ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

And i may add that they didnt send the form out 8 weeks before your deferment deadline for the 2nd successive year, as it states in the S&P agreement.
The fact that someone has been forced to follow the issue up, and then if they dont get a satisfactory/honest response from Erudio, i think it will be inevitable you will be compensated if found to have a good case. But more importantly Erudio will be fined for its deceitful tactics if found guilty, and more importantly than that, hopefully the DAFs will arrive no less than 8 weeks before deferment deadline as they should. Once again restoring balance to the supposedly simple process of deferment. A balance that is yet to occur at this time of year for the 3 years since Erudio took control.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

AReeves wrote: »

I think JeLaw make a very good point. I totally agree.
He has hit the nail on the head in my view.

Anthony

100% disagree. Mr Erudioed has gotten there before me. They are separate issues. Complaining about one doesn't nullify the failure causing the other complaint. In my case, I have always signed the DAF. Why should I cease my complaint about a breach of contract in failing to supply the paperwork because others who didn't sign the DAF have a different complaint?

AReeves

I understand and respect your view, but disagree. It is always good to have a healthy debate with different opinions.

Breaching the terms of the S&P Agreement is not, in my opinion, the same as breaching Terms of the Loan, as I have mentioned before because the borrowers are not parties to the S&P and Third Party Rights are excluded. However, I understand that they might be messing around with sending out the DAFs to make it more difficult to defer and that would be evidence of an unfair relationship etc.

I wonder, is the Government really going to take action for a breach of the S&P? I don't know. Would the Government really want to take back the management of the loans?

I would agree with the comment that you would want to ascertain if they have breached any terms of the loan.

I hope expressing a different view is not too outrageous.

I do acknowledge that Erudioed and others on here have done a lot of work and have a lot of insight into the issues and so I could be wrong.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect wrote: »

100% disagree. Mr Erudioed has gotten there before me. They are separate issues. Complaining about one doesn't nullify the failure causing the other complaint. In my case, I have always signed the DAF. Why should I cease my complaint about a breach of contract in failing to supply the paperwork because others who didn't sign the DAF have a different complaint?

anna2007

My deferment's up 9 June, so I make that 2 days ago (at the latest) that a deferment pack should have arrived, if Erudio had sorted their !!!!!! out. Just back home after a week away, and nothing in the post from Erudio.

I guess that proves Erudio were telling porkies (yet again) in the MSE article:

Erudio has subsequently apologised to those impacted by its error (LIE!) and stated that it has performed a "thorough review" of its procedures (LIE!), identified the issue (LIE!), concluded that it was an isolated incident(LIE!) and has put additional measures in place to ensure it is not repeated (LIE!)

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

AReeves wrote: »

Breaching the terms of the S&P Agreement is not, in my opinion, the same as breaching Terms of the Loan, as I have mentioned before because the borrowers are not parties to the S&P and Third Party Rights are excluded. However, I understand that they might be messing around with sending out the DAFs to make it more difficult to defer and that would be evidence of an unfair relationship etc.

I wonder, is the Government really going to take action for a breach of the S&P? I don't know. Would the Government really want to take back the management of the loans?

Nobody has said that the breach of the S&P is the same as breaching the loan. They've said that they are separate issues.

The 56 day period is something the SLC stuck to (I have one such form sat right here indicating when my deferment period was ending: the letter is dated Christmas Day 2013!). It was considered important enough to put in the terms of the sale as was the element about allowing Erudio more processing time in peak periods. Both are connected as I shall explain.

I'll allow Erudio to speak for themselves about the 56 day period. From their news release of 30/3/15:

These are normally sent out eight weeks before a customer's current deferment period is due to finish. These forms are sent out in batches and unfortunately some of these were delayed in sending. These have now been distributed and customers should have still received them in plenty of time to allow for completion and return before the end of their current deferment period.

And 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.

And 5/4/16:

We apologise unreservedly to those customers affected for any inconvenience caused. To resolve this issue and ensure it does not happen again, we have performed a thorough review of our procedures, identified the issue, concluded that it was an isolated incident and have put additional measures in place to ensure it is not repeated. We will be contacting all the customers impacted in the next few days. Their deferment date will be extended to ensure they have 56 days to apply for deferment. In addition, the maturity date on their loans will be extended to ensure there will be no financial detriment.

So it is entirely reasonable for a customer to expect a DAF to be with them eight weeks/56 days before the deferment ends based on the following criteria:

a) How deferment was handled by the SLC
b) The terms of the S&P Agreement
c) Erudio's own words.

My DAF should have been here on 25/3. It arrived on 14/4. The letter was dated 30/3. If Erudio's 56 day extension is started from the printed date of the letter (30/3), then my deferment has been extended to 24/5 from 19/5. I have to assume they will take the maximum 28 business days permitted to process the deferment. 28 business days back from and including 23/5 (and not counting the 2/5 Bank Holiday as a business) is 14/4.

In other words, in order to guarantee that I would have my forms processed before the end of my deferment, Erudio would need to receive my completed DAF form on April 14th.... the same day I received my DAF :money:

That's why folk like me are looking at this situation with incredulous eyes.

Here's a question: Without that 56 day element being in the S&P Agreement, what actually holds Erudio to sending forms out in decent time?

The government won't be the ones to take action. It should be the FCA.

FuriousFeline

@Ibreakwind what are you going to do if Erudio haven't processed your DAF in time, then immediately demand payment from you? If they try this on with me, I am going to tell them to shove it. They won't be able to help themselves to money from my account as I cancelled the DD two years ago as a result of all the stories I was hearing about them doing just that.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

FuriousFeline wrote: »

@Ibreakwind what are you going to do if Erudio haven't processed your DAF in time, then immediately demand payment from you? If they try this on with me, I am going to tell them to shove it. They won't be able to help themselves to money from my account as I cancelled the DD two years ago as a result of all the stories I was hearing about them doing just that.

The Reminder letter as I have taken to calling it states that my deferment period ends on 19/5 and that my next payment is due on 20/5.

The 56 day extension Erudio have announced renders this date void but there is no date given in writing for either the end of the deferment period or when the first payment is expected to be paid to Erudio.

If they take money prior to deferment, then Section 9.1.3 of the S&P Agreement covers backdated deferment. I will ask for the money to be repaid.

What I have to determine is whether I have a direct debit set up. You may recall that last year there were problems with payments. I was told on the phone that several direct debits had been deleted, mine included. This was then contradicted by Erudio in writing a month or so later when they accused me of having deleted the direct debit. My complaint letter to them was completely unanswered and they considered the matter ended. This was not the case at all for me and I have suitable evidence from my bank to show that it was Erudio who deleted the direct debit and not myself.

anna2007

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect wrote: »

Without that 56 day element being in the S&P Agreement, what actually holds Erudio to sending forms out in decent time?

We have more than the S&P agreement to rely on, our own loan terms, Regulation 10, Schedule 2 of the 1998 Regulations:

Each deferment period will last for 12 months beginning on a date the lender tells the borrower I]which will be from deferment end for a current deferrer[/I. This date will be not more than three months before or two months after the date the lender accepts the borrower’s deferment application. The borrower can end the deferment period at any time. To do this he must tell the lender in writing when to start collecting payments from his bank account.

My take on this is that it gives both the borrower and lender a five month window to meet their obligations on deferment. For a current deferrer, it means you can have your deferment application accepted up to 2 months before, but no more than 3 months after your current deferment ends. It's saying don't be late in making your application to defer, it'll only be back-dated a maximum of 3 months (probably to deter borrowers getting into arrears/defaulting) and the lender needs time to process it. For the lender, it means they can accept a deferment application up to 2 months before deferment ends (reasonable to put a limit on it, otherwise the borrower's declared income might not be relevant anymore to the deferment period applied for), but also gives the lender time to process the application (as well as allowing a borrower's late application).

Making DAFs available to deferred borrowers 8 weeks prior to deferment end is perfectly reasonable and sensible, given the time constraints set out in the Regulations, so that both sides have time to meet their obligations on deferment. It's also fair, as it recognises the borrower's right to have deferment accepted up to 2 months before deferment ends. As long as borrowers make a deferment application within the 5 month window (allowing for the maximum 28 days for processing), and meet the requirement of Regulation 9 (shows evidence of income being below threshold), then they can defer (not may defer, the lender has no discretion whatsoever).

None of this confirms that Erudio must send out DAF packs 8 weeks before deferment end, but I read the Regulations as borrowers having the right for an application to be accepted 2 months before deferment end. SLC and BIS, even Erudio, recognise that. And if Erudio want to meet their legal obligations on deferment and genuinely want to 'treat customers fairly', it's in their own interests to send the DAF packs out in good time, but with Erudio profit has to take priority.

I'd also say the 28 business days allowed to process a deferment application is ridiculously generous. I had my deferment confirmed within four days of Erudio receiving it last April (March to May is the peak period according to the S&P agreement, when 28 days are allowed for processing the application, rather than the usual 21 days). I know another borrower whose deferment was confirmed last year within 48 hours. All that the Erudio monkey has to do is check income evidence to declared income, and that it's below the deferment threshold, then update the borrower's account to record the new deferment. If it takes 28 business days to do that, the monkeys probably need more training!

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

@Anna2007 I shall have to add the 1998 Regulations to my bookmarked links alongside the S&P Agreement

I accept that there might not be anything that says DAF packs must be sent out 8 weeks prior to deferment end but is it a case that one could rightly assume from previous SLC service, the S&P Agreement, and Erudio's own promises as detailed earlier that you could expect it? I have composed a complaint letter to them asking for written confirmation of their policy regarding the delivery of DAF packs.

erudioed

if we are able to be deferred 2 months before, we can only do it if we have the stuff to hand surely. And there is only one place the dafs can come from...Groupenerudio HQ.
its yet another one of those things that can be read 2 ways if someone wants to be real awkward. but its pretty clear to me it is meant to mean we should have the dafs to hand no less than 8 weeks before...but certainly not 5 weeks before.
Erudio are clearly interpreting it to mean 8 weeks from its printing date. But then theres the issue of not sending them out to delay arrival for 2 successive years. Such things stack up and will work against them.