience of them making what should be a straight forward deferment, a process of hell. So I am getting my complaint in quick this year

Brooker_Dave

Perhaps we should write to Carval Investors and ask them why they are treating us in this way?

http://carvalinvestors.com/

CarVal Investors
3rd Floor
25 Great Pulteney Street
London W1F 9LT

BorderReiver14

Forever wrote: »

I'm going through the awful deferment process again.

This year, Erudio have decided to tell me that marking page 6 with "I do not accept any changes to the original terms and conditions' goes against their deferment rules.

They have asked me to fill in a new form - without giving it to me!

Fun and games!

Personally I wouldn't use a separate piece of paper. It's an admin form and you should be able to fill it out as you please. If they accepted it last time with your comments then it shows you have already met your obligations and ask Erudio to jog on. Without any notes on the form any reasonable person (and a court) may surmise you read their interpretations of the terms and gave consent.
Remember they have no rights to make you fill out a DAF, no rights to report loans to CRAs unless you default and no rights to contact third parties to verify information.
They have refused to defer me despite me using the same method I used last year to successfully get a deferment. How they hope to enforce it seems bonkers to me.

rachococo

Please help! I have 3 old style loans and 1 new. I have just received a pack from Erudio and it says I owe £3000 in arrears. They said they did not receive any deferment since March 2014. I have not received any deferment pack even though they said they it was mailed. I have been on the phone for ages with them. They have now emailed a deferment form but I am not sure the best way to get the arrears sorted. I am still a student but work part time for £19,000 since Sept 2015. I have been a full time student before that from 2012 to 2015. I have never earned above the threshold. I am really worried that this will affect my credit and that I won't be able to get the arrears sorted - any advice much appreciated.
Thanks
Rachael

kern_debug

Forever wrote: »

...
This year, Erudio have decided to tell me that marking page 6 with "I do not accept any changes to the original terms and conditions' goes against their deferment rules.

They have asked me to fill in a new form - without giving it to me!

...

Erudio asked me to send back DAFs which they claimed to have issued or included on two occasions. There were no DAFs included. If there had been, then I would have returned one marked
"I record my name here under duress ...".

Erudio then told FOS that they gave me a second and third chance to [insert perspective here].
Erudio are of course pretending that their rules are the rules.