ERUDIO student loans help

Rosskie

Fleeps - Yes they can and do, however, your deferement is determined by the months in which you apply to defer, and your predicated income over the coming two months.

If you weren't over the threshold when you initially applied, (May?) and still weren't in June or July, then they should have deferred you. I'm fuzzy on details now, but the june july thing might not even matter. They can backdate deferement by months too, so I think they have tricked you into paying a year earlier than you needed to, and the arrears they are chasing you for, you should never have been liable for.

I believe, that technically you could be earning 100k a year, and as long as you don't make any money in the relevant month(s) then your still able to defer.

Sorry about that, other who know better will confirm.

fleeps

When I applied I was already receiving a bursary and loan. Doesn't seem fair that they can include a student maintenance loan as income... but then again we are talking about Erudio!

Thanks Rosskie

Banksters

@Rosskie

Many thanks for the info.

"1998 - 2008
I have copies of statements, which have nothing written on the back, however I cant be sure if they are just copies of the front.... ". Why would you photocopy them? Can you recall photocopying them, as I think you probably did not.

If there is a way for you to, PM me a PDF scan of the back of the ones with writing on.

I have a more recent statement from circa 2013 that has nothing on the back, and is 100% as sent by Student Loans Company. Looks like your 1998 to 2008 statements did not comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is likely other stuff missing, from what should have been on the other ones too.

Please everyone, look out your old statements and report back.

GinOClock

I've read the Erudio statement, and it does read as a complete mea culpa. And to be fair, they are moving back deferment dates. How much compensation they are willing to pay affected customers to avoid the £550 FOS case fee remains to be seen.

Their explanation confuses me rather a lot. Deferment packs being sent without the forms? Presuming the pack consists of a DAF, How to Guide, and cover letter, this would suggest they were sending out cover letters only, which would mean the issue would have been flagged well before now. What's clear is that many haven't been receiving anything at all.

As Judge Judy says, when something doesn't make sense it usually is because it isn't true!

erudioed

Exactly, it is a fabricated reason. Their explanation is irrelevant because they have tried to use a different reason to the actual problem, probably as a damage limitation. The provided explanation could potentially alleviate some potential blame if it was accepted, but if they had admitted, like they will be forced to i think, that they didnt send the deferment pack out at all, that would be a different matter altogether. It is direct proof that they did not live up to the sales and purchase agreement, and that they are providing deliberately misleading explanations to cover over that fact. They have made such a colossal c*ock up this time that they have even offered some form of concession as damage limitations, but i think they will be ruing that they never came clean today when they had the chance. Maybe others have better examples, but i cant think of one where the gap between the customer-side reality and the provided Erudio explanation has the room where a further explanation can fill that gray ground Arrow Global's lawyers are so good at finding. The only thing they can do this time is come clean. If not, i think it will be down to the press to embarrass them, if it pans out that way. Erudio's end goal is to stop the £550's and little compensation, and bad press. But i think bad press is coming regardless of what they eventually admit, and the deliberately misleading explanation today will help the ombudsman side with any complainants when it settles down in a few days.
It will also be interesting to see how many people get surprise deferment packs dated exactly 8 weeks before their deadline arriving in the mail in the coming days. I saw on the Panama leaks that that company offered a service backdating documents. Lets see if Erudio undertake the same practices for damage limitation purposes.
Well thats my take on it right now. And all over such a small issue. All they had to do was mail the DAFs out 8 weeks before, check income is below 28 gees and send out a letter. Instead, their determination to impose their own stamp is again blowing up in their faces. And lets not forget this is the 2nd year this has happened but with a different explanation last year.
I just heard from someone who called the call centre, with the person blaming an external agency.

Rosskie

@Banksters - The older ones I have are copies supplied by SLC and Erudio from 2014 when I sent subject access requests under the data protection act, so not originals. Although I would expect them to be complete, and they do state page 1 of 1/page 1 of 2 etc. Nothing appears missing...

I'll get you some copies of the back of newer ones soon.

Rosskie

@banksters

https://www.dropbox.com/s/099u1oq4k8yzka2/20160405_182154.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iemagpp0xbtwr3g/20160405_182217.jpg?dl=0

Sarebear78

Rosskie wrote: »

@bankster - SLC statements (Sept 2013, March 2014) say:
"Settling your credit agreement early"
you can settle this agreement in full at any time by giving us notice and paying off the amount you owe. If you wish to settle early you should contact us for a final settlement figure. You can also settle this agreement in part at any time by giving notice and paying off some of the amount you owe.

Sept 2012:
Settling your credit agreement early
You can settle this agreement at any time by giving notice in writing and paying off the amount you owe. If you wish to settle early you should contact us for a final settlement figure.

1998 - 2008
I have copies of statements, which have nothing written on the back, however I cant be sure if they are just copies of the front....

Mine are the same - I have all my original annual statements and can confirm that none of those prior to 2009 have anything about settling early on them. Hope that helps.

Rosskie

Forgive my forgetfulness, but what was the reason for the original refund for interest when Erudio took over the loans? It was something to do with CCA... Be nice if another 10+ years of interest would be written off, add a few more ombudsman complaints + bundle of paperwork, and even if I have to pay them back eventually, they'll still be down on my account

Banksters

This below is from the Guardian. The error is to do with incorrect wording and missing info related to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Missing info, being as I said, for example, how to pay off the loans early etc The devious people at Erudio etc, will have been aware of this, but have tried to cover it up. Hence, why they needed a PwC Price Waterhouse Coopers etc report on it, and hence why parts of sect 11 of the Purchase Agreement were blanked out.

"Credit and loan refund windfall as
17 banks admit paperwork errors

Customers to get average £300 each after regulator finds many credit and loan
agreements breeched consumer legislation

Rupert Jones
Thursday 20 March 2014 12.43 GMT

Half a million people will share a £149m payout after the Office of Fair Trading uncovered
widespread errors in credit and loan agreements. It has emerged that 17 banks and building
societies have agreed to pay refunds, which will average £300 for each of the 497,000
people affected.

The problem involves some credit and store cards, loans and hire purchase agreements. It is
thought some people will receive the refund in the form of a reduction in what they owe,
while others – for example, those who have already paid off the loan or no longer have the
card – are likely to receive a cheque.

The £149m that is being refunded comes on top of at least £370m that three banks –
Northern Rock, Barclays and the Co-operative Bank – have already repaid to customers
after it was found that many people's paperwork did not comply with the Consumer Credit
Act.

The OFT has not named the 17 banks and building societies, and the announcement would
appear to confirm the watchdog's suspicions that this problem is a bigger issue than
originally thought.

The money is to be repaid because the companies concerned did not provide some of their
customers with all the information they were entitled to by law. For example, in many cases,
the statements and arrears notices they sent out failed to provide the required statutory
wording – and under the law, borrowers are not liable for interest relating to a period when
a lender has not provided the information. Under the act, a lender is not allowed to recover
interest or default charges for any period during which it has failed to comply with the
requirements.

These problems first came to light in December 2012, when it emerged that 152,000 people
who have, or had, a personal loan with Northern Rock would each receive a windfall
averaging £1,775 because of a paperwork glitch. "

There is an FCA ruling about this too I think. All it will take is for someone to write to Erudio and claim.

Thanks Sarabear, this corroborates Rosskie's position.

Read it and weep Erudio! I think we have them. They are also beat with the misrepresentation of the CRA isssue. They cannot have it both ways, see my earliers posts about that please.

If they had just been honest and decent as well. lol