ERUDIO student loans help

Brooker_Dave

But who to complain about the miss-sold loans to?

Banksters

Dave

Complain to both Erudio and SLC. The reply from SLC is likely to be ludicrous. But complain to both. SLC will pan you off to Erudio, but please complain to both. I will explain why another time.

erudioed

Banksters wrote: »

Dave

Complain to both Erudio and SLC. The reply from SLC is likely to be ludicrous. But complain to both. SLC will pan you off to Erudio, but please complain to both. I will explain why another time.

As far as im aware, BIS that was forced to put together the deal to sell the loans by the Chancellor, so any reply SLC gives would be irrelevant. As for a complaint to Erudio, that would be doubly irrelevant and the last institution on the planet worth wasting time on such a complaint to. Complaints to Erudio are only for its pathetic service attempts and breaches.
However, maybe you are seeing something beyond my sphere of sight, so please do illuminate me. Who would someone go to when the government has decided to sell of a state asset, made up its own process to do so, chosen a bid by a company that openly lies and has been doing so for years, palmed off the only route to protest to a regulatory authority, run by ex-business people, primarily interested in keeping some of the worst finance based companies trading in our free and open stinkhole?

GinOClock

Another reason to register a complaint with FOS if you are dissatisfied.

From the FCA Dispute Resolution handbook on complaints procedures, section 1.3.2A:

These procedures should, taking into account the nature, scale and complexity of the respondent's business, ensure that lessons learned as a result of determinations by the Ombudsman are effectively applied in future complaint handling, for example by:

(1) relaying a determination by the Ombudsman to the individuals in the respondent who handled the complaint and using it in their training and development;

(2) analysing any patterns in determinations by the Ombudsman concerning complaints received by the respondent and using this in training and development of the individuals dealing with complaints in the respondent.

Whether Erudio do this in practice is a moot point. But its worth considering.

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

As far as im aware, BIS that was forced to put together the deal to sell the loans by the Chancellor, so any reply SLC gives would be irrelevant. As for a complaint to Erudio, that would be doubly irrelevant and the last institution on the planet worth wasting time on such a complaint to. Complaints to Erudio are only for its pathetic service attempts and breaches.
However, maybe you are seeing something beyond my sphere of sight, so please do illuminate me. Who would someone go to when the government has decided to sell of a state asset, made up its own process to do so, chosen a bid by a company that openly lies and has been doing so for years, palmed off the only route to protest to a regulatory authority, run by ex-business people, primarily interested in keeping some of the worst finance based companies trading in our free and open stinkhole?

I agree erudioed, BIS is responsible for the sale and this mess, it's BIS we should complain to on mis-selling. Their complaints procedure, including the relevant ombudsman (via your MP), is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-innovation-skills/about/complaints-procedure

A complaint to the Independent Assessor might be an option, although our rights as far as that goes aren't clear, if I have time over the weekend I'll get an FOI request into BIS on that. But a complaint that originates at the time of sale should definitely qualify, and maladministration is specified as grounds for complaint. The Assessor can only make recommendations though, and BIS/the Secretary of State can refuse them (which they did 4 times according to the last annual report from the Assessor). That seems to make a mockery of the whole process, and looks like a ridiculous waste of taxpayers' money. There should be strict procedures/protocol to follow when BIS do refuse recommendations, to show they're not p!ssing public money away, so I'll add that in to the FOI.

In the absence of funds to properly see this out in court, BIS's ombudsman looks like the better option.

anna2007

Any maths nerds out there (apologies in advance to the non-nerds )? I need help explaining this formula Erudio gave to explain calculation of daily interest rate applied on their annual statement. I did check it at the time and thought it seemed ok (according to them, their calculation for the following year turned out wrong, I complained the current year was wrong), but I must have lost a few brain cells since and can't fathom it out now - it looks like they're just adding 1, then taking it away, then dividing by 12 so they can multiply by 12... when all they have to do is divide by 365? (forget the rest of their sh!te on that page, I wasn't in arrears, didn't get their 'remedy letter', it's all complete BS (FOS accepted that part at least), so their formula no doubt is too.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgmwoedwzzdbruj/4c%20Erudio%20Response%20131114%203%20of%204.jpg?dl=0

I checked the interest applied in my 2008 SLC statement against online interest calculators, and none of them arrive at the interest applied by SLC. If it's wrong, that's extra evidence in enforcing the FOS decision back to 2008. The 1998 Regulations say "Interest will be calculated daily on the amount of the loan outstanding and will be added to the loan monthly". So interest is compounded on a monthly basis? If anyone with some knowledge of the sums can explain it, it would be a huge help. I can PM details of the amounts, if that helps.

BaffledByErudio

I thought I'd simmer down once granted deferment, but I'm perhaps more bloody p1ssed off by Erudio this year than in previous periods where I had little struggle to be granted deferment.
While I always have an axe readily swinging from my brow at the c-nuts in government who sold this neat little package off, I'm equally ready to quiz the lucre-thirsty w@nkchimps who bought such a perculiar portfolio at 1980's white dog turd rates, when they knew the 'customers' were unlikely to be millionaires. Or at the very least, unlikely to be earning not more than a Mcwage than the minimum salary.
OK, I've been out for a beer or two. I'm entitled. lol.
Mingling with folk in my local. As the music thuds, I'm glancing across at studious-looking 18-year-old girls. And I'm thinking about them. Oh yes, I'm thinking about them. I'm only flesh and blood!
Yes. 18-year-old girls. A year on from now. All skint and vulnerable. All eager to please, to learn, to have fun. And I'm thinking about them.
I'm off down to London at the end of this month and I'm feeling like organising some kind of demo against a certain !!!! at this address! https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/1+king's+arms+yard+london+ec2r+7af/@51.5152815,-0.0889411,3a,75y,241.45h,61.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI9F6-Plsa8K_g3Hh2megWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x79b00b06298a8511!6m1!1e1

Banksters

Erudioed / Dave

I am saying complain to both Erudio and SLC over the mis selling as SLC was the originator of the loans under the Consumer Credit Act. That is why you need a !!!!!!!! response from SLC, and Erudio. Add in BIS if you want.

The reply from SLC is likely to void your loans, but if you do not want to complain, that is up to you.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

anna2007 wrote: »

I received the deferment reminder letter from Erudio in the post this morning...

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.

I don't readily come to conclusions which label a company or individual as crooked but in this case it seems the only rational conclusion to draw. I've been away for a week on other things so have returned to the forum to read this asnd the 28th April MSE report on Erudio and it is incredible that Erudio are allowed to continue to spin these yarns.

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.

Quite true.

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.

It is sad that I now have tattered envelopes from the start of Erudio's ownership just in case there is evidence that might be useful! From the MSE article that I would link to if not for my noob status, Erudio say that the deferment date letters will be posted and then received within three days. That gives you an idea of the speed of the service, certainly less than first class post. That is pretty contemptible to my mind. They've screwed up, they will rectify things but they won't actually do it quickly.

anna2007

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect wrote: »

That gives you an idea of the speed of the service, certainly less than first class post. That is pretty contemptible to my mind. They've screwed up, they will rectify things but they won't actually do it quickly.

They can act quickly when they want to - I received the reminder letter last Thursday, emailed a formal complaint about the reminder and my missing DAF on Friday, 4.59pm. Received their final response letter on Wednesday, sent by RM First Class the day before. FOS complaint sent off Thursday, so I can act quickly too if I want to

The fact they rushed in sending a final response certainly shows. They claim to have sent my DAF on the 14th, even though the print date shows the 15th, and date on covering letter is the 16th. They haven't disputed that it takes at least a week from printing to delivery. If they're going to meet their obligation to supply a DAF to borrowers at least 8 weeks before deferment end, and want to continue using snail-mail, then they have to send out DAFs 9 weeks before, quite simple really.

They also said the issues covered in the first MSE article/the post on their own website didn't apply to me, despite receiving their reminder letter before the DAF, which eventually turned up 9 days late.