ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

Anthony, does that mean it should be the seller (the government) chasing Erudio for breaching the contract? And what if it doesnt? And what does that mean in relation to the borrower (us) then if Erudio decides to breach its contract with the government, with us being the hapless victims.
In fact, i dont know exactly what you are saying, but it reads like there is no action that can be taken. The agreement was signed on our behalf right, and we have the complaints procedure and then ombudsman to seek to right a wrong. Im aware it hasnt breached its contract with me cause i didnt sign any agreement with Erudio obviously, but some of the provisions in that agreement are to protect the borrower and make the purchaser conform to certain rules. And if they dont, we can go down the complaints procedure however feeble it is.


I'll also add, i have been contacted by another person who just got the DAF dated 25.03 arrive this morning. Are Erudio sending out backdated letters to cover itself, but sending them out before these new apology letters so that they dont arrive on the same day?

GinOClock

I'm not a lawyer, but this is my take on it.

By not sending out the DAF, Erudio are preventing you from exercising your rights under the agreement to defer your loans (specifically the right to defer your loans two months before the deferment date).

In response, Erudio have two options:

I) Admit they have erred; or
II) Advise your rights are unaffected as the DAF is not necessary to make an application for deferment.

Either way, checkmate.

Pluthero

AReeves wrote: »

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.

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 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.

Good points Anthony. However I highlighted the bit about the LEGAL requirement to use an Erudio or indeed any DAF to defer which as you argue is not a requirement of the loan terms. You say, for this reason it is not an 'issue' if they are not sent out. However Erudio have made it crystal clear they will NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES DEFER YOU IF YOU DO NOT USE THEIR DAF* (without resorting to a lawyer/court action.) So Erudio are MAKING IT AN ISSUE and indeed a condition of deferment which most certainly strengthens the case for an unfair relationship under the CCA. For the vast majority of graduates it is an issue as without using an Erudio DAF ON TIME YOU WILL NOT BE DEFERRED without threatening court action which Erudio know the majority will not pursue due to time/costs/scary legal process etc. However if Erudio deny your right to defer by using using a bespoke income evidence letter/form you could indeed cite the unfair relationship argument (section 140A CCA) with the added weight of well I NEVER received a DAF ON TIME/OR AT ALL:)


*Except for the people they have deferred using defaced DAFs

Banksters

Anthony is correct to an extent. However, to send a Deferment Pack without a Deferment Form is ridiculous. They have delivered the form late. The are carrying out maladministration of the loans. Complaining specifically about "maladministration" is highly important. You can claim a Tort or Delict, just due to the maladministration, and there is plenty of other evidence of that!

Send the letter as I typed in the template, but you can Add in: "I also wish to make a formal complaint over these matters".

The more people that tie them up the better. The more evidence there is.

I have read through the full Purchase Agreement between Erudio etc and the government / Student Loans Company. There is a myriad of stuff that has been covered up.

I will write more when I have time. I will also post some more template complaints / breach letters. They have misrepresented on multiple areas to us, and also they have misrepresented by not making us aware of the Consumer Credit Act problems, that they knew about. I will type something along those lines.

We need to get something going over the missing information from the statements too.

Anthony should be writing up what he has seen error wise in the Purchase Agreement. It took me about 3 days to read the agreement, but it is a gift in a way, as it corroborates lots of problems we all have had, and also shows there has been a cover up.

Have a nice weekend!!!

BaffledByErudio

It's been a while folks. Haven't logged in to MSE for many a month.
But after the relative ease of last year's deferment, why would I?
I mean, for the past few months, I've been swanning arround the Med on my private yacht. Idly fanning my face with wads of Euros, while ringing my broker in Panama, through Facetime, as a topless beauty dials an offshore accountant to check my various balances with weaponsRus.

Only joking (or am I a shill?) This really is the lifestyle I lead with my £16k salary. Well, judging by Erudio's 'see you next Tuesday-ness', you'd think so with their newly-renewed, seemingly Arthur Daily-style tactics to screw me for my many millions.

It's been a frankly shocking few weeks really. I, like many others, received NO deferment form. NO deferment pack etc. But I did get a reminder I was about to be due to pay.
I started to get a bit twitchy and rang Erudio, where a bloke with a Scottish accent assured me "The forms were sent out before Easter but due to Royal Mail's lag during that period, some customers didn't receive them".
I then said I wished to complain and was passed to another adviser who said the error was down to administration problems. He assured me a new pack would be sent out.
Now, I have to admit, A. Reeves probably, from a legal standpoint, has truth in his theory that the deferment processes are aside from the loans, as are the T&Cs involved. When you read the gubbins and rethink it, yes, it's probably an advisory statement, this 8-week lark. Mainly on a governmental basis. I kind of get the gist that while our loan agreements are set in stone, the 'process' of deferment perhaps isn't.
Admittedly, prior to Erudio's takeover, I never used to think to myself 'Oh, cripes, must be 8 weeks until deferment ends on my loan'. I'd simply see the form arrive, fill it out and return it with my payslips.
But I think, since the debacle in 2013, we've (those of us who've been Erudioed) have detected odours of an aquatic life nature every frickin' time our letterbox rattles or email pings!
So we're justified in pitching our tents at Camp 'They're Pulling a Fast One' each and every time it appears Erudio are stringing something out.
Simple fact (and it IS a fact) is it's never plain sailing with Erudio. Whether customers are in repayment, deferal or between the gutter and the stars, most of us don't know what the bleedin' 'ell they're talking about in their 'public apologies'.
You only have to take a brief ponder, just dip in a toe, at Arrow Global on Google and it's immediately stark staring obvious how underhand they've been with debtors. But these particular debotors are credit card defaulters, mobile phone liars, non-payers etc.
And the tactics Erudio learned from its daddy was how to smack the bottoms of such babies. Which is precisely why the government are a set of see you next Tuesdays for selling an innocent student loan debt to such a bloodthirsty bunch.
A week or so ago, I logged into Erudio's new deferment portal. I was in a library. I had no intention of using it to attempt deferment, I was being nosey. Amazingly, it allows you to look at your statement history. Although it only goes back to about 2007.
But the housekeeping is shocking (and that would be under SLC too). Interest added here, taken away there. Adjusted for that. Changed for this. Even court fees appear at certain points and are then deducted!
Shocking!

.............. Oh, and I'm still yet to receive a deferment application form. Ho-Hum!

FuriousFeline

The overriding feeling is that Erudio are trying to treat us as 'scum' who owe them money. As others have said, it is very concerning that the government sold the student loan book to a DCA in the first place, and this does not bode well for people who are currently students or have been students within the past decade who will have left (or be leaving) university on average each owing many more thousands of pounds than we do. I would love to see Jeremy Corbyn or John McDonnell raise this issue in Parliament!

kam1977

I am new to this thread and not sure if I am missing something. I was expecting my deferment forms shortly after the 20th of March , when I hadn't received it by Easter Monday I went online and applied there , it took a week for them to write back to me granting my deferment period. I understand that they should have sent the packs but it was really easy to apply online and I now have peace of mind till May next year. I still haven't received the pack mind you

erudioed

kam1977 wrote: »

I am new to this thread and not sure if I am missing something. I was expecting my deferment forms shortly after the 20th of March , when I hadn't received it by Easter Monday I went online and applied there , it took a week for them to write back to me granting my deferment period. I understand that they should have sent the packs but it was really easy to apply online and I now have peace of mind till May next year. I still haven't received the pack mind you

Lets hope it doesnt come back and bite you on the boondocks. Dont forget to lodge an official complaint because they really arent doing you any favours no matter how quick and easy that may be! I hope you didnt have any problems with what Erudio's site lists it will do with your data when you log in to its site. You just gave them your internet address and the site you linked to them from amongst other stuff.

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Would a joint action work with that?

It's really the FCA's job to protect us and do something about it... oh... wait Studio claim they're "authorised and regulated" by the FCA on their website, and BIS claim the FCA are part of a "robust" regulatory regime (no, really!).

SLC stats show just under £1 billion or is outstanding loans and £33 million of interest for 2008/09 (SLC report separate figures, so these are English stats only, there's Wales, Scotland and N.I. to add to that). Multiply that interest by 9 years, that's £297 million (plus the rest from rest of U.K.), plus compensation. This is a rough guesstimate, as the interest figure will have reduced over the years, as more loans are paid off. Because this enforceability issue affects 298,000 borrowers (again, that's England only), FCA should be all over this with an enforcement notice, or whatever it is they're meant to do to protect consumers - none of this "monitoring" stuff.

But there's the fact that SLC is now recently exempt from FCA regulation, and Erudio's 'Special Purpose Vehicle' status seems to exempt them too. The whole 'interim permission' thing is also ending right about now, so we should know very soon exactly what kind of beast Erudio is, as far as regulation goes... It all feels very engineered to me, the timing of it - the changes in FCA status and introduction of 'Erudio Customer Management Ltd' as new servicer, the recent revelations about unenforceability, the hints in the S&P agreement on unenforceability/loan warranties (they could have left the subject headings out, if they believed the subject matter to be truly exempt from disclosure). Remember that the Government has known about the enforceability issue since the sale was negotiated prior to November 2013, and no doubt well before that, so they could have done the right thing, held up their hands and admitted to a monumental f'up. Instead, we have Erudio.

None of that answers your question about a joint action - this comes up now and again, then it's forgotten, because we all know it's going to cost... unless we get someone pro bono to represent us, or crowdfund. I'm contacting my MP about the tribunal appeal on the S&P agreement, most know the SNP love to stick the boot in to the Tories (the Scottish Government have also said previously their hands were tied over the sale), so something might come of it. The point is, if a joint action is ever going to happen, we have to stop talking and start acting.

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

But is the responsibility with SLC or Erudio?

The CCA states that, because of the non-compliance with the annual statements, the lender's "not entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of his non-compliance". If that includes the right to assign (I don't know for sure, but seems reasonable it would apply to any term of the unenforceable agreement), that means SLC has no right to assign and it's still liable. If it can somehow legally assign an unenforceable agreement, then Erudio is liable.

But even say the assignment was legit, the Government knew about the non-compliance around 3 years ago, possibly longer, and could have done the right thing and sorted it, and saved the taxpayer a lot of money. Instead, they chose to save face and get rid, by selling to a DCA, which stands to benefit whatever way this goes ( those redacted loan warranties in the S&P agreement guarantee it, no doubt). The SLC (or the Government) should be held responsible for that, regardless of who actually owns our loans.

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Does all this mean that Carval spent millions on worthless loans?

Far from it, a 'win-win' situation, collecting what they can via !!!!!! DCA tactics, on unenforceable loans with no payment due, with the back-up of loan warranties (at taxpayer's expense) if it all goes tits up. I don't know much about how this aspect, but our loans have been 'securitised' following sale, so I think there's probably an aspect of 'gaming', where investors effectively bet on an outcome, on how the whole sorry saga will turn out ("The Big Short", type of thing, on a smaller scale). Carval will be doing just fine.

A couple of thoughts on what to do next:

We should all be complaining to FCA consumer.queries@fca.org.uk

Tell them about the issue with the annual statements, that you believe they're unenforceable because of it. The more people who complain, the more we can prove they were given the information. and should have acted on it (if they decide to "monitor"). That means people just watching the thread too, please send a quick email to let FCA know.

We should make an FOI request to SLC for all template annual statements/arrears and default notices since the loans started, ask them to confirm that these templates were the ones issued to borrowers (important for people that don't have the original statements). Can't see how they could reasonably refuse this, but if they did, it has to be about the cost of putting the statements right, versus the borrower's right to know the true legal position - a no-brainer.

In the meantime, everyone should make a Subject Access Request to SLC, costs a tenner but will give you all info they hold on you, including annual statements. I wouldn't suggest anyone relies on info provided in Erudio's online portal, as BorderReiver points out, they have lots of disclaimers about accuracy of info they provide (never mind the fact by signing up, you're agreeing to their 'privacy notice', which grants them every single permission they're seeking via the paper DAF... please don't do it).

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

The CCA states that, because of the non-compliance with the annual statements, the lender's "not entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of his non-compliance". If that includes the right to assign (I don't know for sure, but seems reasonable it would apply to any term of the unenforceable agreement), that means SLC has no right to assign and it's still liable. If it can somehow legally assign an unenforceable agreement, then Erudio is liable.

It would/should be the same definition of 'enforcement' under a CCA that was decided in McGuffick v Royal Bank of Scotland by the High Court.

They concluded that:

- reporting or threatening to report information about the conduct of a credit agreement to a credit reference agency, passing on, or threatening to pass on, personal data in respect of a credit agreement
- demanding payment from a debtor
- issuing a default notice
- threatening legal action
- bringing legal proceedings

did not constitute 'enforcement' under the act.

Pretty implausible given those examples that the sale/assignment to another company would be considered by the courts as 'enforcement'.