ERUDIO student loans help

datlex

anna2007 wrote: »

New deferment threshold will be £29,126, and RPI interest rate is 1.6%:

http://www.slc.co.uk/media/latest-news/change-of-interest-thresholds.aspx

I hate to point this out but that is slc not Erudio.

GinOClock

Erudio have been landed in hot water again with FOS for not dealing correctly with vulnerable borrowers:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=121166

This isn't the first time either. There was a post a while back about a borrower who had difficulty deferring, but got an earful from the telephone operative and no further help. The FOS were apparently quite disturbed after listening to the recording off the call.

Ed-1

datlex wrote: »

I hate to point this out but that is slc not Erudio.

The Government (Department for Education) still calculate the deferment threshold annually which applies to all mortgage style loans regardless of who owns them. SLC doesn't own any of them now.

Brooker_Dave

Fos actually stand up to arrow/carval, a miracle?

anna2007

datlex wrote: »

I hate to point this out but that is slc not Erudio.

SLC still administer deferment for the loans sold in 1998 and 1999, which I'm guessing is the reason they still report the new threshold and interest rate each year.

I'd rather rely on SLC's information than Erudio's, but if it worries you, Erudio has posted the same threshold/interest rate on their website.

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

Exactly as you predicted. I am impressed.
Not many, but at least someone paying this year wont have to pay them next time round.

Not that impressive erudioed, just had to change three figures from last year, and SLC's previous FOI release points to where to find the figures in the ONS data.

They've made very subtle changes in calculating the threshold this year and last, by including pennies in the Average Weekly Earnings figures rather than rounding up, and rounding Earnings growth to 2 decimal places (Sale and Purchase Agreement says 4). Doesn't sound like much (other than breaching the SPA), but puts the threshold slightly out. If DfE/BIS are still responsible for the calculation then the same old spreadsheet will be in use, so someone would have to manually change the way it rounds the figures.

As you say, only a small number of borrowers are affected by the increase in threshold, even fewer are affected by any rounding 'error'. Seems more likely to me, whilst holding firmly onto my tinfoil hat, that Erudio stands to benefit from these 'errors', through a provision in the SPA on accuracy of the calculation. Or someone else on Team Erudio set up a new spreadsheet.

BorderReiver14

GinOClock wrote: »

Erudio have been landed in hot water again with FOS for not dealing correctly with vulnerable borrowers:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=121166

This isn't the first time either. There was a post a while back about a borrower who had difficulty deferring, but got an earful from the telephone operative and no further help. The FOS were apparently quite disturbed after listening to the recording off the call.

No compensation for distress, time and effort having to deal with Erudio or 'business B'?

GinOClock

BorderReiver14 wrote: »

No compensation for distress, time and effort having to deal with Erudio or 'business B'?

Indeed. I think they should have in this case.

If anyone is interested here is a link to the training material given to new adjudicators at the FOS regarding how to assess compensation for distress and inconvenience. The training is done on computer so there are a lot of screenshots to scroll through, but you get the gist.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/299496/response/736997/attach/3/trouble%20and%20upset%20training%20material.pdf

anna2007

The saga over Erudio's (and the mysterious 'Erudio Customer Management Ltd') FCA authorisation continues. Their interim permission with the FCA has now lapsed, so they're no longer authorised and are acting illegally if they continue conducting regulated business (put Erudio in search box here):

http://fca-consumer-credit-interim.force.com/CS_RegisterSearchPageNew

What is meant by lapsed on the FCA Register?
At the time of the changeover from OFT to FCA, the FCA granted all transferring companies interim permissions under which they could operate taking into account the new rules and regulations. At that time you will have also been given a window of three months by which it would want to receive your completed application. If you didn’t apply within that window, your application is classed as lapsed. Your interim permission is immediately withdrawn and you have no permissions to carry out regulated business.

What if I let my interim permission lapse?
If you have let your interim permissions lapse you will need to apply to the FCA and this will be assessed alongside all other new applications whether you previously held interim permissions or not. If you know that your permissions are going to lapse you should not continue conducting and regulated business from that point. On application, the FCA will contact you to establish why you didn’t apply within your application window and to check that you are not undertaking any regulated business. If you undertake any business that is classed as regulated you will be conducting business illegally.

http://www.consumercreditcentre.co.uk/got-a-question/faqs/

So they didn't even bother applying for authorisation. So much for us borrowers having the 'protection' of FCA/FOS (we've no right to go to FOS if we're dealing with an unauthorised firm).

And Erudio are fraudulently claiming to be authorised and regulated by the FCA on their website.

Arrow Global/Capquest were granted full authorisation on the same day Erudio's interim permission lapsed, on 18 August.

Brooker_Dave

Does this not add real ammunition to the mis-selling fight, at no point did any of us expect our government loans to end up with an unregulated debt collector working out of a tax haven?

And how can Erudio even continue to trade without FCA authorisation?