ERUDIO student loans help

GinOClock

I did have a look at the MSE article, and there is a paragraph near the top:

Since being contacted by MoneySavingExpert.com, Erudio has said it will be mailing missing forms out and has agreed to extend the deadline to apply for deferment by 56 days.

Did Erudio tell porkies to MSE?

FuriousFeline

Yes, that is at odds with what Erudio say on their website. Either Erudio lied to MSE or MSE got the wrong end of the stick.

GinOClock

I already had a FOS complaint ongoing when this all kicked off, so I added this to my complaint, included the MSE article and directed the Ombudsman to extend the deadline by 56 days. We'll see what they say.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

GinOClock wrote: »

I did have a look at the MSE article, and there is a paragraph near the top:

Since being contacted by MoneySavingExpert.com, Erudio has said it will be mailing missing forms out and has agreed to extend the deadline to apply for deferment by 56 days.

Did Erudio tell porkies to MSE?

In my case, the deadline is May 19th. An extension of 56 days to that deadline is different to the deadline being extended from 56 from when the forms were sent (30th March for me) or received (14th April for me).

So the new deadline date is completely ambiguous. There's no indication of what that deadline date is. That is simply not acceptable.

erudioed

Erudio has been interpreting the 8 weeks to mean 8 weeks after its correspondence is dated. However, as a few have pointed out, this is actually 7wks 6 days...the only thing thats 8 wks is that stamp running that extra day down the side of the letter. So which date is a company allowed to claim as the date? The date on the letter or the printing date? Erudio uses the printing date....but what is legally right? Anyone who wants some evidence erudio uses the sidestamp date, please PM me.
Either way, i dont think its right, i think the sales and Purchase agreement means the DAF should arrive 'no less that 8 wks before' to the persons house.
I also note that this was a discussion some were having on the forums around the 8wk period when we 1st noticed the DAFs hadnt arrived, in fact one i made at the top of my twatter page with a link to the S&P agreement, with the noted Clause. It is no surprise now that Erudio has changed the language to move away from the 8wks to the 56 day one.
Its clear to me no less than 8wks before was intended to mean we would 'have' the DAF no less than 8wks before (with Erudio having to make sure it arrived to us no less than 8 wks before after factoring in printing, mailing and a few days to arrive), and not Erudio's interpretation which is 8 wks after its own DAF covering letter sidestamp is dated.
I contend, and this is where we can all nail them, that Erudio's interpretation breeches the S&P agreement and they should get a mighty big fine from the ombudsman, and hopefully be forced back in line for all deferments after this episode ends. And then we all have person complaints about this on a personal level showing erudio is playing with/bullying us.

GinOClock

Agreed. I think there is a law (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts perhaps) whereby, if the terms in the consumer contract are ambiguous, then the interpretation that is most favourable to the consumer applies.

I think that should happen here

erudioed

If thats true its great news, its going to be very hard for Erudio to wriggle out of it, or for the ombudsman to rule against the complaint if someone isnt happy with Erudio's reply. It would be great to see that Law siding with the consumer.
Erudio's apology/reason why opens it up even more because it has wrongly identified the problem. Erudio isnt exactly stellar in instilling consumer confidence. I actually think Arrows deliberately suggested a distracting excuse for why the DAFs didnt arrive because they know they will have no leg to stand on if we target the 8wk clause. However, it hasnt worked so far, so i cant wait to see how this plays out.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

erudioed wrote: »

Erudio has been interpreting the 8 weeks to mean 8 weeks after its correspondence is dated. However, as a few have pointed out, this is actually 7wks 6 days...the only thing thats 8 wks is that stamp running that extra day down the side of the letter. So which date is a company allowed to claim as the date? The date on the letter or the printing date? Erudio uses the printing date....but what is legally right? Anyone who wants some evidence erudio uses the sidestamp date, please PM me.

For my situation, the deferment ends on May 19th. The DAF should have been there on Friday 25th, Good Friday, so it should have been with me on Saturday 26th. As it wasn't printed until the 29th of March and the DAF was dated 30/3 and I didn't receive it until 14/4, then whatever way they try to spin things they failed to deliver 8 weeks prior to the end of my deferment. If it's similar for other people, then it's a systematic failure.

Either way, i dont think its right, i think the sales and Purchase agreement means the DAF should arrive 'no less that 8 wks before' to the persons house.

Yes, it's clear as crystal there. The Deferment Administrator will supply deferment forms and a letter to all Borrowers with loans in deferment "not less than eight weeks before the expiry of the deferment period".

It is eyeopening to see that the S&P Agreement allows Erudio to take up to 28 business days to process these forms during the peak months of March to May. 6 weeks to process?!!

Its clear to me no less than 8wks before was intended to mean we would 'have' the DAF no less than 8wks before (with Erudio having to make sure it arrived to us no less than 8 wks before after factoring in printing, mailing and a few days to arrive), and not Erudio's interpretation which is 8 wks after its own DAF covering letter sidestamp is dated.

Absolutely. The S&P Agreement doesn't allow any wriggle room there. Having the online portal doesn't cover it either as it is not compulsory to use the portal. The forms and letters have to be with the borrower eight weeks prior to the end of the deferment period.

I contend, and this is where we can all nail them, that Erudio's interpretation breeches the S&P agreement and they should get a mighty big fine from the ombudsman, and hopefully be forced back in line for all deferments after this episode ends.

Agreed.

erudioed

As such, if it was found guilty of breaking the S&P contract rules, it would be breaking the contract with the government, not us, which i assume is exactly what they want to avoid at all costs. I am assuming a government fine would be very hefty. Who knows though, maybe the government doesnt move against contract breaking? It seems odd to me they wouldnt though if it went through the correct channels.

BorderReiver14

Sad to say but if it is not impacting the government, will they really give a $h1t. One of their chief aims is to off-load as much public sector debt (and responsibilities) to the private sector.