ERUDIO student loans help

AReeves

The Judge in the case of NRAM Plc v (1) Jeffrey Patrick McAdam (2) Ann Hartley [2014] EWHC 4174 (Comm) (which is on the issue of section 77A of CCA) made a very revealing comment re complaints to the FOS:

" Some 277 complaints have been received by the Claimant from borrowers who entered into Unsecured (Together) Loan Agreements which, although the amount of credit provided exceeded £25,000, were documented as if they were regulated by the 1974 Act; and some 79 borrowers have complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service, of which none have been successful. I have not seen any of those adjudications, and have had the benefit of very full and careful submissions by counsel for the Claimant and for the Defendants, and it is agreed that the Court's decision, whether or not favourable to the Claimant, will assist the Claimant by clarifying a number of key issues which bear on the question whether, and if so on what basis, the Claimant should provide redress to borrowers,.."

anna2007 wrote: »

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!

anna2007

esmerellda wrote: »

Anna - Have you uploaded the right one as 2008 ?

Oops, sorry about that, I was in such a rush this morning to scan and post them up - thanks for pointing it out

Here's a link to the 2008 one:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6j7qg4noruh60k3/SLC%20statement%202008.jpg?dl=0

@ Lungboy - I'll clear out some of my inbox right now

erudioed

I cant stress strongly enough how important it is for everyone to file an official complaint about not receiving the DAF along the lines of "i am filing an official complaint because you didnt mail the DAF out 8 weeks before my deadline as you are obliged to do contractually". There is no need to interact with erudio's apology or accept their attempt to not get you to make the complaint official, because Erudio's reason is for a different problem that no one has reported. If you stick to that line, and when Erudio reply that some DAF packs got lost etc, then you have every right to go to the Ombudsman. And Erudio will get crucified financially because anyone with half a brain cell at the FOI will be able to see that something is very odd indeed. This whole DAFgate started this year because a few of us reported not getting a DAF with 5/6 weeks to go and/or a letter telling us that we had not yet returned the DAF. Erudio is holding firm that it has sent the DAF packs out. We know that is a lie, anyone can tell that is a lie. Its like holding on to a story because you are too embarrassed to admit the truth, or because admitting the truth will bring about or open you up to an even bigger punishment.
And i assume we will all get rather good compensation if we get to the Ombudsman because Erudio has misrepresented the nature of the problem to us, the press now, and the wider world, which i think opens it up to some serious doodoo...but only if we follow this through. It has clearly 'not treated customers fairly' because it has fabricated an alternative story. It may be the only time so many of us at the same time get the chance to make our point that we will not be bullied.
Not all 7000, as reported in the article, will know about it or have the energy or will to complain (despite it being very easy) but imagine if they did. I also assume if Erudio or Arrow Global is found to have deliberately lied then that would put it infront of another body entirely.

erudioed

The reality is they didnt mail out the DAF packs. Think about it. This must be the most important task at this time of year, the main deferment period. Printing, packing, filling envelopes, all hands to the deck.To think that Capquest totally forgot to do that, well that is not possible. It was a choice, a deliberate choice.
However, Erudio's apology infers they did undertake that task, blaming the usual 'system error' explanation that everyone seems to buy at face value. However, this didnt happen because no one got the damn DAFs.

There is only one sensible answer. They deliberately didnt send out the DAFs and they have deliberately lied to conceal that fact, a fact that will have some very long reverberations if it gets out or makes it way to the relevant bodies. And much of that must be us going to our MPs and the like.

GinOClock

I've received the following update from Erudio customer services regarding loan reporting and credit checks:

With respect to your credit file, I can confirm that Erudio do not currently report to credit referencing agencies nor do we conduct credit searches. This wording has been part of the terms of your loan from the beginning and is there in case such action is required in the future.

I can advise that Erudio have no current plans to conduct a credit search and I am unaware of any circumstance by which this may be required. However, it is likely that Erudio will soon begin reporting arrears and defaults to credit referencing agencies.

Looks like we are in the clear... for now.

erudioed

That is truly heroic effort you got them to admit that in writing GinOClock!
I see they have still left that 'threatening' window open where they might report to CRAs though, which is what turns a few people into paying 'customers' out of fear.

Rosskie

My new DAF letter states that I will receive a DAF pack under a separate notice, and it will be received within 14 days. Nothing about not having received it already. Its dated 30/3/16. My first payment is due on 20/5/16. So they have told me in writing that I'll get my pack between 7 weeks and 1 day, or as short as 5 weeks and 1 day, with 21 days to process it. Hardly seems fair, nice of them to write it down tho. Think I'll fire off that complaint.

Lungboy

A few months ago I was bored and did what any right-minded person would do, I read every decision by the FOS that involved Erudio. In lots of them, the complaint included the threat of reporting to CRAs. In every case the FOS decided it wasn't a threat and unfair because Erudio assured them that they would indeed report our loans to the CRAs by the end of the year (2015). Clearly they haven't and aren't, so is there any way to get the FOS to look at all those cases again?

anna2007

GinOClock wrote: »

I've received the following update from Erudio customer services regarding loan reporting and credit checks:

With respect to your credit file, I can confirm that Erudio do not currently report to credit referencing agencies nor do we conduct credit searches. This wording has been part of the terms of your loan from the beginning and is there in case such action is required in the future.

I can advise that Erudio have no current plans to conduct a credit search and I am unaware of any circumstance by which this may be required. However, it is likely that Erudio will soon begin reporting arrears and defaults to credit referencing agencies.

Looks like we are in the clear... for now.

As this is a formal response from Erudio to a formal complaint from a borrower, it must be Erudio's official, final position on CRA reporting and credit searches.

Would MSE be willing to raise it with Erudio, to confirm that this is their official position on CRA reporting and searches? That there are no circumstances by which the reporting of loans in deferment would be required, as for credit searches (that bit's important)? How could it be "required", otherwise Erudio would have done it by now? Their response implies that they will only report arrears and defaults to CRA's - or is that just for now, and the threat still remains?

This one issue has probably caused deferred Erudio captives the most worry and stress over the last two years - it would be a huge relief to know Erudio's official stance is as they suggest in the response to GinOClock, ie loans in deferment will NOT be reported.

If MSE can get real clarification on this, I know everyone on here would be extremely grateful. It's surely not too much to ask, after more than two years of uncertainty.

Edit: If they come back and say we may report deferred loans, or we have the right to, that's not an answer - will they, or won't they? Let's see if we can get rid of the 'threat' over the whole issue.

GinOClock

Yes, I agree with Anna.

Reading Erudio's website and the DAF, it makes it clear that they WILL conduct a credit check and may conduct "periodic searches" with credit reference agencies. I had asked Erudio to explain what this meant in practical terms with reference to my credit file.

If I had known they were not going to perform a credit check, I wouldn't have wasted the best part of the year fighting them with FOS on the very same issue, digging up mountains of evidence backing up my position - evidence that the Ombudsman didn't even bother to refer to in her final decision.

Furthermore, FOS is supposed to take an "inquisitorial" approach with regards to resolving complaints. I think they have clearly erred in that respect in that they have failed to ask Erudio just the questions we are asking. Clearly they have no idea that they have no plans to conduct a credit check either.