ERUDIO student loans help

AReeves

Let me try to clarify my view:
1. The sending out of DAF's 8 weeks before is a term of the purchase agreement between Erudio and the Government.
2. Yes, the "8 week requirement" was made for the benefit of the borrowers. The borrowers would have been to enforce that clause as being for the benefit of a third party but the Purchase Agreement excludes Third Party Rights.
3. If they are expecting borrowers to apply for deferment using their DAF then it is unreasonable to not make them available and it does reflect that they are not complying with expected service levels. If they are making it more difficult to apply for deferment where borrowers are entitled to deferment because of their income level, then that would be evidence of unfairly exercising their rights (ie unfair relationship under section 140A of the CCA)
4. By me saying the "8 week thing is not an issue", I meant that if you are arguing that you can apply for deferment without completing their DAF, then whether or not you receive a DAF 8 weeks before or not, is not an issue in the sense that you are applying for deferment without using the DAF by producing evidence that your gross income is below the threshold.
5. If they refuse to allow deferment simply because they say they you have to use their DAF, then in my view that is a breach of the terms of the loan and they would be in breach of contract and can ask a court to grant specific performance.
6. If some are being granted deferment by not using the DAF and some are not, then that is further evidence of an unfair relationship.

When I get time, I intend to study the issue of the annual statements. It appears to be an importat issue. In my view, anything which can make the Agreement unenforceable is significant.

erudioed wrote: »

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?

BorderReiver14

Having read the above few posts one has to wonder what 'unenforceable' means in the legal sense. It would appear, if anything, that the clock stops on interest and not much else. Add to that the fact that SLC is exempt from FCA regulation and Erudio with its limited liability via SPV then court action would be the only way forward, just as it is for those of us that modify or refuse to use the DAF.
The more sinister aspect is who knew what? Have laws been broken in covering up any potential 'mistakes'. As suggested and from what we have learned thus far from FOI and S&P agreement the 'commercially sensitive' arguments must be challenged.

anna2007

@ Anthony This part of the Regulations:

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

.
We know that the "not more than three months before" refers to the back-dating of the deferment date if, for example, the borrower is late in applying for deferment.

So not more than "two months after" must mean the post-dating of the deferment date, and is effectively what happens when a borrower applies in the 8 week window before the current deferment ends and the new deferment runs from that date, and not the date the deferment is accepted.

Doesn't that mean a borrower could apply up to two months before deferment end, and the lender should accept and post-date the deferment (up to a maximum of two months)?

AReeves

Yes, I would agree with that.

anna2007 wrote: »

@ Anthony This part of the Regulations:
.
We know that the "not more than three months before" refers to the back-dating of the deferment date if, for example, the borrower is late in applying for deferment.

So not more than "two months after" must mean the post-dating of the deferment date, and is effectively what happens when a borrower applies in the 8 week window before the current deferment ends and the new deferment runs from that date, and not the date the deferment is accepted.

Doesn't that mean a borrower could apply up to two months before deferment end, and the lender should accept and post-date the deferment (up to a maximum of two months)?

fermi

Another late form problem

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445235

anna2007

fermi wrote: »

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'.

It makes sense that those actions wouldn't be enforcement in a legal sense, they're not rights under the agreement and are used to bring about enforcement of the creditor's legal right to repayment. It seems to me that 'repayment' is the enforceable part, and enforcement doesn't happen until the repayments are secured - those other actions are just the means to achieving enforcement through repayment?

If you look here http://www.brodies.com/node/1387 it lists OFT guidance on what is and isn't enforcement (I think the OFT guidance referred to is OFT1272 business leaflet on consumer credit, but I can't find it). It's footnote 88 in OFT664, Debt Collection guidance, but the link doesn't work for me.

Although assignment's not mentioned, 'terminating the agreement' counts as enforcement, it's entirely possible that assignment would be too. It is a legal right under the agreement, which they chose to exercise, surely that's enforcement?

If assignment is enforcement, then the real scandal is the Government did it, knowing that the agreements are unenforceable, after spending ridiculous amounts of public money on lawyers/PwC, to try and make it workable.

GinOClock

You might be on to something there, Anna. Before taking a non-payer to court, Erudio has to terminate the agreement after the default so the full amount becomes payable with no option to defer.

I don't seem to have heard of any instances of Erudio taking anyone to court since they took over the loans?

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

Although assignment's not mentioned, 'terminating the agreement' counts as enforcement, it's entirely possible that assignment would be too. It is a legal right under the agreement, which they chose to exercise, surely that's enforcement?

Doubt it, as the right to assign an account under s125 LOPA 1925 exists independent of any terms or operation of the agreement put in for convenience or clarity.

I can check it out with a consumer credit expert if you like?

anna2007

fermi wrote: »

I can check it out with a consumer credit expert if you like?

That would be helpful fermi, thank you

anna2007

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

Well, it took Erudio three days to confirm my deferment last year, with a completely 'defaced' paper DAF. That's the benchmark for this year - I'm expecting them to do better, now we know the agreements are unenforceable

I honestly think deferment acceptance has nothing to do with online vs paper applications, it's about how much you owe/how close earnings are to the threshold - that's how they judge our loans and they risk assess to decide if it's worth time and resources in making deferment difficult. The fact they're encouraging and promoting online registration, is reason enough to steer well clear.

At the same time, it's really quite desperate, if they think any of the brown stuff they insist on throwing will stick, claiming new terms on an unenforceable agreement, communicated via a changeable medium, which changes the original terms that they have to abide by. That's ignoring the fact they'd be in breach of contract over the deferment clause, if they had a right to enforce itv. It's completely ridiculous, but they're in it to make profit, the important question is how they profit, as it's clearly not through any alleged entitlement to collect on the residual loan book?