ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

Here's a beginner's guide to 'The Big Short':
http://time.com/money/4236516/the-big-short-movie-explained/

Maybe it's not just the borrowers being played by Arrow Global/CarVal, but investors too? The entire loan book has been portrayed by both BIS and Arrow Global as 'bad debt', when the vast majority of the loans are performing as intended (with 35,000 borrowers in repayment, 115,000 in deferment with upcoming loan cancellation). We can forget the 43,000 borrowers with statute-barred loans. That leaves 57,000 borrowers with 'bad debt', less than 23% of the "quarter of a million" borrowers referred to in BIS's press release on the sale. David Willetts also misled the BIS Select Committee's inquiry, by describing the entire loan book as underperforming.

Are the investors who have bought up our repackaged 'bad' debt aware of the fact that over 77% of the loans aren't bad debt at all? And for the vast majority of those, no payments will be made at all. If investors are under the impression that it's all bad debt, they probably think it's a safe investment, what with Arrow Global being so good at debt collection.

Our loans are the equivalent of the American sub-prime mortgage debt, only difference is that that most of the mortgage borrowers couldn't repay, whereas we don't have to repay. Either way, the debt isn't being repaid. The issue around enforceability of the debt might be relevant to all of this too.

So what's the 'Mini Short' with our own loans? Have most investors backed the wrong outcome? Are there a few investors who know the loans won't be repaid and are backing that outcome (the 'insurance' aspect of The Big Short story), so will receive huge payouts? One thing's certain, it won't be Arrow Global and CarVal who lose out (and they have the added bonus of loan warranties under the S&P agreement).

gardenia101

Lordy, it's been busy on here lately - will try & catch up again, but wondered if anyone else has received a Reactivation of Interest letter recently?

Although I've STILL had no communication from Erudio about why my account was in CCA remediation/frozen, I'm going to be charged interest from 01/05/16 @ 0.9%. They "needed to undertake an independent internal review of their systems & procedures to confirm they were operating in line with certain obligations under the CCA".

I wonder who the independent reviewer was, & why they they mention only certain obligations - are they not obliged to comply with all the requirements of the CCA?

Only taken the best part of 2 years to do this & oddly enough, they found that there are no problems with my account.... but I've been telling them that for a while now. Still don't really understand it all, but they've promised to send me a "full statement which will detail exactly when interest wasn't being accrued". A full statement would be nice as I've never received one from them.

A minor victory - at least this letter was in large print :T

No word from FOS about my second complaint, but it's only been about 6 weeks so I expect it will be a while.

Thanks to all who are still fighting this company.

Pluthero

@teffers

Well played sir. I wish I had by accident or design done the same.

We are being governed by a corrupt political class. They don't tax multi national companies, looking at you Google, Amazon, etc etc. They evade their own taxes and line the pockets of their banker/business Buddies.

Of course this was always the way the rich behaved, and I never really cared.

However the ideological class war that is AUSTERITY has really facked off a vast majority of people. The veil has fallen from their eyes, as we have seen by recent street protests.

The ERUDIO sell out is just a tiny sliver of the neolibrealist wet dream this country is living through: they want to monetise every god dam thing.

But you can always fight back, never give in.

#rant mode off :-)

anna2007

I received the deferment reminder letter from Erudio in the post this morning, same as the earlier ones others have reported on here, letting me know that repayments are due to start at the end of the current deferment, and that "a deferment form is being sent to you under separate cover". I still haven't received a deferment pack, which is now 8 days late.

The letter's dated 16/04/2016, and the print code date at the side of the letter is 150416 - full code is CPQ103_150416_9962_MACHINE\1941\4145\1of2. As the MSE article was published on 6 April, it's proof that everything Erudio stated in that article is a lie - it wasn't an isolated incident, and they haven't put extra measures in place to ensure the errors aren't repeated. It's now clear that the delays in sending out DAFs are a deliberate and underhand attempt by Erudio/Arrow Global to prevent our legal right to deferment.

At least I now have evidence to take a complaint to FOS. What makes my blood boil though is Erudio/Arrow Global's arrogance in thinking they can get away with publicly telling blatant lies - that hole they started digging for themselves in the MSE article two weeks ago is getting deeper.

Another thought on Erudio's proposed 56 day extension to the deferment period - the 1998 Regulations allow for the deferment to be backdated by up to 3 months from the date the application's accepted. There's no way I'm agreeing to my deferment date being moved at all (Erudio tried to move it forward one month with no explanation the first year I applied to them and I got it moved back). I don't know why Erudio are so keen to move the deferment date forward, but we can be sure that the motives will be for their own benefit, not ours. And the Regulations/loan terms only allow a 12 month deferment period, there's nothing in there to say it can be extended.

There's no need for deferment dates to be extended, as Erudio have 3 months beyond deferment end to process the application. What's actually needed is an assurance/guarantee from Erudio/Arrow Global that they will not start taking repayments from borrowers, or place accounts in arrears, when there are delays in deferment processing brought about by their own errors/deliberate tactics in sending out DAF packs late.

Someone mentioned that letters are now sent by UKMail, so there's no date-stamp on the envelopes to prove when we received them. There's a Royal Mail code in the top right corner though - the C9 refers to RM's 'Condition 9 access agreement', then the number (10045, which is 'Adare' I think) is the licence number under the agreement. The delivery times will no doubt be in that agreement, so hold on to the envelopes, as we might be able to find out more on that, and show that it takes at least another 5 days from the date on Erudio's letter to arrive.

FuriousFeline

@anna2007 Erudio having sent you a reminder letter but no DAF despite the negative publicity about them in the press a few weeks ago (and a statement appearing on their website) shows that they are well and truly taking the piddle now. I hope you get in contact with Lucinda Borrell to inform her of this latest development.

Banksters

@Anna2007 - About late DAF delivery. Yes, likely more scamming by Erudio. Please see your messages, I PM'd you about the agreements. I have sent two of the JPEGS you put up instead.

Fair Treatment

We should be being "treated fairly", that is Erudio's legal obligation. The more evidence of unfair treatment the better. I've worked out also if each of the 35,000 people who are repaying, are due a refund for the Annual Statements Consumer Credit Act errors, then it is about 35,000 x £150 circa = £5,250,000. I have contacted a Consumer Credit Act expert and am waiting on a response.

Sale of Student Loans Act 2008

I have come across errors also made by the government over the sale. I will put more up in due course.
As far as I am aware Vince "Calamity" Cable's crew did not inform students in the time frame when they should have. They could claim that the SLC did, but the Purchase Agreement states that SLC is its own entity. So SLC is arguably not the Secretary of State.

Sale of Student Loans Act 2008 quoted below:

Under the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008, regarding, if student loans were ever sold on by the Student Loans Company Ltd, it states that:

“(7) The Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to notify the borrower within three months of transfer arrangements taking effect. “ 1

1 Quoted from: 1 Sale of Student Loans , Section 1 (7), Student Loans Act 2008."

I never had any communications from the Secretary of State over the sale. SLC is its own entity. In theory the Secretaty of State should have wrote to all of us separately.

And this is important from the same act:

"“(6) But in amending loan regulations the Secretary of State shall aim to ensure that no borrower whose loan is transferred is in a worse position, as the result of the amendment, than would have been the case had the loan not been transferred.” 2"

2 Quoted from 5 Loan Regulations Section 5 (6), Student Loans Act 2008

I think many are now in a worse off position. eg Money taken from bank accounts without permission, late delivery of forms, emotional blackmail over CRA's etc. Add in the Purchase Agreement evidence, and the case against them is building nicely. Most judges would see sense with this I think.

Cheers.

Keep fighting everyone. Badger them with complaints.

Banksters

Please email something like this to Sajid Javid. You can add in that the DAF's have been sent late this year as more evidence, of us being in a worse position.

"Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,
1 Victoria Street
LONDON
SW1H 0ET

Tel: 020 7215 5000

Email: enquiries@bis.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sir

I write as I have had terrible trouble with Erudio Student Loans who have bought some of the old Student Loans Company Ltd loan book.

Under the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008, regarding, if student loans were ever sold on by the Student Loans Company Ltd, it states that:

“(7) The Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to notify the borrower within three months of transfer arrangements taking effect. “ 1

1 Quoted from: 1 Sale of Student Loans , Section 1 (7), Student Loans Act 2008.

I need to ask please, to see some evidence of the “reasonable steps” that the Secretary of State took to notify borrowers that the government had sold the said borrowers’ loans to Erudio Student Loans. I would think reasonable steps, might have been a letter from the Secretary of State? I would like to see copies of the letters sent. If no letters were sent by the Secretary of State, what “reasonable steps” were made? I would argue that a reasonable step, should be a letter in this instance. I have received nothing from the Secretary of State.

I must also make you aware of other parts of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008 which are now affecting my position:

“(6) But in amending loan regulations the Secretary of State shall aim to ensure that no borrower whose loan is transferred is in a worse position, as the result of the amendment, than would have been the case had the loan not been transferred.” 2

2 Quoted from 5 Loan Regulations Section 5 (6), Student Loans Act 2008

I am now in a worse position because of the transfer to Erudio Student Loans, as they are threatening to report deferment of the loans to Credit Reference Agents. When I took the loans, I was under the impression, that the loans would never affect my credit rating in any way, as long as I was deferring or repaying the loans, and not in default. Erudio has “moved the goal posts” in this area, in an arguably deliberate attempt to scare people into repaying loans, that are perfectly entitled to be deferred. I think Erudio has done this opportunistically and it is in bad taste. I am now worse off because of this.

There are other issues, where the loan regulations have been changed by Erudio. For example, Erudio stating that it may pass my data outside of the EU. This again, has put me in a worse position.

I would like you to write to Erudio Student Loans Ltd, and ask them to remove any notion that a person in deferment will be reported to Credit Reference Agents. I also ask that you ask them to also remove the notion that applying for deferment is a “credit decision”, as stated by Erudio. The credit was given many years ago, and it is ludicrous to suggest that the borrower may be applying for new credit by applying for deferment.

Please also forbid them from passing borrowers’ data outside the EU.

I look forward to getting the evidence of what reasonable steps were taken, and to you confirming that some action is being taken to prevent all ex-student borrowers from now being in a worse position.

Yours faithfully"

anna2007

FuriousFeline wrote: »

I hope you get in contact with Lucinda Borrell to inform her of this latest development.

Already have FuriousFeline Spoke to Lucinda yesterday about the delayed DAF, then emailed a copy of Erudio's letter this morning. I'll send it on to MSE's Callum too, as it's his name on the original article.

anna2007

Banksters wrote: »

@Anna2007 - About late DAF delivery. Yes, likely more scamming by Erudio. Please see your messages, I PM'd you about the agreements. I have sent two of the JPEGS you put up instead.

Thanks Banksters, I'll try what you've suggested in your PM

Banksters wrote: »

I've worked out also if each of the 35,000 people who are repaying, are due a refund for the Annual Statements Consumer Credit Act errors, then it is about 35,000 x £150 circa = £5,250,000

That figure must be per year, since 2008?! Add every other borrower who's been charged interest from 2008 and since paid off their loans. Plus interest credited on every deferred account from 2008 until Erudio eventually put it right. Also interest on accounts in arrears/default (assuming defaulted accounts must be corrected too). It's a serious amount of interest.

On the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008, I think this Act only applies to the later ICR loans? As far as I know, the Education Student Loans Act 1990 (with an update in 1998 to 'faciltate' sale to the private sector) is the only one relevant to our MS loans.

anna2007

I see that Erudio updated the story on their website re the missing DAFs on the 19th:
http://www.erudiostudentloans.co.uk/news/default.aspx?itemid=MbjWIl1j

Does anyone have a screenshot of the original story? Interested to know what changes have been made!

Edit: Found Jill18's previous post with the original story - the only significant change seems to be the addition of "Their deferment date will be extended to ensure they have a minimum of 56 days to apply for deferment".