ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

Exactly, and that just part of it. If anyone looks at the network or companies, i am sure it will read like the panama papers. The sales and purchase agreement is actually sponsored by a company in Luxembourg controlled by CarVal investors, let alone Arrow Guernsey and the other hidden members of the consortium.

Lungboy

I know the BIS keep refusing our FOI requests for the due diligence paperwork, but is there no way to force them?

erudioed

No, just persistence. But, as with this DAF situation (being the 2nd year now) and especially this apology for a problem no one reported, i would suggest its incompetence is good grounds for another request. Im assuming due diligence is checking the company is sound and able to operate what it wants to purchase. As Erudio has over proven its incompetence this time and gone public with it, in a provable idiot proof way, surely it is now in the public interest to know why such a company/structure was allowed to take over the running of a government initiated and developed service. BIS has much to answer for, as does the pressure by the Chancellor (Osbourne) for forcing the sale through.

Sarebear78

OK, so I sent my deferment in (after having emailed to get a form) and had a reply to say it is not accepted as I have defaced the DAF - I did exactly what I did last year and that was accepted.
I am sick of this now so my question is: Do I faff around and do a complaint to Erudio/FOS or just go straight for solicitor/court? They are absolutely p****** me off now. My resolve to not pay when I am eligible to defer is stronger than ever!

Tempted to go straight to Lawyer!

Banksters

Template Letter you can use:

To Erudio Student Loans

Date

Dear Sir

I write to complain as you have made a breach of your obligations under the Education Student Loans Act 1990, by failing to send me a deferment form for my loans on time. You are legally obliged to send me the deferment form 8 weeks before the end of the current deferment period.

This is another example of the maladministration of the loans, since you purchased the loans from the Student Loans Company Ltd. I have yet again been very stressed out by your actions, which are now arguably causing me a harm, tort / delict. (IF IN ENGLAND PUT TORT, IF IN SCOTLAND PUT DELICT.)

I am Claiming Breach of Contract over this matter, as you have failed to meet your obligations, and have broken the law. To remedy this breach, I wish you to apologise for the failure to meet your obligations, and for your maladministration over this matter, and the harm caused to me.

I also wish to be compensated for this harm caused. You should pay me £150 compensation for this. I have had periods of constant worry over this matter recently. (PUT IN WHATEVER COMPENSATION AMOUNT YOU THINK IS OK.)

If you do not pay me the compensation and give me an apology. I reserve the right to place a Commercial Lien on your company and any other parties that were part of the Purchase Agreement of the loans, for the harm you have caused me yet again. And, for your failure to meet your legal obligations and for your maladministration of the loans.

I also reserve all other rights over this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE




YOUR NAME"


SEND RECORDED DELIVERY


REMOVE PARTS I PUT IN BOLD TYPE IN BRACKETS ABOUT TORT / DELICT and AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.

TORT IS A HARM CAUSED BY ANOTHERS ACTION. IT IS CALLED DELICT IN SCOTS LAW.

HOPEFULLY THEY WILL SEND COMPENSATION RATHER THAN GO TO OMBUDSMAN, AND / OR FACE A COMMERCIAL LIEN. IT WOULD BE GREAT TO PUT A LIEN ON THEM.

Hope this helps.

Banksters

About missing Annual Statement Information: As far as I am aware, they should have to refund all interest under the period, and pay some compensation.

They will have to do this for all people who had loans I think. So, it is a bit like us giving the government a fine for selling off our loans to a vulure fund of private equity parasites, who hide tax dealings in Luxembourg.

Luxembourg is a like Panama, Jersey etc. A tax haven.

There are probably bungs going to insiders, via the private equity people, to the insiders. A bit like when ex Prime Minister John Major worked for the Carlyle Group, after bombing Iraq in 1990. They are all part of a similar club. Private equity in itself is wide open to corruption, as you cannot find out who is funding the private equity. For example, a chum of Vince Cable, David Cameron or George Osborne could be operating within, or investing in Carval private equity. It's another scam. We've been scammed as part of the process.

erudioed

FuriousFeline wrote: »

There is still no sign of a letter from Erudio confirming a new date for the end of my current deferment period, but in the post this morning I received another DAF with a letter accompanying it stating the original deferment end date (which comes in just 4 weeks time)! The letter I received today is dated March 25th (!), so I can only assume that it is supposed to be the first DAF that Erudio sent out. However, sending one out dated 25th March still shows a failure on Erudio's part to comply with the requirement to give me 8 weeks in which to return my DAF. I also can't believe it has taken Royal Mail that long to deliver it- although it is dated March 25th, I reckon it was only sent out by Erudio this week.

Anyone else received those missing DAFs Erudio referred to in its fictional apology and dated 2-4 weeks ago?

BorderReiver14

Sarebear78 wrote: »

OK, so I sent my deferment in (after having emailed to get a form) and had a reply to say it is not accepted as I have defaced the DAF - I did exactly what I did last year and that was accepted.
I am sick of this now so my question is: Do I faff around and do a complaint to Erudio/FOS or just go straight for solicitor/court? They are absolutely p****** me off now. My resolve to not pay when I am eligible to defer is stronger than ever!

Tempted to go straight to Lawyer!

Same boat as me. As tempting as it is to go straight to court, you can get more evidence from them by complaining first to ESL directly, getting a final response letter. Then get the FOS complaints in so you can argue that you have exhausted all avenues and given Erudio ample time to rectify the problem.
Very frustrating but it does allow them to dig a bigger hole for themselves.
We all have to make our own decisions when it comes to fighting ESL but the above is how I am playing it. I have invited Erudio to take me to court if they believe I have not fulfilled my obligations. They won't because they must know they don't stand a chance. I'm just puzzled that they continue to dig so many deep holes for themselves.
I do know that hell will freeze over before I sign that certificate and warranty of theirs!

Sarebear78

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

Same boat as me. As tempting as it is to go straight to court, you can get more evidence from them by complaining first to ESL directly, getting a final response letter. Then get the FOS complaints in so you can argue that you have exhausted all avenues and given Erudio ample time to rectify the problem.
Very frustrating but it does allow them to dig a bigger hole for themselves.
We all have to make our own decisions when it comes to fighting ESL but the above is how I am playing it. I have invited Erudio to take me to court if they believe I have not fulfilled my obligations. They won't because they must know they don't stand a chance. I'm just puzzled that they continue to dig so many deep holes for themselves.
I do know that hell will freeze over before I sign that certificate and warranty of theirs!

Thanks - sounds like you have the same unbroken spirit as me! I have contacted my solicitor this afternoon and will glad pay the solicitors . In fact if I had to pay them the equivalent of whatI owe I would rather give it to them than Erudio!
I have started a complaint about it already, ready to show I have exhausted all avenues.

I am lucky I am in a good place mentally and I just feel mad for all the people who are not strong enough or in a good enough position to fight. This is what makes me more determined!!

AReeves

Clause 9.3.4 (A1) in the Sale Agreement is a contractual term between the parties to that agreement. As the borrowers are not a party to that agreement they cannot enforce it. Also, students cannot take even make use of the Third Party Rights Act 1999 as these provisions are excluded by Clause 28.

By not sending out DAF's is a breach of contract in respect of their obligations to the Seller (the Government) but not to the borrowers. The terms of the loans, as I'm sure you know are:

9. Each year the lender will tell the borrower the new deferment level for the period between 1st September and the following 31st August. The borrower can defer making repayments of the loan if—

(a)the lender has not already asked him to repay the loan in full, and

(b)he can show—

(i)that his gross income for the relevant month is not more than the deferment level, and

(ii)if the lender asks, that his gross average monthly income during the 3 months immediately following the relevant month will not or is unlikely to be more than the deferment level.

10. Each deferment period will last for 12 months beginning on a date the lender tells the borrower. This date will be not more than three months before or two months after the date the lender accepts the borrower’s deferment application. The borrower can end the deferment period at any time. To do this he must tell the lender in writing when to start collecting payments from his bank account.

The obliagtion under the terms of the loan is that .."Each year the lender will tell the borrower the new deferment level for between 1st September and the following 31st August ".

It does not state how it should be conveyed to the borrower.
So by not sending out the DAF's 8 weeks before, does not necessarily make it is a breach of the terms of the loans.

The argument has been made (with which I agree) that the terms of the loan do not require a prescribed form of DAF to be completed. However, if people do not believe they need to complete a DAF then I don't really see the issue about them not being sent out. However, if they are making it more difficult to apply for a DAF, it does add weight to the unfair relationship argument (section 140A CCA).

In my opinion, the much more important issue (as identified by Anna) is the one about correct annual statements. As they will not be able to enforce the loans until they remedy errors, then that is a strong barrier to them taking legal action against borrowers for alleged defaults.

erudioed wrote: »

For quick reference in complaints, here is the Sales and Purchase Agreement link...the DAF stuff for the 'not less' that 8 weeks rule is Clause 9.3.4 (A1) : https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjzix1oh1awpi0z/Sale%20and%20Purchase%20Agreement.pdf?dl=0