ERUDIO student loans help

CloudsinSky

erudioed wrote: »

I thought BIS is a government body?

BIS is a Government Department - Business, Innovation & Skills (sorry if you knew that) so yes, covered by Freedom of Information. I can't remember in all this endless information delving and overload how I first realised they were connected with student loans, but I did email their enquiries unit with some of my concerns and got a standard response that probably is the same as others here have referred to? So it was neutral, unspecific, and not directly addressing all of our concerns but some important info nevertheless that HM Government should have sent all of us borrowers to notify us of their intentions to sell off before we first heard from Erudio/SLC themselves, 3 months later and after the fact. Instead all the Govnt gave us was a press release, which escaped my attention. What a terrible lack of courtesy, apart from anything else. "Leaked it out like a fart at a wedding".

My sentences are getting too long so I should go to try and sleep.

For all of you concerned about the direct debit issue - this Student Loans Company webpage says What if I currently make repayments by Standing Order, cheque, Postal Order or continuous card repayment do I need to do anything?
Yes, you will have to contact Erudio Student Loans Ltd to set up new arrangements with them.
I'm not allowed to post links, so go to the student loan repayment website and root around.

That probably doesn't help much, but it just shows that SLC did accept payment by other means.

Erudio are obviously not a government body and so not covered by FOI, that's what I was saying (just in case you thought like me that you might put in an FOI request for some revealing statistics on the way they're handling things and the outcomes). Can't remember detail of the post about an FOI request to BIS? I'm glad if people are willing to do stuff like that, but also a bit depressed that we are just an isolated minority that the govnt can ignore in the same way they do all the other isolated minorities at the sharp end of some of the aggressive austerity measures. And I think however angry and upset we all are, perhaps most of us won't suffer so much as some others with greater hardships to deal with as a result of the cuts.

The Govnt won't go back or admit their wrong. If we're reasonable about how it isn't working as it should be and needs improvement, then we may get heard.

Rosskie

Case wrote: »

Does anyone know if the original regulations still apply concerning the provision of bank statements which as per the government website state:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this regulation, a borrower shall be entitled to defer making repayments of his loan if—

(a)he satisfies the loans administrator—

(i)that this gross income for the month preceding the month in which he applies for deferment does not exceed the product of £1,267 and the annual adjustment,

Link for these terms? These aren't on the credit agreements (98), are they relevant?

Cheers

erudioed

@cloudsinsky Yep, my thought was for someone to put in a freedom of information request for all info on the due diligence test BIS conducted, or any related subject about this sale, but specifically the due diligence information.

anna2007

rizla_king wrote: »

Read the loan agreements posted here and elsewhere. It is quite clear. While having a DD in place is a minor term of the agreements, it is not one that allows them to refuse deferments or recall the loan if you do not. That is why they are having to give way if pressed on that issue.

I agree that the loan agreement and legislation only require repayments to be made by DD, there's nothing in there to say that a DD must be in place during periods of deferment.

However, Erudio are choosing to interpret any failure of the customer to set up a DD to be a breach of your agreement. They have stated as much on the DD form (p. 2 of 6) of the deferment application form:

"You are required to maintain a direct debit mandate for your repayments regardless as to whether your repayments are deferred. Failure to do this constitutes a breach of your agreement".

Someone on the Mumsnet forum posted yesterday that their deferment has been granted, and the letter states the same as above re: maintaining a DD, i.e. no DD, even during a period of deferment, means breach of contract terms, therefore they're free to chase you for the whole amount and say that you're no longer entitled to cancel the loans after the 25 years (the cancellation term states that, in order to qualify, you must not be in breach of any obligation to them). I'm guessing this is what they're up to, it's just one of the dirty tricks they'll use to say you've breached your obligations under the loan agreement, even though we interpret it differently. I'm sure the reason Erudio are giving way when pressed on the DD issue is because they want you to refuse to set up the DD, and then claim you've breached the terms.

I think the only way to avoid this is to set up the DD (score out the above statement on the DD mandate if you haven't returned it yet), but let them know you're disputing Erudio's interpretation by making a formal complaint, and if they refuse to change their position, you can then take the complaint to the FOS and an independent adjudicator will rule on the interpretation. Unfortunately, any decision made by the FOS only applies to that individual complaint, but the FCA has the power to intervene if enough people complain to them (I have zero faith in industry regulators after dealing with Ofcom last year, but maybe the FCA take their role seriously).

You have the protection of the DD guarantee in the meantime (any recovery action should be on hold until your complaint's resolved), which means your bank will immediately refund any payments taken in error by Erudio.

Having to go through all of this is a complete pain in the behind, but I can't see any other way of avoiding Erudio's claim that you've breached the agreement, and I doubt they'll change their minds without FOS/FCA involvement.

anna2007

Rosskie wrote: »

Link for these terms? These aren't on the credit agreements (98), are they relevant?

Cheers

Education (Student Loans Act) 1990 (repealed in March 1998):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/6/section/1/enacted

The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/1401/contents/made

rizla_king

anna2007 wrote: »

However, Erudio are choosing to interpret any failure of the customer to set up a DD to be a breach of your agreement. They have stated as much on the DD form (p. 2 of 6) of the deferment application form:

"You are required to maintain a direct debit mandate for your repayments regardless as to whether your repayments are deferred. Failure to do this constitutes a breach of your agreement".

Yes but also under the terms only certain breaches entitle them to refuse deferment or demand the loan back in full.

Not maintaining a DD is not a breach that allows them to do that. That clause does not have the teeth you think it does.

Which is why they are deciding with people that they can't insist on it.

rizla_king

anna2007 wrote: »

Education (Student Loans Act) 1990 (repealed in March 1998):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/6/section/1/enacted

The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/1401/contents/made

Those terms with that wording are in neither of those.

rizla_king

Those terms with that wording were all from the 1993 to 1997 regulations, all of which have been revoked and do not now apply to any loan no matter what date it was taken out.The regulations had to be revoked completely and remade each year to change the deferment threshold, meaning that it was only ever the current set that applied to ALL loans.

The final current regulations for the mortgage style loans are the 1998 ones that set the threshold differently, and so have never been revoked and remain in force.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/211/schedule/2/paragraph/9/made

rizla_king

anna2007 wrote: »

However, Erudio are choosing to interpret any failure of the customer to set up a DD to be a breach of your agreement. They have stated as much on the DD form (p. 2 of 6) of the deferment application form:

"You are required to maintain a direct debit mandate for your repayments regardless as to whether your repayments are deferred. Failure to do this constitutes a breach of your agreement".

Yes but also under the terms only certain breaches entitle them to refuse deferment or demand the loan back in full.

Not maintaining a DD is not a breach that allows them to do that. That clause does not have the teeth you think it does.

Which is why they are deciding with people that they can't insist on it.

anna2007

For anyone unhappy with Erudio passing your deferred loan details onto the credit reference agencies - I came across this yesterday when looking at the Data Protection Act 1998:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/15/paragraph/10


10. Schedule 2 to the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 (loans for students) so far as that Schedule continues in force shall have effect as if the reference in paragraph 4(2) to the Data Protection Act 1984 were a reference to this Act.

I think this means that you have the more extensive protections given under the 1998 Act, rather than the 1984 Act originally referred to. This is good news, because Erudio have to obtain your consent before they can pass on your loan details to the CRA's (obviously why they have sneakily added the fair processing notice to the deferment form, to try and obtain this consent). This is a condition of processing laid down in the 1998 Act, there's more info here on the Information Commissioner's Office website here:

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/conditions_for_processing#consent

This effectively means that Erudio are in breach of the loan agreement if they insist on passing your details on when you haven't consented to it - more grounds for complaint to the FOS/FCA!