ERUDIO student loans help

Brooker_Dave

kern_debug wrote: »

So I called KGS from a phone box. They said they hadn't received notice from Erudio about a missing letter. I asked if they scanned documents for Erudio, they said that they did.

So if we write to erudio, it actually goes to KGS, who then scan it and send it to Capquest in Glasgow?

Is KGS FCA regulated?

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/conditions-for-processing/

?

Brooker_Dave

A common platform firm must in particular take the necessary steps to ensure that the following conditions are satisfied:

1. (1) the service provider must have the ability, capacity, and any authorisation required by law to perform the outsourced functions, services or activities reliably and professionally;
2. (2) the service provider must carry out the outsourced services effectively, and to this end the firm must establish methods for assessing the standard of performance of the service provider;
3. (3) the service provider must properly supervise the carrying out of the outsourced functions, and adequately manage the risks associated with the outsourcing;
4. (4) appropriate action must be taken if it appears that the service provider may not be carrying out the functions effectively and in compliance with applicable laws and regulatory requirements;
5. (5) the firm must retain the necessary expertise to supervise the outsourced functions effectively and to manage the risks associated with the outsourcing, and must supervise those functions and manage those risks;
6. (6) the service provider must disclose to the firm any development that may have a material impact on its ability to carry out the outsourced functions effectively and in compliance with applicable laws and regulatory requirements;
7. (7) the firm must be able to terminate the arrangement for the outsourcing where necessary without detriment to the continuity and quality of its provision of services to clients;
8. (8) the service provider must co-operate with the appropriate regulator and any other relevant competent authority in connection with the outsourced activities;
9. (9) the firm, its auditors, the appropriate regulator and any other relevant competent authority must have effective access to data related to the outsourced activities, as well as to the business premises of the service provider; and the appropriate regulator and any other relevant competent authority must be able to exercise those rights of access;
10. (10) the service provider must protect any confidential information relating to the firm and its clients;
11. (11) the firm and the service provider must establish, implement and maintain a contingency plan for disaster recovery and periodic testing of backup facilities where that is necessary having regard to the function, service or activity that has been outsourced.
    [Note: article 14(2) second paragraph of the MiFID implementing Directive]

Brooker_Dave

Any further Erudio updates?

kern_debug

Thanks for the information Brooker Dave.
I need to write a couple of letters.

gardenia101

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Any further Erudio updates?

Hi All,
Not been around for a while & not up to date with what is happening, but am resigning myself to having an Erudio Day soon where I try & sort out my paperwork....

So far I've not had a reply/explanation from Erudio to say how my account can show arrears on my "statement" but the accompanying letter can state I'm not in arrears

Also now into my 5th month of waiting for FOS to deal with my complaint - apparently they're having difficulties with Erudio supplying them with information.

So same old, same old here. Still deferred until July 17 so no letter of termination here (yet).

GinOClock

This is a new one from the FOS on the DAF:

Mrs S has said there’s no legal requirement to complete an application form. This might be true, but since the law is silent on the process, Erudio’s free to use one if it wants to. And, if she wants a deferment, then it’s in her interest to fill it in.


http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=118919

I can see from a spot of googling that the ombudsman in question in this decision has considerable legal experience.

Brooker_Dave

The fos when it comes to Erudio seems to think laws are optional, how can she accept that its true that no form is needed, and then in the same sentence claim that it is.

Its not the use of a form that bothers people, its that signing the form alters the terms and conditions of the loan, coercion.

Lungboy

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

The fos when it comes to Erudio seems to think laws are optional, how can she accept that its true that no form is needed, and then in the same sentence claim that it is.

Its not the use of a form that bothers people, its that signing the form alters the terms and conditions of the loan, coercion.

Notice the key use of the word "might", the ombudsman isn't accepting that no form is needed, just that it might not be and that until a court decides otherwise Erudio can say it is needed.

anna2007

GinOClock wrote: »

This is a new one from the FOS on the DAF:

Mrs S has said there’s no legal requirement to complete an application form. This might be true, but since the law is silent on the process, Erudio’s free to use one if it wants to. And, if she wants a deferment, then it’s in her interest to fill it in.


http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=118919

I can see from a spot of googling that the ombudsman in question in this decision has considerable legal experience.

FOS are at least consistent in ignoring the new t&c's set out on Erudio's DAF! So a legally experienced person twisting the facts to support their own (or their employer's) position? I'm doubtful. OK, it's OK Google, but she said the law's silent where "the relevant sources of law do not address a particular point". Just because a process isn't set out in law, doesn't make that process legitimate (it's ridiculous to think that the law could account for every process that a dodgy DCA might adopt). What matters is the legal position to show income - a very basic requirement, no fancy forms required.

I think the legislation addresses the deferment point clearly, we show income. And that proof would be based on factual evidence. It would then be up to Arrow Global to prove that your employer lied about your income, in the face of factual evidence. It's scandalous for FOS to say it's OK for Erudio to demand their version of a DAF if it's not legally necessary, they're not doing their job and are just supporting the rip-off situation that hangs over this whole rotten deal with BIS.

I'm effing upset that FOS say it's in her interests to fill out the DAF, if she wants a deferment. A blatant threat, they're saying do it, or you won't be deferred. FOS proving they're on the same level/wavelength as Arrow Global/CarVal/Erudio.

kern_debug

I'm in no doubt about FOS after the way my case was smothered. While FOS could help consumers whom would otherwise roll over, FOS can also delay real action for months or years, while thousands of other people get commodified.