ERUDIO student loans help

fermi

May be worth talking to the FOS now.

Quite often they will agree to write an initial compalint letter from them to the creditor on your behalf.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

If you’d like us to contact them for you, just get in touch.

You still have to wait the 8 weeks from that, or until you get a final response from Erudio, but a letter from the FOS at the initial stage may just possibly get things sorted earlier.

erudioed

This definitely seems a deliberate tactic. And after all those clarifications by Erudio and the Erudio corrected response to Anna about mailing out the DAFs 8 weeks before...it was just a plain lie. They have a new tactic to make it harder for people to defer, whilst injecting some of that famous Arrow Global pressure into interactions with them to try and get people to pay up and not go into arrears!
The letter asking for repayment should not go out until after the deadline, so as you say, "with the intention of railroading people into making payments when their current deferment periods end".
I have a journalist who would like to speak to someone about this. If you are interested (based on the 3 cases posted thus far (Sarebear, FuriousFeline and Stresshead)), drop me a line because they would like to talk on Monday. As quick as possible i suggest.

FuriousFeline

I would be interested in speaking to a journalist about this, as it ought to be publicised. The government will no doubt be selling many more student loans to private companies in the future, with serious implications for those affected if the kind of behaviour so far demonstrated by Erudio becomes the norm. As Erudio is late sending out DAFs, it ought to extend our current periods of deferment- I think I will write to them (as well as the FOS) informing them of this. When my loans were transferred from the Student Loans Company to Erudio 2 years ago, the end of my deferment period was postponed from March to May due to them needing more time to sort out the admin- as Erudio are late sending us the forms this year, I don't see why they shouldn't be giving us all extensions on our current deferment periods.

Brooker_Dave

"The Act gives a statutory definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defining it in three classes - fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. It provides that a person found guilty of fraud was liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to twelve months on summary conviction (six months in Northern Ireland), or a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years on conviction on indictment. This Act largely replaces the laws relating to obtaining property by deception, obtaining a pecuniary advantage and other offences that were created under the Theft Act 1978. These offences attracted much criticism for their complexity and difficulty in proving at court. Much of the Theft Act 1978 has been repealed, however, the offence of making off without payment, defined under section 3 has not been affected.

• "Fraud by false representation" is defined by Section 2 of the Act as a case where a person makes "any representation as to fact or law ... express or implied" which they know to be untrue or misleading.
• "Fraud by failing to disclose information" is defined by Section 3 of the Act as a case where a person fails to disclose any information to a third party when they are under a legal duty to disclose such information.
• "Fraud by abuse of position" is defined by Section 4 of the Act as a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.

In all three classes of fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_Act_2006


A clear pattern is forming of Carval/Erudio not sending out forms, but instead sending out letters trying to scare borrowers into giving them money.


It's hard not not see that as anything other than fraud, it's pretty clear that the FOS simply don't care about this sort of thing, and are toothless in anycase, FCA seem pretty disinterested too.


Perhaps complaining to action fraud might yield some results if enough of Erudio's victims complain?



http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/about-us


Other than that maybe it's time to take direct action against the individuals involved, a group of people paying Mark Flier's home (google it) a visit might wake him up into the way the business he controls is run?

erudioed

Right, so in an attempt to decipher this new deferment tactic by Capquest and Arrow Global, and please do correct me if any of this sounds wrong according to what happened with you, let me try and attempt to explain this tactic (from their perspective).
The typical DAF letter is not being sent out 8 weeks in advance. The first DAF that arrives comes with a letter saying that Erudio has not yet received the DAF, so come 5 weeks time a payment will be taken, and to make arrangements for that. However, they do include a DAF with that letter?

This letter that says that they have not received the original DAF (which they didnt send out) is basically covering them from their end, suggesting that they have upheld the protocol they are contractually obliged to undertake, which is for a DAF to be sent out 8 weeks in advance. Its almost like they are acknowledging that a DAF hasnt been sent out, because why send this letter out saying they have not received a returned DAF yet. This would be a first. The only reason this letter is sent out, using the words of concern about not receiving the DAF yet, is to cover themselves with the ombudsman when they complaints come in to show how concerned Erudio is that they have not gotten the DAF back yet. This allows less time to defer, especially those living abroad or who need to track down documents, forces us to contact them (allowing them a chance to entice us into paying back...which they ask at the end of the phone call), and even encourages us to enroll in their online data gathering exercise to defer.

From my own experience, this is the 2nd year a DAF has not arrived 8 weeks in advance (in fact, a DAF with a letter dated 8 weeks in advance has never arrived during these 2 years...only DAFs sent out upon request (which always arrive and are dated after contacting Erudio). In fact, never has any other correspondence gone missing that they have sent, other than these first DAFs.
The notion that the post office is somehow losing these letters is preposterous and a lie, as evidenced by every other mail arriving at the listed address.

Does that sound about right?


Updated version: So, Erudio isnt including a DAF in the letter saying they have not received a returned DAF, it just says they have not had a returned DAF and asking the 'customer' to make arrangements for payment with only 5 weeks left. This allows even less time to defer, as the 'customer' has to request, wait for the DAF to arrive (usually at least a week if they do send one out), then fill it in, gather the supporting documents, post it back and hope Erudio process it before the deferment date ends.

FuriousFeline

Erudio's actions definitely seem to fit into the 3rd example of fraud you listed there, Dave ("Fraud by abuse of position"). However, as our complaints concern a loan being administered by a private company, I am not sure the cops would be interested- they might just dismiss it as a 'private matter.' What I am most concerned about is that I won't receive the DAF (and get it approved by Erudio) in time for my loan to be granted a further period of deferment before the current one expires in early May, resulting in Erudio immediately announcing that I am 'in arrears.' There is no possibility of them being paid, as I just don't have the money. I will of course go through the relevant channels of complaint in the meantime, but I want to prevent this situation from happening.

FuriousFeline

Erudio have not sent me a DAF at all- neither an original one, nor a second one with either of the letters saying that I haven't returned the DAF yet. When I spoke to them on 30th March, they claimed they had sent one to me on 23rd March and would send another one out in case, but I haven't received either. All I have received so far are the 2 letters, without any DAFs in the envelopes with them. I think that what will happen is the end date of my current deferment period will arrive without me having been sent a DAF, and Erudio will immediately attempt to take money.

BorderReiver14

Do remember folks that there is nothing to say you have to use their DAF. Just 'show' your income and sign to say you don't agree with any changes to the Terms and Conditions and your obligations have been met!

GinOClock

The problem with borrowers not receiving DAFs this year does seem rather widespread. I've thought perhaps this approach might be helpful in dealing with the problem.

1. Complain to Erudio, either by phoning FOS or emailing complaints@erudiostudentloans.co.uk etc
2. Tell them they haven't sent out the DAF as prescribed in the Regulations, and ask them to send a printed version to your home address.
3. So you are not disadvantaged, and to rectify the breach of the Regulations, ask them to have to your deferment date moved back until it is 8 weeks from when you eventually receive your printed copy of the DAF.
4. Ask for redress for inconvenience.

If they are unable to resolve it as per above, you can take them to FOS.

FuriousFeline

Good advice, GinOClock. I think Erudio definitely ought to be moving our deferment dates back, as well as paying compensation for messing us around.