ERUDIO student loans help

Sarebear78

Just wondering if anyone made a complaint to the FOS about the dodgy Part (e) of the declaration saying they can use our datain the ways set out on their website? (a well-known unchangeable medium lol).

(Prob already mentioned but, as has been said, sadly this thread is way too long due to Erudio!)

Brooker_Dave

Meanwhile the world of shell companies, suspect trusts and offshore banking gets s spotlight:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers

BorderReiver14

Sarebear78 wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone made a complaint to the FOS about the dodgy Part (e) of the declaration saying they can use our datain the ways set out on their website? (a well-known unchangeable medium lol).

(Prob already mentioned but, as has been said, sadly this thread is way too long due to Erudio!)

I have highlighted this to the FOS as one of many reasons I would not sign ESLs certificate and warranty. I have quoted the following to the FOS which is taken from the ESL website...

We may revise these terms of use at any time by amending this page...

The content on our site is provided for general information only and in order to facilitate the online management of your student loan. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely and we have the right to change or withdraw it at any time.


We do not guarantee that our site or the materials ("Materials") will be free from errors or omissions. In particular you must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.

You agree to ensure that all information you provide to us is accurate and up to date... we make no representations, warranties or guarantees, whether express or implied, that the content on our site is accurate, complete or up-to-date.

The FOS I am sure will just ignore all of this. As far as they are concerned DAF issue no.2 is a reflection of the terms and conditions we signed up to. I am not aware of anyone getting the FOS to address this specific point yet.

Brooker_Dave

It's frustrating that FOS ignore the core problems, and instead had out a few £50 or £100 compo payments, but still insist that the customers get cheated.

A proper regulator is needed.

erudioed

Emma Lunn is asking for people affected to contact her asap on twitter @emmalunn or at her email [EMAIL="emmalunn2002@hotmail.com"]emmalunn2002@hotmail.com[/EMAIL] . Its also been retweeted by someone working for the guardian, so now is the time to quickly get in touch and tell all whilst interest is hot.

Update:
1) If it goes to press, Emma Lunn will be writing it for the Guardian.
2) Got this tweet as well from Callum at MSE: I'm taking this on as a potential story for MSE. I'd be happy to hear from you on [EMAIL="callum.brodie@moneysavingexpert.com...so"]callum.brodie@moneysavingexpert.com...so[/EMAIL] please do email/contact him as well Twitter name @PostCallum.
3) Paloma Kubiak, now at yourmoney.com, is also looking into a potential story.
4) Here are some tweets ive had today:
"Finally spoken to manager at Erudio and appears to be a major screw/cover up going on. They are aware of press being involved tho" and "Manager just said to me he wasn't aware of the 8 weeks contractual obligation so I taught him something new!"

FuriousFeline

Thanks for that, erudioed. I have just contacted Emma with details of what has so far happened to me!

Moneyer

Moneyer wrote: »

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!

An update on this situation: Erudio are saying they can only wait for SLC to confirm any deferment. SLC deny all responsibility on the phone and don't respond to emails. We have made formal complaints to both, including a demand that Erudio suspend attempts to collect payments pending resolution, but not yet received any response to either. So it looks like Erudio will start collecting payments in mid-April.

I'm guessing the best course of action is to let the payments go through, thus remaining "whiter than white" in any subsequent dispute and avoiding the risk of impact on credit history, and then demand the money back ?! Or should she claim the payments back immediately under the direct debit guarantee?

Another question: if we end up having to go to the FOS, is our complaint formally against SLC or Erudio? My guess would be that the contractual relationship is now solely with Erudio so our complaint is against them for failing to ensure that SLC (as their subcontractor) handles deferments correctly. Or can/should we make a direct complaint against SLC instead or as well?

Brooker_Dave

Cancel your direct debit, if they help themselves to your money, you won't get it back.

fermi

Moneyer wrote: »

An update on this situation: Erudio are saying they can only wait for SLC to confirm any deferment. SLC deny all responsibility on the phone and don't respond to emails. We have made formal complaints to both, including a demand that Erudio suspend attempts to collect payments pending resolution, but not yet received any response to either. So it looks like Erudio will start collecting payments in mid-April.

Seems to take them about 14 days to respond to a complaint in some cases.

You might try ringing?

Stephen Morrison
Customer Relations Officer
Student Loans Company Limited
100 Bothwell Street
Glasgow
G2 7JD
Tel: 0141 243 3382

GinOClock

It's worth mentioning that if it were not due to the S&P Agreement being released, we would not know about the 8 week rule that BIS agreed with Erudio regarding the DAF. Thanks to Anna for that!

The Regulations themselves don't expressly mention sending out the DAF 8 weeks before deferment, however they do state we can defer two months before (and three months after) the deferment date so it would be an implied term.