ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

anna2007 wrote: »

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.

Indeed, the only problem they acknowledged was one none of us had. That really is a crafty move. They are obviously standing by the problem being that they did send DAF packs out but missing either the cover letter, the DAF or the booklet explaining how to fill the DAF out. As such, you didnt have the same problem as the only one they admitted to. All that stuff in the article about the reality of 7000+ of us, which was your problem of getting the reminder letter first, was just stuff the journalist wrote, not what Erudio says it was. They cannot admit that they just didnt send the DAFs out no less than 8 wks before the deadline....at any costs.
As such, this is Erudio's tactic: Name a different problem to divert attention away from the fact that they broke the S&P agreement, then make out that our (the real) problem only affected how many of us go to the Ombudsman. If 100 of us complain, we will be compensated. However, if they admitted breaking the S&P agreement, maybe they would be forced to contact all those 7000+ and compensate them, as well as being given a hefty fine by the authority who would deal with such a gross case of misconduct.
Shame the last article by Lucinda didnt challenge Erudio's original apology. It seems like Erudio are within site of the winning post! They took a gamble. Last year it worked, it wasnt a big issue. They tried it again this year, but got rumbled. Now they just have a small fine to come. I just hope thousands are encouraged to complain so we can put a stop to this from happening every year.

erudioed

Oh Anna, despite the slightly sarcastic tone of the above comment, great stuff! No surprise you will be one of the first drawing your broadsword with the Ombudsman and skewering a few (more) notes from the Erudio bank balance.

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

Indeed, the only problem they acknowledged was one none of us had. That really is a crafty move. They are obviously standing by the problem being that they did send DAF packs out but missing either the cover letter, the DAF or the booklet explaining how to fill the DAF out. As such, you didnt have the same problem as the only one they admitted to.

A DAF missing from their pack, whether intentional or accidental, doesn't change the fact that the DAF's late! They do admit to reminders going out before DAFs, and to DAFs being late, that's what I've based the complaint on - did I get an unnecessary reminder, and was my DAF pack late. They've tried to dispute it by saying a form was sent before it was printed, a blatantly obvious lie that we can only hope FOS pick up on. The only (quite simple) problem that needs solving with the FOS complaint is did I receive my DAF within the required 8 weeks? I've given FOS evidence that the DAF must be provided at least 8 weeks prior to deferment, and Erudio didn't meet that requirement. The rest is up to FOS, but if they don't side with that one, something's seriously rotten in Denmark!

Edit: In the face of Erudio's obvious lies about 'missing' DAFs, the only option really is to complain to FOS if your DAF's late. The more people complain (there are at least 7000 of you!), the more it costs Erudio/ArrowGlobal in FOS fees, the more likely FCA might eventually get their finger out (seems to be based on number of complaints), and it might just make Arrow Global think twice about trying that one on next year.

Pluthero

Edit: In the face of Erudio's obvious lies about 'missing' DAFs, the only option really is to complain to FOS if your DAF's late. The more people complain (there are at least 7000 of you!), the more it costs Erudio/ArrowGlobal in FOS fees, the more likely FCA might eventually get their finger out (seems to be based on number of complaints), and it might just make Arrow Global think twice about trying that one on next year.

Also ERUDIO/ARROW GLOBAL/CARVAL will be bidding for ANY future Loan SELL OUT. Lets show the Regulators they are QUITE obviously not a fit and proper 'Company' to be allowed any more Student loans.

74% of FOS complaints upheld in favour of the consumer. Bearing in mind how hopeless the FOS are at dealing with the actual aspects of some of our complaints this is an INCREDIBLE FIGURE!

Incapable for 2 years running of sending out DAFs on time or at all!

KEEP COMPLAINING FOLKS.

anna2007

anna2007 wrote: »

In the face of Erudio's obvious lies about 'missing' DAFs, the only option really is to complain to FOS if your DAF's late. The more people complain (there are at least 7000 of you!), the more it costs Erudio/ArrowGlobal in FOS fees, the more likely FCA might eventually get their finger out (seems to be based on number of complaints), and it might just make Arrow Global think twice about trying that one on next year.

Here's a copy of my complaint on the delayed DAF, along with the supporting evidence needed. If your DAF was late, please consider taking a complaint to FOS - if Erudio won't publicly admit to sending out DAF's late, then a mountain of FOS complaints/fees might get them to toe the line.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/macw2egbek8793x/AAAlBZsr3yLb3COiXKmiPCdya?dl=0

The 'Formal Complaint to Erudio' doc is what I emailed to complaints@erudiostudentloans.co.uk The only thing I attached was a copy of their reminder letter.

'FOS Complaint template' is what I sent to FOS, if you want to use it, just add in the relevant dates. Copies of the supporting evidence are all there, the only things you'll need to add is your emailed complaint, Erudio's final response letter, and your own reminder letter/DAF covering letter.

It's really easy to submit a complaint to FOS, it can be done online now, just copy/paste your complaint in and upload your attachments:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

GinOClock

FOS allows 25 free cases to each business every year.

So in 2015, Erudio had 144(H1)+93(H2)-25=212 chargeable cases.

At £550 a case that is an annual bill of £116,600.

anna2007

GinOClock wrote: »

At £550 a case that is an annual bill of £116,600.

Add to that around £15,000 in compensation - rough average of £100 per upheld FOS complaint. The average compensation can only go upwards, I'm sure FOS must be getting fed up with Erudio complaints. Ignoring FOS decisions probably won't go down too well with the ombudsmen either

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

I'm sure FOS must be getting fed up with Erudio complaints.

Do the FOS actually care?

It would seem that both the FOS and the FCA don't really care about Erudio/Carval's shortcomings and dishonesty?

There must be some regulator further up the food chain who can tackle this?

Shame the press does not care about 250,000 people being stiffed by loan sharks working out of a taxhaven...

GinOClock

Still no word on amended deferment date here.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

anna2007 wrote: »

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.

Oh yes, I've had remarkably quick service from them before. I've written a complaint letter to go out today asking for clear written clarification on a variety of issues relating to the 56 day application mark. As you say, it's a simple case of sending it out 9 weeks prior to deferment end, something that shouldn't b taxing with modern computer systems (or even archaic old ones from 20 years ago).