ERUDIO student loans help

NiceandAccurate

Has anyone else had issues with the new portal? I received my DAF late (shocker, I know) so decided to use the portal to speed things up. Submitted fine, got a pop up to say I would hear back within 21 days. Then, stupidly, I forgot all about it until a payment was taken from my account. I called them up to find out what was going wrong and they had no record of my application to defer.

I have since reapplied via email (although despite being assured email was an acceptable medium through which I could send the forms, I'm still waiting for them to acknowledge receipt, past the automatically generated reply).

anna2007

StressedHubby wrote: »

That's kind of what I'm thinking.....

I've done a search through the forum to see if there are any terms and conditions posted here but all I've found are posts talking about the legislation being the terms. For some reason I've not been able to find the legislation again despite looking! I must be doing something wrong as I've seen it previously (if anyone can post a link or PM me the details it would be massively appreciated!)

The key terms of our loan agreements are set out in the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998, these replace the related terms in the original loan agreements. See Schedule 2 here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/211/schedule/2/made

The remaining terms are in the original loan agreements and there are two versions, I think the post-98 agreement applies to loans taken out from Apri 1998. If you took out loans prior to this date, you would have remained on the pre-98 agreement for all subsequent loans. The data sharing clauses are at clause 16 of the earlier agreement, and clause 12 of the later one, copies here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4945901

It does sound like the document you have is the original loan agreement (headed 'Credit Agreement regulated by CCA 1974'), but this has to be read alongside the 1998 Regulations, as that's where the key terms now are. Hope this helps

Edit: Should have said, data sharing isn't covered in the 1998 Regs, will save you looking if that's all you want to check.

anna2007

NiceandAccurate wrote: »

Has anyone else had issues with the new portal? I received my DAF late (shocker, I know) so decided to use the portal to speed things up. Submitted fine, got a pop up to say I would hear back within 21 days. Then, stupidly, I forgot all about it until a payment was taken from my account. I called them up to find out what was going wrong and they had no record of my application to defer.

I have since reapplied via email (although despite being assured email was an acceptable medium through which I could send the forms, I'm still waiting for them to acknowledge receipt, past the automatically generated reply).

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the online portal, if they claim there's no record of an application. If you must use the online portal (although doing this means you have to accept all of their data sharing terms), then taking a screenshot of that pop up screen will at least prove an application was submitted.

I emailed my application the day after posting it, as a backup. It took 12 days for Erudio to reply to my email and confirm deferment. But I'd already received a letter confirming it, which took 8 days from date they received the postal application.

hamishmacbeth

Hi

Looking for some advice re threatened legal action from Erudio. I have previous SLC loans from 97. I always deferred them with SLC as I've never earned close to the threshold, the last year or so that they were managed by SLC I ended up missing deferment, then I didn't hear anything for a year or two until receiving correspondence from Erudio.

I'll hold my hand up and admit I've totally buried my head in the sand over all this, I had a mental breakdown a few years back after the strain of caring for a disabled child and a parent with a terminal illness and I've just not remotely dealt with any of this financial stuff.

I'm now about £5000 in arrears and Erudio are threatening legal action (although I'm fairly sure last years letter said something similar also). Im currently in a better place mentally and feel like I should try and deal sensibly with this but have no idea how to begin.

Reading here and Mumsnet it seems like trying to deal with them is a nightmare. I've never signed anything or responded to anything they sent, I did attempt a deferment pack once but was too scared to give them all the financial info and bank details they requested and it seems I can't defer until I pay arrears in one lump sum anyway. I can't remember when my last official deferment was but I suspect around 2011 with SLC.

Any advice gratefully received, I don't know if I should see a solicitor given it's gone so far but part of me thinks it's maybe unenforceable given that they have sent similar letters for the last few years, I haven't found any reference to previous court cases anywhere.

StressedHubby

anna2007 wrote: »

The key terms of our loan agreements are set out in the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998, these replace the related terms in the original loan agreements. See Schedule 2 here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/211/schedule/2/made

The remaining terms are in the original loan agreements and there are two versions, I think the post-98 agreement applies to loans taken out from Apri 1998. If you took out loans prior to this date, you would have remained on the pre-98 agreement for all subsequent loans. The data sharing clauses are at clause 16 of the earlier agreement, and clause 12 of the later one, copies here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4945901

It does sound like the document you have is the original loan agreement (headed 'Credit Agreement regulated by CCA 1974'), but this has to be read alongside the 1998 Regulations, as that's where the key terms now are. Hope this helps

Edit: Should have said, data sharing isn't covered in the 1998 Regs, will save you looking if that's all you want to check.

Anna, thank you so much for this. The worrying thing from what I see is that they are clearly trying to make people believe they do have permission to share data. If a borrower was to explicitly state that they did not give permission, and demanded to see proof of where they agreed to it, would Erudio be obliged to provide the proof or would it just be taken as read that they are right? Surely this would be a data protection issue as they have taken over the loan and are administrating it differently. Therefore should they not have sought our permission which we can recind at any time of our choosing??

BorderReiver14

In short the DAF they insist we use (unless courts have been involved they will not accept any other way to defer) is nothing but a method of unilaterally attempting to introduce additional variations to the terms and conditions of our original agreements and gather data they have no business collecting. DAF issue no.1 sought such permissions just in the very act of submitting it, DAF issue no.2 hides variations on their website with a disclaimer. Or there is the online portal they have kindly provided. Not giving permission is not an option and only results in not getting a (swift) deferment... and personally speaking I never take it as read that they are right.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

I have had a reply to my complaint letter along with a new DAF. I shall break down this letter with some points.

1. Erudio inform me that a system error meant my DAF was not issued when scheduled which resulted in the Deferment Reminder letter being sent out instead.

The DAF I was sent was dated 30/3 and received 14/4, obviously late. The Reminder was dated 30/3 and received 1/4. That means the Reminder was sent out 51 days prior to the end of my deferment period. This seems a bizarre time period to send out a reminder saying that my deferment period was soon to end when compared to the DAF pack being sent out 56 days prior to the end of deferment (or not as I shall elaborate).

2. "Our policy is to issue a Deferment Application Pack 8 weeks prior to the date a deferment is due to end and a pack was sent to you on 25th April 2016".

When I wrote to Erudio, I asked for clarification as to whether customers would receive the DAF 56 days prior to the end opf the deferment period or whether the packs would be sent out 56 days prior to the end. To me there is a clear and important difference. If DAF packs are sent out with 56 days to go and don't arrive for three or four days due to 2nd class post being used, then we as customers are not being given 56 days to complete the forms prior to the end of the deferment period.

The letter said I was sent a pack on April 25th. To date I have still not received this pack. Personally I do not believe Erudio's claim. There is no logic to them sending me a new DAF on April 25th as I didn't write to them until 4/5 to complain about the late arrival of my DAF on 14/4. I have made no telephone calls and sent no emails to them at any time.

I did receive a letter with my new deferment end period date confirmed. This was dated 10/5 and received 13/5. 10/5 to 19/6 (my new deferment end period date) is 40 days. A deferment reminder going out 6 weeks prior to the end of deferment is sensible. It does however beg the question as to why I was originally sent a deferment reminder 51 days prior to my original deferment period ending.

The new DAF and covering letter that arrived with me today has several differences. The return address is different (PO Box 514, Farnborough, GU14 4GP). Usual PB Box in a sorting office from what I can see on Google Maps. It's delivered by Royal Mail rather than UK Mail and has a post stamp on it (sent 18/5). No double sided printing here for the DAF and no print codes on the side of the pages.

In conclusion, the accompanying letter merely confuses things further and makes their claims to MSE look dubious. I shall complete my DAF, file it next week, write to Erudio and then issue a complaint to the FOS.

Jill18

So I've received a pretty poor FOS response today to my complaint re delayed sending out of DAFs for 2 years running. They seem to believe Erudio's lies, even that the forms may have been "lost in the post". I've copied the main points below.


Regarding 2015,
"I understand that you didn’t receive the letter. But I feel that it was sent and was perhaps lost in the post. "


Regarding 2016
"There’s no dispute that the deferred application form wasn’t sent to you when it should have. And you’ve sent us a letter the business sent to you on 31 March 2016 which told you that monthly payments were due from 25 May 2016. I’ve considered the full content of that letter. And I can’t ignore the statement on the letter which says "a deferment form is being sent to you under separate cover. If you do not receive the form within 14 days from the receipt of this letter please contact us".

I’ve also considered the statement that the business put on its website on 5 April 2016. In that statement, the business acknowledged that it was aware that the deferment application forms hadn’t been sent out and that it was working to rectify the problem. It also said the deferment date would be extended to ensure applicants had sufficient time to apply and that the maturity dates on loans would be extended.

I know that you contacted the business on 4 and 6 April 2016 and I can see that shortly after, they sent you the deferment application form. But I can’t say that your emails prompted them to send the deferment application form because their system notes show that the form had been requested before your emails were received. However, I’m also conscious of the fact that when the form was sent to, you still had time to complete and submit it. And indeed your deferment was accepted a month before the previous one had expired. In addition, I understand that the business extended your deferment period to June 2016. So you haven’t had a financial loss.
my conclusions
So I think that the business has acted fairly here. And I’m not asking them to do anything more.

BorderReiver14

Hi Jill18,

Are those the findings of an adjudicator or an ombudsman? Did they make note of the distress caused by Erudio's actions or make any comment on the fact that under the regulations DAFs are required to be sent no later than 8 weeks before deferment expires? Did they not feel it unreasonable that customers had to chase Erudio in order to receive their DAFs... especially when they will not authorise deferment any other way?

Jill18

It was an adjudicator. No mention of distress caused or the obligation to send out forms 8 weeks in advance, although I did mention both of these factors in my complaint.