ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

So, Erudio says in a rush it printed off the packs with the original dates. Were the sidestamp timecode not also just a day later than the date on the letter though?
If the print date is the same, even though it is printed 2/3 weeks later, isnt that evidence of date tampering?
Either way, Erudio continues with its lie about actually sending out DAFs before when it didnt, thus trying to deflect us from complaints on mass. Its trying to control and confuse the story in my opinion. Its just a shame they werent interrogated about the first lie about not sending out DAFs that Erudio posted and still keeps on its website.

GinOClock

According to this FOS decision, Erudio will, after a year or so, terminate your agreement and pass you to a DCA if you don't defer:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=111653

Reading this decision they seem to be taking a hard line. I'm surprised FOS weren't more supportive of the customer given they accepted the borrower had likely sent a letter confirming their change of address.

Brooker_Dave

The DCA would presumably be arrow?

Brooker_Dave

GinOClock wrote: »

According to this FOS decision, Erudio will, after a year or so, terminate your agreement and pass you to a DCA if you don't defer:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=111653

Reading this decision they seem to be taking a hard line. I'm surprised FOS weren't more supportive of the customer given they accepted the borrower had likely sent a letter confirming their change of address.

FOS always side with Erudio

anna2007

GinOClock wrote: »

According to this FOS decision, Erudio will, after a year or so, terminate your agreement and pass you to a DCA if you don't defer:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=111653

Reading this decision they seem to be taking a hard line. I'm surprised FOS weren't more supportive of the customer given they accepted the borrower had likely sent a letter confirming their change of address.

It's so obvious Erudio have played that situation to their own advantage, nothing new there. I agree FOS should have been more sympathetic, not just because they thought the letter had likely been sent, but the fact Ms L had applied to defer just before that and also notified them of a previous change of address? It's clear she wasn't trying to dodge Erudio.

There's some pretty dodgy facts in the decision - if deferment ended March 2015, Erudio should have sent a DAF pack in January (which has a return address on the back of the envelope), but Erudio's 'records' show it wasn't returned to them as undelivered until after October. And Erudio shouldn't be getting rid of [STRIKE]evidence[/STRIKE] email correspondence relating to a previous deferment application, surely that should go on the borrower's file. Did FOS check if there was an email address recorded on the last DAF (assuming Erudio hadn't chucked that too)?

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

FOS always side with Erudio

74% upheld in our favour says different Although granted, none of those upheld decisions resolved any of our legal gripes.

A letter arrived from my FOS adjudicator this morning, about Erudio not complying with the decision on my annual statements (they have to "waive all interest for the period of the incorrect statement(s)". If Erudio don't sort it in 14 days, they're escalating it to the FCA - it's 6 months since the decision.

I emailed FOS to say I'll be starting court proceedings to enforce the decision if Erudio don't comply in that time, as it's obvious they're choosing to ignore the Regulators, as well as the law governing our loans. I attached a copy of the non-compliant statement from 2008, and asked them to refer it to FCA, as there are potentially 445,100 borrowers (yep) needing redress for the historical errors. I can't see Erudio having a problem with that, seeing as they're so keen to put right the non-compliant NOSIAs, remove interest, etc and have warranties on the loans... but why should those warranties still be valid if Erudio breach other terms of the S&P agreement?

BaffledByErudio

GinOClock wrote: »

According to this FOS decision, Erudio will, after a year or so, terminate your agreement and pass you to a DCA if you don't defer:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=111653

Reading this decision they seem to be taking a hard line. I'm surprised FOS weren't more supportive of the customer given they accepted the borrower had likely sent a letter confirming their change of address.

You know, it really does amaze me just what Screwdio are getting away with.
Yeah, alright, technically they're 'doing what the terms and conditions of the agreement' allow, but they're obviously (in my opinion) playing the system to their advantage.
It's baffling how they get away with it.
With their eagerness to know every little titbit of info about us, I see it as highly unlikely they wouldn't retain someone's email address. Only when it's convenient for them would, I imagine, they do this.
And as for this mysterious spate of disappearing mail to Erudio, I can only assume somewhere on the planet there is a huge, 30-mile deep chasm, filled to the brim with undelivered letters and deferment forms.
I have NEVER known any firm, individual or organisation that has such a massive problem receiving its post. The only bloody way you can guarantee they'll get something is if you get it signed in triplicate by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and have it photocopied and recorded in the National Archives!
And because we ALL know these tactics, be they buffoonery or unscrupulous, are the tools Erudio enjoys putting to good use, I find it alarming the Ombudsman rules in their flipping favour!
I guess we've just got to make sure we ALWAYS stay firmly on the kosha path between their stupid blurred lines and grey areas!

Brooker_Dave

Surely all this just confirms that we were all miss sold?

Banksters

Well done Anna. That is great news about the Annual Statements, and is exactly as I was hoping. There may also be Data Protection issues added in, as the data would not be correct. I don't know for sure about that. I don't know how to do quotes on here.

"A letter arrived from my FOS adjudicator this morning, about Erudio not complying with the decision on my annual statements (they have to "waive all interest for the period of the incorrect statement(s)". If Erudio don't sort it in 14 days, they're escalating it to the FCA - it's 6 months since the decision.

I emailed FOS to say I'll be starting court proceedings to enforce the decision if Erudio don't comply in that time, as it's obvious they're choosing to ignore the Regulators, as well as the law governing our loans. I attached a copy of the non-compliant statement from 2008, and asked them to refer it to FCA, as there are potentially 445,100 borrowers (yep) needing redress for the historical errors. I can't see Erudio having a problem with that, seeing as they're so keen to put right the non-compliant NOSIAs, remove interest, etc and have warranties on the loans... but why should those warranties still be valid if Erudio breach other terms of the S&P agreement?"

As I mentioned in a PM, I am happy to contribute to any court fees to set a precedent. Hopefully we can all help? If you need help like that, send me details of the lawyer.

I have brought it to the attention of the FCA as well about the Annual Statements. Am awaiting respone from Consumer Credit lawyer, who could probably wipe the floor with Erudio.

There is a lot of other potential errors that have been hidden. I went through the whole Purchase Agreement, and made notes, I may post those on here, but they are large. Like I say, there is more we can get them on. I'll be very happy to see them having to refund interest to all people. Hopefully we could try to get people who have been refunded involved to contribute, then we could really screw them on other issues too!

Keep up the good work. Complain complain complain! lol

Banksters

If you have not already, Please go through the formallity to complain to Erudio AND SLC about the misrepresentation over the passing of data to CRA's. This is important, so as to provoke a response for the record.

Request copies of all agreements also as per Consumer Credit Act, Sect 77. As lots of agreements have errors, and some were not signed by SLC, so are technically not binding, as per their own terms and conditions.

Check back to your Welcome Pack, from Erudio and SLC. Make sure the letter from Erudio had "Notice of Assignment" as a heading, as many did not, so were probably not a correct notice. If you have not signed anything with Erudio, then arguably the Assignment / Assignation, was not carried out properly. The Fair Processing Notice was likely a scam to elicit a response.

I also agree Dave, mis selling.

Cheers