ERUDIO student loans help

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

FuriousFeline wrote: »

Thanks for that, Ibreakwind! Just looked, and it seems that Screwdio haven't backdated after all, although they have still sent the DAFs out unacceptably late. The one I have got that's dated 25th March 2016, has the printing code CPQ104_240316_6212_MACHINE\1220\9753\1of8\1.2. down the side. The 240316 part presumably refers to 24th March 2016, so it appears that it's been forward dated by one day rather than backdated. Similarly the one I've got which is dated 1st April 2016 has the printing code CPQ104_310316_6895_MACHINE\80\633\1of8\1.2. down the side, which presumably indicates it was printed on 31st March 2016 (so forward dated by 1 day again).

Could you look at all the documents you've had from Erudio in the last month and see what the sequence is when it comes to the numbers above the smaller of the two barcodes? I'm interested to know if there is a clear consistent sequence.

erudioed

I am sure they would tally their printing machines 'if' they are backdating. Printing it out the day before the letter is dated sounds logical if they were to be sent out the next day. my contention is that many will have been printed out after last monday and thats why they are arriving now. they would make sure the visible dates dont look like foul play.
Either way, they didnt send the DAFs out when they should have done...again.

RubyRue

@ibreakwind more than likely, at least you got the important notice included in yours I didn't even get that. My small barcodes have the same codes as yours.

FuriousFeline

The number above the small barcode on the letter dated 25th March is 0006212104\87934\1220\318
The number above the small barcode on the letter dated 1st April is 0006895104\00001\80\000

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

erudioed wrote: »

I am sure they would tally their printing machines 'if' they are backdating. Printing it out the day before the letter is dated sounds logical if they were to be sent out the next day. my contention is that many will have been printed out after last monday and thats why they are arriving now. they would make sure the visible dates dont look like foul play.
Either way, they didnt send the DAFs out when they should have done...again.

I'm not convinced about the backdating element but there does appear to be clear evidence that they didn't even have the DAF packs printed in time therefore failed to deliver forms eight weeks before deferment. That alone is deserving of being reported to the FOS.

That they were happy to sit on sending out DAFs printed toward the end of March and we are now seeing them arrive demonstrates that Erudio were totally aware of their balls up and are refusing to take full responsibility for it.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

FuriousFeline wrote: »

The number above the small barcode on the letter dated 25th March is 0006212104\87934\1220\318
The number above the small barcode on the letter dated 1st April is 0006895104\00001\80\000

So that establishes that the Reminder letter gets the '103' number as yours and mine did and my DAF and both of your DAFs have '104' in the code. That suggests that the reminder was printed or set up first on the system.

Why? Why would a reminder to pay up at the end of deferment go out before the DAF?

The only conclusion I can draw is that someone completely dropped the ball on when DAFs were to be sent out, either accidentally or on purpose. Either way, it's astounding that a company could make such an oversight when it's such a simple thing to get right.

plong979

Just can't believe this hasn't got more national press. Basically getting f**ked over by shell companies which the government handed the keys to. Never mind the fact we we've never offered a price to pay off our loans before they sold them to their mates.

erudioed

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect wrote: »

I'm not convinced about the backdating element but there does appear to be clear evidence that they didn't even have the DAF packs printed in time therefore failed to deliver forms eight weeks before deferment. That alone is deserving of being reported to the FOS.

That they were happy to sit on sending out DAFs printed toward the end of March and we are now seeing them arrive demonstrates that Erudio were totally aware of their balls up and are refusing to take full responsibility for it.

Good to see you back again firstly!
Yep, you could be right about the backdating. I can see it both ways. Their apology fits into there being a mess up with mailing them out. But why would they print out the DAF and reminder but not send the DAF. I know they are incompetent, but they are also deliberate at times.
No way to prove backdating unless the authorities get involved but i consider this a deliberate act they didnt expect to blow up, well, unfold the way it has unfolded in the last 2 weeks. And to mitigate the more serious claim of deliberately not sending out DAFs, they have had to print them out now, well backdated them, because the fines and trouble that could come from it being found to have deliberately broken the S&P agreement would far exceed the usual incompetence error...which also definitely makes them open to complaints.
Either way, i agree the solid evidence is they werent printed out in time, which kind of shows they arent operating the contract in accordance with the S&P agreement. I think fouler play but they have still made a gigantic cockup.

Pluthero

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect wrote: »

So that establishes that the Reminder letter gets the '103' number as yours and mine did and my DAF and both of your DAFs have '104' in the code. That suggests that the reminder was printed or set up first on the system.

Why? Why would a reminder to pay up at the end of deferment go out before the DAF?

The only conclusion I can draw is that someone completely dropped the ball on when DAFs were to be sent out, either accidentally or on purpose. Either way, it's astounding that a company could make such an oversight when it's such a simple thing to get right.

The Erudio business model in a nutshell. We are just really bad at admin honest! What do you mean its pressuring you into paying up? No really we are just really really bad at admin...


EVERY YEAR so far. Actions speak louder than PR SPIN.

Are you looking at this FCA FOS BIS???

Brooker_Dave

Pluthero wrote: »

Are you looking at this FCA FOS BIS???

None of those 3 care about the plight of everyday people in this country, they look after the needs of the financial industry/criminals.