ERUDIO student loans help

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

The SLC saysthat loans can be written off if a person is disabled and permanently unfit for work.

"Borrower is disabled
If a borrower can prove they're permanently unfit for work due to a disability, then their loan could be written off.

Two items of evidence will need to be submitted:

A letter from a medical professional stating that the borrower is permanently unfit for work, dated within the last 6 months; and
Evidence of disability related benefits."


I can't find anything under Erudio that states this. Obfuscation?

anna2007

@ FuriousFeline Yes, I think if a disabled borrower is permanently unfit for work, and provides evidence of that, they're entitled to have the loans cancelled. And disabled borrowers in receipt of certain disability benefits are entitled to an extended deferment period, 3 years I think.

Erudio are definitely aware of the extended deferment period, as it's mentioned in their FAQs on the website, although it's typically vague and suggests phoning for more information. It should really happen automatically, as borrowers will have submitted evidence of disability benefits along with their deferment application. Can't remember the right to loan cancellation being mentioned at all, although I'm sure Erudio are well aware of it!

Edit: Cross post with 'Ibreakwind' Thinking about it, to qualify for the extended deferment period, the borrower has to show income's unlikely to be above the threshold for the next 3 years, so not as straightforward as evidence of disability benefits. Not sure how to 'show' that, probably a letter from the borrower's GP?

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998 paperwork also mentions disability. I can't link it as i'm still a noob here but it's section 12 that you're after.

12. The lender will cancel the borrower’s liability to repay the loan if the borrower—

(a)dies,

(b)is not behind on any repayments under any agreement for a student loan and—

(i)was under the age of 40 when his last agreement for a student loan was made and he reaches the age of 50 or when the last agreement for a student loan has been outstanding for not less than 25 years, whichever is the sooner, or

(ii)was aged 40 or older when his last agreement for a student loan was made and he reaches the age of 60, or

(c)if the borrower can show the lender that he gets a disability related benefit and because of his disability is permanently unfit for work.

So in the case of the lady in question, if she is permanently unfit for work, she should go to her doctor and get this confirmed in writing. She should then gather evidence that shows she has disability benefits which shouldn't be difficult.

mikedon

my partner (we own a house together) went over the threshold last year and so didnt fill in the daf. erudio have never taken any money and the first correspondance received since last year was a few days ago, to say that the account was in arrears. my partner says 'screw them' and isn't going to bother contacting them to try and sort it out as the loans were mis-sold in the first place. what can erudio do in this case? what possible outcomes are there? have they taken anyone to court yet?

JeLaw

Sorry if I'm missing something as I haven't had a chance to read through many posts, but isn't it sort of good in a way that the DAFs aren't being sent out?

I really, really don't want to sign their DAF - and would only use it if they accepted an edited (by me) version.

If they're not sending them out surely people can just defer by letter and/or with their own version of the DAF (based on the template Anna posted last year)?

My deferment isn't due yet. Are people here now just signing Erudio's DAFs without amendments? I'm nervous about doing this.

JeLaw

anna2007 wrote: »

Edit: Cross post with 'Ibreakwind' Thinking about it, to qualify for the extended deferment period, the borrower has to show income's unlikely to be above the threshold for the next 3 years, so not as straightforward as evidence of disability benefits. Not sure how to 'show' that, probably a letter from the borrower's GP?

Yes, I've received disability benefits in the past and that alone doesn't qualify you for the extended deferment period. You have to send evidence such as a GP or consultant's letter.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

JeLaw wrote: »

Sorry if I'm missing something as I haven't had a chance to read through many posts, but isn't it sort of good in a way that the DAFs aren't being sent out?

I really, really don't want to sign their DAF - and would only use it if they accepted an edited (by me) version.

If they state that customers will get the DAF eight weeks prior to the end of deferment and they fail to send them out, then it is a failure of service. I don't consider that a good thing. When this is also leveled up against the Reminder letter possibly being printed out before the DAF, then there are serious questions to ask.

erudioed

Not forgetting erudio's apology was for a problem no one actually reported, significantly undermining 'customer' confidence. I cant remember another issue where Erudio has been left so wide open to so many, with every step they take leading to more questions. With the DD thefts, they managed to get away with software error, but this has clear evidence of human decision making leading to an escalatingly ridiculous outcome (and we havent arrived yet at the end of the issue...the complaints/ombudsman for example, and unforeseen things that may pop up).

BorderReiver14

mikedon wrote: »

my partner (we own a house together) went over the threshold last year and so didnt fill in the daf. erudio have never taken any money and the first correspondance received since last year was a few days ago, to say that the account was in arrears. my partner says 'screw them' and isn't going to bother contacting them to try and sort it out as the loans were mis-sold in the first place. what can erudio do in this case? what possible outcomes are there? have they taken anyone to court yet?

At first glance, Erudio is at fault here because your partner did not renew deferment as they were over the threshold and thus it was Erudio's responsibility to collect payment. You don't say if your partner had a DD set up? They had a responsibility to contact your partner and give a date for collections to start last year. Your partner should also have had an annual statement?

There could well be a good case of misselling and there have been suggestions that the loans are unenforceable but its still early days. A read through these pages will give you more info on that.

If Erudio can build a case against your partner and take them to court, I am sure they would but only if the case was watertight. DCAs with dubious practices would rather hope threats get desired results. Your partner has admitted to being eligible to pay (i.e. has no right to defer while income is over threshold). For ESL to take court action though would require them to terminate the agreement. A massive step they would only take if they were confident and something they wouldn't dare if the loans were unenforceable.

GinOClock

I received my DAF yesterday. It had an A4 page with Erudio's 'apology' enclosed. It advised the deferment date in the enclosed letter was incorrect and that it had been extended. There is no mention of any deferment dates in any of the correspondence and I now have no idea when my form is due.

Erudio couldn't organise a prayer in a Mosque! :mad: