ERUDIO student loans help

Brooker_Dave

erudioed wrote: »

theres something very odd about that name, address and attached business. I would definitely reply back and ask their relationship to our beloved leader Filer who they are responding for because you are concerned that your personal information is being passed around unknown parties by the head of the business you were trying to contact, so need clarification etc.

Handy in the context of going to court over this, shows Erudio are just a bunch of subcontractors who do not have the ability to manage these loans in the way that they should.

erudioed

subcontracting is erudio's business model, thats the deal BIS accepted when it sold the loans, just like with the previous loan sales. Unfortunately its pretty standard practice throughout the shell company/'legitimate' big business domains today. Make a phone call or try to contact most medium-big businesses, and we end up speaking to a subcontracted company. Even SLC subcontracts work, with the most extreme example i can think of being the NHS, where subcontracting treads a very fine line with privatisation, with some claiming it actually is privatisation by another name.

Brooker_Dave

Yet another termination letter:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5488546

AReeves

If a consumer accepts the decision of the FOS, then the consumer cannot then pursue court action. That was the decision of the Court of Appeal in Clark v. In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd (14 Feb 2014).

The court concluded that where a complaint to the FOS relied on the same facts as those founding a cause of action in subsequent court proceedings, and a FOS decision on that complaint had been accepted, the court should dismiss the proceedings.

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

FOS decisions do not over-rule contract law, ask them to prove otherwise.



When, I assume Capquest, contacts you, explain that it is a student loan, and that you would like to defer it as the law and your contract allows, ask Capquest for the relevent form to allow you to do so.

Also ask for a valid CCA/Deed of Assignment to show proof of ownership or the alleged debt.

plong979

AReeves wrote: »

If a consumer accepts the decision of the FOS, then the consumer cannot then pursue court action. That was the decision of the Court of Appeal in Clark v. In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd (14 Feb 2014).

The court concluded that where a complaint to the FOS relied on the same facts as those founding a cause of action in subsequent court proceedings, and a FOS decision on that complaint had been accepted, the court should dismiss the proceedings.

Can I still defend myself if I am taken to court though as I have still kept to the original agreement?

The FOS decision says a completed Erudio DAF, which I did technically provide. I just didn't sign the DAF but I signed the SLC DAF as it's the original terms. Also my initial complaint was with the original DAF, they released the current one before I accepted the decision. So I can say I was giving them another chance with the new DAF though it turns out they just hid Fair Process Notice (FPN) on their website and not on their new DAF.

I raised this in a second complaint, that I had filled out the DAF but signed the SLC due to FPN hidden on website and not the actually form. I rejected the decision.

Brooker_Dave

Surely fos decisions never override actual contracts and actual laws???

kern_debug

So you need to know exactly what (FOS 'directive') you agreed to.

I would think it is your right to defend yourself in court under almost any circumstance in the UK.

I would guess that any ban on "court action" would be to prevent someone effectively being sued twice for the same instance of grievance.

kern_debug

plong979 wrote: »

Can I still defend myself if I am taken to court though as I have still kept to the original agreement?
...

The whole "completed DAF" device needs obliterating with sunlight. I cannot accept that coercing people into legal agreements is lawful. Whether or not the FOS is wilfully complicit or industry minded, the issue of the signature (aka: agreement to new contract) is the reason for not signing. The judge cannot ignore the whole context. You CLEARLY applied, and then some. The APPLICATION is complete. Agreement to consents which were fairly explicitly barred from consideration during creation of the loans, cannot reasonably be forced on people later.

Agreement and scribbling on paper are not one and the same thing of course.
I could write " I write my name here under duress and threat of penury". Erudio wouldn't accept that though, because crucially, they either 'need' your AGREEMENT, or they don't!! Or alternatively, the situation requires your signature, or it doesn't.

All of this technical wishery in Erudio's delusion should not outweigh the fact that if you don't earn enough, you don't pay. That is what tens of thousands of young students were sold.

More importantly, such a practice as creating contracts as condition to applying for things like state benefits, or even obligatory state registrations, must be stopped.

My signature is not my name, as it happens.

kern_debug

While we are on the subject :

Note that section 9.3.4 (A) of the "Sales and Purchase agreement" clearly describes "deferment application forms" which must be provided by the purchaser, BUT notice the complete absence of the word "form" following the term "deferment application" in clause (B) which follows.

9.3.4.
(B)

(1) within 15 Business Days of receipt of a deferment application,
contact the Borrower for any additional information required to
support the application (or upon receipt of further information,
request further additional information from the Borrower); or
(2) if no further information is required and the deferment application
has been fully completed (with all necessary verification and
evidence requirements satisfied), within 21 Business Days of
receipt of a deferment application, or if further information is
required, within 21 Business Days of receipt of all such further
information (or fully completed application with all necessary
verification and evidence requirements satisfied) notify (i) the
Borrower and (ii) if the Deferment Administrator is the Authority
(or the Seller on its behalf) the Purchaser, whether the
application to defer is to be accepted or rejected and the date on
which the deferment period is deemed to have commenced,
provided, however, that the obligation on the Deferment Administrator to
comply with the obligations in Clauses 9.3.dt(B}(1) and (2) shall be on a
reasonable endeavours basis only and it is hereby agreed by the parties
that from 1 December 2013 to 28 February 2014 and during peak
processing periods between the calendar months of March and May
(inclusive) that such time periods will each be increased from 15 and 21
Business Days respectively to 28 Business Days;


I got myself some of that Optical Character Recognition software goodness, so I didn't need to type that lot out from the scanned document.... which means there could be errors, so you should check the original .

kern_debug

One more thought from that Sales and Purchase Agreement:

Relating to
"...notify (i) the Borrower ... whether the application to defer is to be accepted or rejected and the date on which the deferment period is deemed to have commenced"

So if the application was rejected, was the Borrower still informed of the "date on which the deferment period is deemed to have commenced"?

How soon can another application be made, and was a form immediately issued for immediate re-application?