ERUDIO student loans help

Banksters

I will add some template complaints when I have time. I need as many people as possible to complain about the misrepresentation over the CRA issue. I was told in person by a Student Loans Company person, when taking out the first loan, that my details would never be passed to a CRA, as long as I was not in default.

This understanding I had, formed part of the "anticedent negotiations" as per Sect 56 of Consumer Credit Act 1974. So if, what SLC said was wrong, then they were misrepresenting. If what Erudio says is correct about passing info to CRA's, then SLC also misrepresented. It is a no win for them. Under Section 56, agreements are voidable because of misrepresentation. I spent a lot of time reading through top Scots Law Commission guidance on this, with regards misrepresentation and Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Get Up Stand Up, Stand Up for Your Rights!

plong979

neilcounter wrote: »

I'm in the same boat as everyone else, I.e no deferment application sent to me, so i just logged on to my account online, and filled in the deferment application, on there.

It took, seconds to register, and minutes to fill in

Easy as anything!

Such a random post. Very shill like.

Jill18

Ha I only just discovered what "shill" means but I totally agree. I thought the same thing when I read it. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole delay thing is partly so more of us will use their online portal instead of waiting for form.

erudioed

As long as someone doesnt want them collecting your data (like IP address) and possibly passing it on, selling it or trading it through Arrows Proprietary Collections Bureau (dont forget, those of us who caved in and signed the DAF signed away the right for Erudio to use the data we provide and pass our data on to any third parties it deems fit) that it runs, pays for and controls on Experian's platform, OR if the person is not bothered about Erudio being able to redact parts of supporting evidence they dont want them to see or they have no right seeing, i think an online deferment offering is reasonable.
Personally, i dont use its online platform because i deem that the data they collect would be about as safe as a kiddie at a Jimmy Saville themed party at the Vatican! Best to stick to paper and just give them the data on the forms and the supporting evidence that i have to to get deferred!
I agree Jill about the part concerning this years delay being about getting people to join the portal as one reason, but i also think its about taking payments in some way that is a little unclear to me. They tried the same tactic last year as well when Capita were controlling the deferment process and there was no online portal. Maybe if they have the cash in their bank account for a few weeks, especially many hundreds of peoples £200, there is some way they can turn it into another gain in some way through Arrow Global's vast number of shell companies, separate accounts and knowledge of financial witchcraft.

BorderReiver14

erudioed wrote: »

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.

The DAF issue doesn't impact myself but I am sure you are correct here... They made an 'error' with me sometime ago and when pulled up, they asked me to sign a document in order to receive my compensation. I refused and they sent a backdated cheque and letter anyway. They seem so desperate for some reason to have my signature on their documents :rotfl:

BorderReiver14

Banksters wrote: »

I will add some template complaints when I have time. I need as many people as possible to complain about the misrepresentation over the CRA issue. I was told in person by a Student Loans Company person, when taking out the first loan, that my details would never be passed to a CRA, as long as I was not in default.

Complain to? Many people have complained about the CRA issue and many of us do recall being told that taking out a loan would not harm our future financial health. Still waiting to see the S&P agreement in full... Fingers crossed that wont be long away! I have no doubt there are some hidden gems to be uncovered but let's just hold our horses one moment. Slowly slowly catchy monkey!
Erudio have yet to report any loans to CRAs. They must know by now there are enough of us that will jump all over them should they try that $h1t on. They just like to threaten the unsuspected with it as a way to worry folk to pay up. Those of us that haven't toed the line are thrown in to arrears in some bizzare attempt to worry us some more. I'm happy for them to take me to court if they really feel my interpretation of the regulations is wrong and I have broken the agreement but I bet they won't. Give them some more rope!

anna2007

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Complain to?

If the SLC's old statements don't comply with CCA, might be best to head straight to court and open the floodgates?

Thanks Banksters for your posts on this and your PM, I'm happy to add it to the appeal, it would be rude not to highlight it all to the tribunal!

I had a look for what to add to the appeal, and the relevant Regulations are the Consumer Credit (Information Requirements and Duration of Licences and Charges) Regulations 2007, which came into force 6 April 2008. Schedule 1, part 2 contains the forms of wording which must go on the statement:

"Settling your credit agreement early-
You can settle this agreement at any time by giving us 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"

"Dispute Resolution-
If you have a problem with your agreement, please try to resolve it with us in the first instance. If you are not happy with the way in which we handled your complaint or the result, you may be able to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If you do not take up your problem with us first you will not be entitled to complain to the Ombudsman. We can provide details of how to contact the Ombudsman".

and

"Paying less than the agreed sum-
If you pay less than your agreed payment in most cases it is likely to take you longer and may cost you more to pay off the debt under the agreement.

If you have difficulties making payments under your credit agreement please contact us if you have not already done so to discuss terms for the rest of the agreement. You may also want to seek advice on what to do from an independent free advice agency such as the Citizens Advice Bureau".

If the statements from 2008 onwards don't state all of the above, they're not CCA-compliant.

CCA 2006, section 6 (23) says:
"Section 77A will require creditors in regulated fixed-sum credit agreements to provide debtors with annual statements in the specified form"

and (24):
"If a creditor does not give the debtor an annual statement when required to do so, then he is not entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of his non-compliance and the debtor is not liable to pay any interest during this period".

If SLC's statements weren't in the "specified form", and it's never been rectified (that's a lot of interest/potential compensation as Banksters points out), they're not entitled to enforce the agreement... can SLC really assign unenforceable agreements? Even if they can, all that means is we could bring a claim against Erudio, rather than SLC that the agreements are unenforceabe.

All of this would explain BIS wanting to get rid of our loans at such a late stage, and why info on remediation and claims re unenforceability is being hidden in the S&P agreement, and why BIS have retained the right to get involved in any such legal claims?

I haven't checked yet what the requirements were before the CCA 2006 changes.

Must be squeaky-bum time at Erudio HQ right now, with everything that's going on!

dizzybuff

I've not had a different application for years. Come yo think if it not had a statement either this year. Hate this company with a passion. I'm.over the threshold because of my working tax credits child care allowance. Not that I need that for anything... Oh wait.

trafla

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!

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....

I am having the exact problem you are having! I have 3 mortgage style loans - 1 with Thesis and 2 with Erudio. I am going around in circles right now between these two companies and SLC as to who handles the deferment. I have submitted it to all 3 companies to cover myself. Erudio and Thesis insist SLC handle it but SLC rep that I spoke with insists Erudio and Thesis do! I have a chain of emails back and forth to all 3 companies and submitted a formal complaint to Erudio for the conflicting information I have received. They offered me 25 pounds compensation - don't want the money, just want to know who to submit the forms to! I am considering complaining to the FOS but not sure which of the three I am complaining about (maybe all of them). To complicate things further, I live in Canada (have done for 20+ years) so never receive the paper forms in the mail and have no desire to spend time/money making calls back and forth to these fools! If you have any updates, would love to hear them!

anna2007

Rosskie wrote: »

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

Erudio claim that remediation is about old SLC arrears notices not being CCA compliant, so are resending arrears notice/removing interest for borrowers who had any arrears since 2008. But they're also removing interest on accounts with no arrears (mine included) and claimed that I'd received their remediation pack (I didn't). If it's the old annual statements, that would affect all borrowers, not just those with arrears.

I quoted the new Regs and CCA in my FOS complaint on Erudio's own annual statement, as it clearly doesn't comply either, so would be unenforceable. Maybe the reason for Erudio's errors is they can't issue a legally correct statement for agreements that are already unenforceable? Of course, FOS said they couldn't rule on enforceability, that was a court matter, but did agree I should have had accurate statement information (it's 5 months now since the FOS decision and Erudio still haven't provided it).

I remember that these arrears notices being sent by Erudio are referred to in the S&P agreement as "purporting" to be NOSIAs... a strange term to use, suggests to me that they're not legitimate NOSIAs!