ERUDIO student loans help

FuriousFeline

Erudio should be giving every 'customer' who has been affected by their (deliberate?) incompetence a specified new date for the end of their current deferment period, giving sufficient extra time to compensate for the DAFs having been sent out late. I have already put in a complaint about them not doing this, and will be taking it to the FOS if they do not reply (which they haven't done so far). By sending all 'customers' affected a general apology letter with no specified new end date for each individual concerned, Erudio knows very well that, for legal purposes, the only date customers have in writing is the original one, so it will then very likely attempt to screwdio them over by trying to collect payments the day after the original end date, thereafter promptly accusing 'customers' of defaulting if they're unable to collect the money.

GinOClock

I agree absolutely, FuriousFeline.

Can we get the MSE reporter to chase them up on this? In the MSE article it did say the date would be extended by 56 days. But this is looking like Erudio decided this initially in a panic and quietly rescinded this offer.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

@GinOClock

There should be a page in the DAF stating when your deferment ends. This will be the first page with a large blue box talking about their online portal, amusingly entitled "We've made it simpler to apply for your deferment". The Important Notice apology letter states you have an additional 56 days in which to defer. In the eyes of Erudio, that combined with the first page is enough.

As said earlier, if their standards of service were truly professional then they would write to everyone personally and tell them their specific date.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

FuriousFeline wrote: »

By sending all 'customers' affected a general apology letter with no specified new end date for each individual concerned, Erudio knows very well that, for legal purposes, the only date customers have in writing is the original one, so it will then very likely attempt to screwdio them over by trying to collect payments the day after the original end date, thereafter promptly accusing 'customers' of defaulting if they're unable to collect the money.

If they were to collect payments the day after the deferment ended and made any accusation of customers defaulting, and those customers were armed with both the original deferment date letter and the Notice giving them 56 extra days, I'd say that it would open them up to charges of harassment and deception and that the FOS would be swamped.

FuriousFeline

I wouldn't put it past them to try and stick to the original deferment end date in my case though, as I haven't received the generic apology letter from them, despite being one of the 'customers' affected. I got my DAF sent off a couple of days ago, so they had better get it processed and approved within the next couple of weeks if they think they're still holding me to the original date.

GinOClock

I'm not at home so I can't check the document but did the apology letter not say the date has been extended so you have 56 days to defer? That's slightly different to extending your deferment date by 56 days.

JeLaw

I agree that Erudio's delay/not sending out DAF forms is bad behaviour (not surprised at what they do anymore) - but I'm just a bit concerned that if this is complained about too much, any attempts to not use the DAF or use an amended version won't hold as much weight.

I'm not feeling 100% today so maybe I'm not thinking straight.

ETA. Surely if people aren't receiving DAFs on masse, it makes it easier to simply defer with a letter and/or amended DAF - as it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the lack of urgency on the part of Erudio in getting DAFs to people shows their DAFs are not a requirement for deferral.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

The wording on the Important Notice reads:

"Your original deferment end date detailed on the enclosed letter is incorrect.

Your deferment date will be extended to ensure you have 56 days to apply for deferment. In addition, the maturity date on your loans will be extended to ensure there will be no financial detriment"


Now I admit that I've taken that as meaning the deferment date had been extended by 56 days, in my case taking it from 19th May to 56 days later in July. Gloriously optimistic on my part!

If it's 56 days from the date on the letter, in my case 30th March, then my deferment date has been extended from May 19th to May 25th. But here's the problem: I didn't receive the DAF until 14/4 and it included the Important Notice issued on 5/4, indicating Erudio held onto that DAF and did not post it on March 30th. So the extension if it is from March 30th still doesn't give me 56 days to complete the DAF from the receiving date of 14/4 to the deferment original date of 19/5 or the extension date of 25/5.

Short version: the extension still doesn't cover 56 days.

The recent MSE article wrote:

"Your deferment date will be extended to ensure you have 56 days from the date your application form is sent to apply for deferment."


If this is the case, then it is WRONG by Erudio's own words. Quoting from the Erodio website (26/3/15):

"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."


RECEIVE. Not sent. I'm sorry if this looks fussy but there is a major difference between the two.


So I sit here being told by Erudio in writing that the deferment date has been extended with absolutely no idea what date they are starting from when working out this 56 day period.

Omnishambles. Erudishambles. Call it whatever you like. It's slapdash and amateur.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

GinOClock wrote: »

I'm not at home so I can't check the document but did the apology letter not say the date has been extended so you have 56 days to defer? That's slightly different to extending your deferment date by 56 days.

Quite so. But what date are they starting from to begin that 56 days calculation? My DAF is dated 30/3 and was received 14/4, a two week gap. If they're starting the calculation from 30/3 then I'm still two weeks behind schedule because of their incompetence.

FuriousFeline

Erudio aggressively reminded the worried 'customer' in the discussion on Mumsnet that she must allow them at least 28 days in which to process the form (quote: "It says in bold letters it takes at least 28 days for it to be assessed and I must pay on the due date if I don't allow enough time.") Remember that there are two bank holidays coming up in May, so the chances are that Erudio won't assess our forms in time for the revised deferment end date (whatever that's supposed to be), then perhaps even try to blame us by claiming we didn't allow them at least 28 days (which I assume are working days). With so many people in the position of having been sent DAFs late, it seems likely that Erudio won't have approved 'customers' for deferment by the end of May at least. Whether they then have the cheek to go ahead and immediately demand payment from us remains to be seen. They certainly won't be getting any from me, regardless of what they say.