ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

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.

Also from the decision you've quoted:

Accordingly, the only certainty that has been established is that a complainant cannot accept an award from the Ombudsman and then proceed to claim further damages in subsequent court proceedings.

If a FOS decision refuses to consider the legal facts of a complaint, that can't possibly negate the complainant's right to challenge in court? We all know FOS only look at what they consider 'fair and reasonable', they've stated in my own decisions re both CRA reporting and enforceability of agreements that I'm free to go to court for a definitive answer. I accepted both decisions in the knowledge that the legal aspect hadn't been resolved and I still have the option of seeking a court decision.

I don't think it's right to suggest others don't have the right to continue to court, simply because they accepted a FOS decision that didn't resolve the crux of the complaint. It's clear that any complaint based on a refusal to complete the DAF is one that FOS refuse to give a legal opinion on, if you read any of the FOS decisions to date, they all say the same. We're not legally required to complete a DAF to 'show' income - where FOS aren't willing to even consider the legal position, we're surely within our rights to ask a court, if the ombudsman's final decision doesn't answer it.

If the ombudsman's decision stated Erudio could legally enforce the DAF and the complainant accepted that, it's fair to say there could be no further redress via the courts. But FOS have been consistent in NOT answering that! If FOS haven't considered the legal facts, then surely the court decision you've mentioned is irrelevant?

Gezzad

Hi
Erudio have calculated my loan saying I must start paying it back now. I sent them 3 payslips and one had overtime paymenrs on it. They have calulated an average based on one months overtime. They are under the impression that I will be getting overtime every month. Which I won't. They are asking me for £83 per month. Can they calculate this based on OT that I am not guaranteed

Brooker_Dave

They're just trying to cheap you out of money, complain, and then fos time.

Police should investigate erudio

kern_debug

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

They're just trying to cheap you out of money, complain, and then fos time.

Police should investigate erudio

I went to local police after Erudio took money from my bank account, despite Erudio having acknowledged receipt of my written notices to stop doing so. Police rep said
"It isn't a crime... there will be a contract somewhere."
I told them there was no court order, (but they share the council office as a front end where I live, and appear to confuse corporate power with legitimate authority sometimes).

I haven't tried 'Action Fraud' yet, I imagine they will not be interested in answering theoretical questions. I suppose they would have some kind of obligation to consider a statement though... falsely presenting electronic authentication to take money. Most likely they would just point to the direct debit guarantee. As for the coercion into legal agreement, the establishment of intent might be necessary.


**EDIT: Scam alert.

I leave this next bit in for the moderators, and for thread continuity:


This "slc_refunds" web page is making some interesting proposals... don't know if they can help with Erudio. There is a "Free Review" so it is worth an email to see what they know.

Brooker_Dave

Fun aside the claims "industry" see Erudio as a cash cow?

plong979

Any news on that Court Judgment against Erudio which was due on the 13th?

anna2007

Gezzad wrote: »

Hi
Erudio have calculated my loan saying I must start paying it back now. I sent them 3 payslips and one had overtime paymenrs on it. They have calulated an average based on one months overtime. They are under the impression that I will be getting overtime every month. Which I won't. They are asking me for £83 per month. Can they calculate this based on OT that I am not guaranteed

It's your income in the 'relevant month' that counts, so the month before the month you applied for deferment. Was that the month you had overtime? If not, then Erudio are clearly trying to bump up your pay to take it over the threshold. Providing extra evidence of income outside of the relevant month is only indicative of your income, probably to satisfy this part of the 1998 Student Loan Regs:

if the lender asks, that his gross average monthly income during the 3 months immediately following the relevant month will not or is unlikely to be more than the deferment level

Regardless of Erudio choosing which of your payslips suits their profiteering, it's the annual threshold amount that ultimately counts, they only break that down for deferment purposes, as most receive income monthly . If it's not regular overtime and you're otherwise under the annual threshold, stand firm and show them any payslips you've received since. If you have any paperwork showing your annual salary is under the threshold, wave a copy in their faces. Erudio will try to capitalise on one month's overtime, as that's the nature of their business. If you're under the threshold, don't let them get away with deceit and coercion.

anna2007

Crudio wrote: »

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/511cbd44-2e00-4e7a-ae7b-c0e3a1282600

An interesting HOL debate here on (mainly new) student loans. They do discuss mortgage style loans too, and Gavan Conlon of London Economics basically accused us of being duplicitous liars who would claim to have an income of £20k for deferment and then claim an income of £50k when applying for a mortgage. No evidence supplied of course, but this explains somewhat the desire by Erudio to extort consent for data sharing and the utter contempt with which they treat us.

Thanks Crudio for posting this link. I'm somewhat !!!!ing upset and bemused at being portrayed as someone who lied about their income all along... !!!!!!?!

It can't hurt to complain to the Committee who are currently listening to Mr Colon's rubbish:

economicaffairs@parliament.uk

kern_debug

Crudio wrote: »

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/511cbd44-2e00-4e7a-ae7b-c0e3a1282600

An interesting HOL debate here on (mainly new) student loans. They do discuss mortgage style loans too, and Gavan Conlon of London Economics basically accused us of being duplicitous liars who would claim to have an income of £20k for deferment and then claim an income of £50k when applying for a mortgage. No evidence supplied of course, but this explains somewhat the desire by Erudio to extort consent for data sharing and the utter contempt with which they treat us.

Interesting to note what I would read as a verbal 're-index/cover-up' happening there as well as the "potentially bad debt/ lying borrowers" banner.

At 16:21 "Lord Darling" asks if it would be necessary for the government to offer some kind of "guarantees or underpinning" in order to get anyone to buy future loans.

Conlon says :

"I wouldn't have thought so...one quick point about the mortgage style loans:"

"There was a real issue about the identification and tracking of borrowers with loans outstanding, and certainly it was the case that once the private sector organisation that purchased the loan book, ran their own, sort of, credit checks on the borrowers, the borrowers themselves were saying to the organisation...(generalised slander)... there was a real issue about the information which was being collected when the loans were on the government's books, ... that's a side issue..."

After that, Conlon goes on to describe a process of assessment of creditworthiness of the debts which might be sold in the future... the suggestion presumably being that no underwriting nor guarantees would be necessary.

Makes me wonder :

why the underwriting question was raised;
why the "issue about the identification and tracking of borrowers" was so relevant (note the damning generalisation spinning the 'coercion to allow sharing of information' issue) ;

and makes me note the follow up comment :

"there was a real issue about the information which was being collected when the loans were on the government's books".

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

@ busyrolly999 It's 'Brooker Dave'. And shouting at Lungboy and everyone else in big bold text probably doesn't help your cause

Interesting that the claims management sector are sniffing around Arrow/Erudio/SLC.

I have read before that Student Loans were going to be the next mis-selling scandal.

Parasites attacked by parasites....