ERUDIO student loans help

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

erudioed wrote: »

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.

It's hard to believe that it's been two years since I came across that Mumsnet thread after having money taken from my account by a company called Erudio I'd never had any communications from, and two years later us customers are still sifting through the muck.

This is the most serious failure on the part of Erudio. In 2014, they could blame teething troubles and I'd give them a bit of wiggle room. Last year the blame seemed to fall on Capita. This year none of that washes. CapQuest is part of their empire. Erudio has been in operation for over two years now. They should not be failing with something as basic as 'You must send DAF packs to people to arrive eight weeks prior to their deferment coming to an end'. It's something they say they will do on their own website

"If you are already in deferment, you will automatically receive a new Deferment Application Form (DAF) pack eight weeks before your current deferment period ends. This pack includes a letter highlighting your upcoming deferment date, a new DAF and a new How to Guide to help you complete the DAF."

This is something I want Erudio to clarify. Is it company policy to ensure that all customers have their DAF pack eight weeks prior to the deferment ending? In the past, my packs were dated eight weeks before the deferment ended but were then sent slowly, meaning it'd be closer to seven weeks to deferment ending when I would receive them.

In my case, I can categorically say that they didn't send a DAF to me in the correct time. I should have had it by the 25th (26th at latest as the 25th was Good Friday). Their own codes show it wasn't printed until the 29th. That's an open and shut case: they failed.

What needs further investigation is this Reminder letter. Why did I receive that before the DAF despite both being printed at the same time? Why has the Reminder got a 103 code compared to the 104 code on the DAF, thus suggesting the Reminders were done before the DAF? I'd like to hear from anyone else who got a Reminder letter before they got their DAF.

FuriousFeline

Both of my reminder letters have the 103 code on. Looking at when they were printed, the first one (dated 24th March) was printed on 23rd March, the day before the letter accompanying the first DAF was printed out, and the second reminder letter (dated 30th March) was printed out on March 29th. Which begs the question, how the heck can they justify sending out a reminder before any DAFs were sent out?!

FuriousFeline

I just found this very worrying post on Mumsnet about Screwdio's antics. The lady concerned said she's posted on Money Matters, but hasn't had any replies. IMO they are being particularly heavy handed with this lady because they know she has got a disability. Also very worrying is that she says her Erudio loans have indeed appeared on a credit check and caused problems with her getting loans for disability equipment. She says Erudio have been pressurising her by saying, "I was repeatedly told how it was a loan and I owe this money and must pay and how it isn't fair that I am not paying," which is a disgraceful way to speak to a customer (particularly one who is vulnerable). http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2614103-Erudio-student-loans-debt-collection-help

erudioed

thanks for that link on mumsnet, its an interesting and disturbing read. its blatant blackmail to me. the person also suggests her credit file is marked with the payment holiday tag.

erudioed

i should also highlight that these reminder letters were a first, well, the first time I've received one during the deferment process. It seems so out of place actually, that its hard to imagine that it wasn't part of whatever 'tactic' it had planned (probably now well rumbled). Incompetence definitely doesn't ring true on this one.

Brooker_Dave

erudioed wrote: »

thanks for that link on mumsnet, its an interesting and disturbing read. its blatant blackmail to me. the person also suggests her credit file is marked with the payment holiday tag.

"credit card limits are taken into account as well as home ownership"

Are Carval/Arrow now pretending that credit card debt and equity in property now count as income??

A stretch even by their standards surely?

Perhaps someone should email our beloved leader Mark Filer at clarification?

Brooker_Dave

erudioed wrote: »

Incompetence definitely doesn't ring true on this one.

The plan perhaps is to force all those not paying to default, and then use Arrow's usual MO to turn the screws, to get everyone paying them off?

Letters from Restons next, and then court papers from Northampton?

Why else ask if you are a home owner, leech off the ones with assets first?

BIS must have known what they were letting the loan holders in for?

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

"credit card limits are taken into account as well as home ownership"

Are Carval/Arrow now pretending that credit card debt and equity in property now count as income??

A stretch even by their standards surely?

I'm sure credit card balances and home ownership were included on the first DAF, which ran to 10 pages... so why haven't Erudio provided Becca with the 'new and improved' version of the DAF? They also seem to be using every known tactic against her, which suggests they are deliberately taking advantage of the fact she's extra vulnerable... shows just how low these parasites will go to make a profit - it's shocking and scandalous, even by Erudio's non-existent standards. There must be many others in a similar situation to Becca, and we just haven't heard about it.

Surely Emma Lunn, MSE or another journalist would be interested in hearing Becca's experience? It would be a PR nightmare for Erudio, and Erudio always back down and crawl back into their swamp when the media get involved.

anna2007

fermi wrote: »

While you are in arrears:

- they have the right to call in/terminate the loan agreements, after which which age write off cannot happen.

- if not called in/terminated, the age write off cannot be applied on the non arrears balance until the arrears part are paid off.

If you have been in arrears, and you manage to get them paid off or cancelled without the loan being called in/terminated, then you would again be eligible for the age write off, whether the arrears are paid off before OR after the age 50/60 or 25 year point.

So calling in the loan means terminating the agreement, which the OFT confirmed is enforcement? It seems Erudio aren't entitled to enforce the agreement because of the ongoing issue with the annual statements, and would explain why we've never heard of one instance of Erudio using their right to recall the whole loan.

It's also worth pointing out that they only have that right if there are genuine arrears - not the fabricated arrears invented by Erudio by refusing borrowers' legitimate deferment applications.

FuriousFeline

@Anna- I agree that Screwdio are deliberately intimidating the lady in the discussion on Mumsnet because they know she is disabled and is therefore vulnerable. However, I noticed that one of the recent comments on there informs her that people in receipt of disability benefit are entitled to have their loans written off altogether. I think I recall seeing something similar elsewhere so, if that is indeed the case, Screwdio should be well aware of it and should be informing her, not harassing her. Screwdio are either not aware of all the rules regarding the student loans which were sold to them or they have chosen to deliberately ignore those rules- either way they are not fit to be in charge of the administration of the loans.