ERUDIO student loans help

FuriousFeline

Thanks for that link- it's interesting to see the responses of other people commenting on there. If I were the OP, I wouldn't pay and I would ignore any threats from Capquest. There is no way I would try to pay them and let a 5 year old child suffer as a result. I would leave it to see if they actually had the nerve to take me to court.

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

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.

Is there anyone here who posts on Legalbeagles and can point out the enforceability issue with the old SLC statements? It sounds like the OP has nothing to lose and if the court agreed that the agreement is unenforceable, Erudio will have to fix the statements before they can recall the loans, and also wipe all interest from 2008 onwards. And that's at least a £300 million can of worms they'd be opening.

BorderReiver14

They do say that Erudio did not contact them at their old address or make use of email/telephone? Does Erudio have copies of the letters and DAF applications that were sent with dates to the old address? What about an annual statement? Did they organise a royal mail forwarding on service?
Makes me sick thinking of that bairn!

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

That's from here:

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

I did chuckle at the post a little further down that thread saying how SLC were not much better. I had a horrific time in my final university year with them losing my mail. The absolute nadir was the afternoon spent with a uni loans administrator. She talked to them, I talked to them, and eventually we faxed my documentation over to SLC whilst talking to an SLC representative by the fax machine who confirmed they had arrived.

A week later I received a letter saying they still hadn't received the documents. I called them up and they confirmed this. I've never sworn on a customer service line before or since. Eventually the university themselves stepped in. Things started to change.

After that enormous fail, the SLC did improve hugely and I didn't have any problems with them right up to the sale to Erudio.

Brooker_Dave

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect wrote: »

I did chuckle at the post a little further down that thread saying how SLC were not much better. I had a horrific time in my final university year with them losing my mail. The absolute nadir was the afternoon spent with a uni loans administrator. She talked to them, I talked to them, and eventually we faxed my documentation over to SLC whilst talking to an SLC representative by the fax machine who confirmed they had arrived.

A week later I received a letter saying they still hadn't received the documents. I called them up and they confirmed this. I've never sworn on a customer service line before or since. Eventually the university themselves stepped in. Things started to change.

After that enormous fail, the SLC did improve hugely and I didn't have any problems with them right up to the sale to Erudio.

I've sent everything recorded delivery to Erudio, and kept the receipts in a safe place since they're so slippery.

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

Is there anyone here who posts on Legalbeagles and can point out the enforceability issue with the old SLC statements? It sounds like the OP has nothing to lose and if the court agreed that the agreement is unenforceable, Erudio will have to fix the statements before they can recall the loans, and also wipe all interest from 2008 onwards. And that's at least a £300 million can of worms they'd be opening.

Can Erudio even flog the loans to Capquest if they are yet to solve the enforceability issue?

erudioed

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Can Erudio even flog the loans to Capquest if they are yet to solve the enforceability issue?

They didnt. There are a few assumptions in that post in question that are incorrect. Arrow Global purchased Capquest, and they only do the job Capita did, which is all the customer service side.
Arrow Global no longer need to pay an outside agency to outsource the real work to, they can pay themselves, and better keep all the 'tactics' in-house without making any outside agency complicit.

anna2007

Didn't Arrow Global buy out Capquest a while back? So Capquest is Arrow Global and Arrow Global is Erudio (which only exists on paper as a 'Special Purpose Vehicle', whatever that really means) and all of them are Erudio Customer Management Ltd, the 'new' servicer of our loans. So no loans have been sold on, they're just being passed around different parts of the same dodgy setup, probably for equally dodgy reasons.

Edit: Cross-post with Erudioed

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

erudioed wrote: »

They didnt. There are a few assumptions in that post in question that are incorrect. Arrow Global purchased Capquest, and they only do the job Capita did, which is all the customer service side.
Arrow Global no longer need to pay an outside agency to outsource the real work to, they can pay themselves, and better keep all the 'tactics' in-house without making any outside agency complicit.

Although Capquest for accounting purposes and deniability purposes can also be used as an outside agent. If anything fouls up, they can be blamed. I'd love to see how everything ties together in terms of accounting chains.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

anna2007 wrote: »

Didn't Arrow Global buy out Capquest a while back? So Capquest is Arrow Global and Arrow Global is Erudio (which only exists on paper as a 'Special Purpose Vehicle', whatever that really means) and all of them are Erudio Customer Management Ltd, the 'new' servicer of our loans. So no loans have been sold on, they're just being passed around different parts of the same dodgy setup, probably for equally dodgy reasons.

From Investopedia:

Thanks to Enron, SPVs/SPEs are household words. These entities aren't all bad though. They were originally (and still are) used to isolate financial risk.

A corporation can use such a vehicle to finance a large project without putting the entire firm at risk. Problem is, due to accounting loopholes, these vehicles became a way for CFOs to hide debt. Essentially, it looks like the company doesn't have a liability when they really do. As we saw with the Enron bankruptcy, if things go wrong, the results can be devastating.


So our loans were bought as debt but might not show up in the parent companies accounts as liabilities. So it's debt that exists enough for people to buy but might not exist on paper.

On Tuesdays I might exist as a small tree frog but not on paper.