ERUDIO student loans help

teffers

Finally received a letter of confirmation from Erudio that my 1997 loan is Statute Barred (I told them that lol).

That took a cool 18 months from my intial reply to come through.

Hopefully that's my journey with the organisation at an end.

Good luck to everyone else with them.

Lungboy

I didn't think Student Loans could be statute barred?

e: maybe I'm misremembering and confusing it with not being written off with bankruptcy?

FuriousFeline

Just did a Google search for recent posts about Erudio, and found this one. As you can see, Erudio failed to change the poster's address details and did not attempt to contact him/her another way. They have now announced to the poster (who has income beneath the threshold for deferment) that Capquest will be seeking repayment of the loan in full, which is something the poster cannot afford and which is likely to cause significant hardship to the poster and his/her son. @erudioed you might want to highlight this case on your Twitter page. http://www.bankcruptcy.co.uk/?q=node/214541

Pluthero

They certainly can be statute barred.

Oh if only we had all run away from our deferment responsibilities over six years ago.

Honest deferrers. What fools we were taking out these loans with their very generous terms and religiously sticking to them:'(

anna2007

If you look at the 'Master Definitions Schedule', information released with the S&P agreement, it includes "PSB Servicing Population", defined as 43,157 Borrowers. PSB must mean 'Potentially Statute Barred', as there's a clause in the S&P agreement with this heading (although the clause itself is redacted).

If you exclude the 43,000 borrowers whose loans are 'Potentially Statute Barred', that leaves 57,000 borrowers "not repaying their loans in accordance with their loan terms", another 35,000 in repayment, versus 115,000 borrowers entitled to defer. So loans in deferment are by far the biggest group, yet they're worthless to Erudio, as they're not entitled to any repayments from these borrowers... probably why they insist on trying to force and coerce deferrers into arrears/repayment.

There's a copy of the master definitions schedule at the bottom of this page:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sale_of_mortgage_style_student_l_2#comment-63276

erudioed

anna2007 wrote: »

If you look at the 'Master Definitions Schedule', information released with the S&P agreement, it includes "PSB Servicing Population", defined as 43,157 Borrowers. PSB must mean 'Potentially Statute Barred', as there's a clause in the S&P agreement with this heading (although the clause itself is redacted).

If you exclude the 43,000 borrowers whose loans are 'Potentially Statute Barred', that leaves 57,000 borrowers "not repaying their loans in accordance with their loan terms", another 35,000 in repayment, versus 115,000 borrowers entitled to defer. So loans in deferment are by far the biggest group, yet they're worthless to Erudio, as they're not entitled to any repayments from these borrowers... probably why they insist on trying to force and coerce deferrers into arrears/repayment.

There's a copy of the master definitions schedule at the bottom of this page:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sale_of_mortgage_style_student_l_2#comment-63276

You have just nailed something stone dead with that one Anna! That makes things make quite a bit more sense now.

I was thinking the other day if there is a web forum somewhere for those who have let things slip or done a runner and being chased. Ive seen odd posts but nothing significant.

Brooker_Dave

FuriousFeline wrote: »

Just did a Google search for recent posts about Erudio, and found this one. As you can see, Erudio failed to change the poster's address details and did not attempt to contact him/her another way. They have now announced to the poster (who has income beneath the threshold for deferment) that Capquest will be seeking repayment of the loan in full, which is something the poster cannot afford and which is likely to cause significant hardship to the poster and his/her son. @erudioed you might want to highlight this case on your Twitter page. http://www.bankcruptcy.co.uk/?q=node/214541

So is this the future MO?

Erudio (the pretend charity/shell company) does not bother communicate with loan holders, and then having failed to actually run the loans in a competent/responsible/ethical manner pretends that the loan holder have defulted.

The loans are them somehow transferred to Capquest (presumably loan holders can demand to see proof of this) who turn the screws and get the money for the offshore shells who the government (traitors) virtually gifted our loans to at a fraction of their value?

But all this assumes the loans are enforceable?

Brooker_Dave

FuriousFeline wrote: »

Just did a Google search for recent posts about Erudio, and found this one. As you can see, Erudio failed to change the poster's address details and did not attempt to contact him/her another way. They have now announced to the poster (who has income beneath the threshold for deferment) that Capquest will be seeking repayment of the loan in full, which is something the poster cannot afford and which is likely to cause significant hardship to the poster and his/her son. @erudioed you might want to highlight this case on your Twitter page. http://www.bankcruptcy.co.uk/?q=node/214541

But what does this have to do with Capquest anyway?

Surely the only ones who can demand repayment would be Erudio Ltd?

If this went to court surely no judge would find in Erudio/Carval's favour?

FuriousFeline

Arrow Global/CarVal are at the heart of it, so they probably just regard Erudio and/or Capquest as minions whose job it is to carry out their dirty work.

Brooker_Dave

FuriousFeline wrote: »

Arrow Global/CarVal are at the heart of it, so they probably just regard Erudio and/or Capquest as minions whose job it is to carry out their dirty work.

That's from here:

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?79893-Further-Erudio-Woes!&p=641773#post641773

Looks like they don't hold out too much hope for a happy ending.

But surely the onus on Eurdio is to prove to a court that they had acted in line with the agreement and in line with industry standards, note they managed to write to him to call the loan in, but not to send out any forms.

This was last year, perhaps it was practice for this year, how many people this year will have not received anything, and will end up in Capquest's hands?

Plus can Capquest take this to court, or would Mark Filer's Erudio have to launch proceedings?