ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

wow.
Does that mean if we get any named correspondence from any of those two erudio entities that they should a) be ignored and more importantly b) reported for breaking the law and still trading?
If Arrow/Capquest are running the show, which we know they are, does that mean a transfer of the loans will have to take place to being in one of their names?
Interestingly, Gin O'Clock's recent ombudsman post link offers insight to Erudio already selling the loans on (after being deemed to have defaulted) like a gift that maybe someone else can make pay out.

Brooker_Dave

erudioed wrote: »

wow.
Does that mean if we get any named correspondence from any of those two erudio entities that they should a) be ignored and more importantly b) reported for breaking the law and still trading?

Perhaps this is the point where everyone including the BIS stops trying to pretend that Erudio were anything other than debt collectors Arrow/Capquest pretending to run a loans company?

halfpricedebt

I've been out of the loop a while on this but I've been paying mine off. I realised recently that I probably shouldn't be and was directed to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPx6iumK9uA

Has anyone done this with Erudio? Or has anyone successfully avoided paying the a penny? They've already had £2k out of me. Considering they bought my loan for around £450 that seems pretty crazy. From what I understand, with this letter process shown in the video, Erudio would not be able to prove a contract between me and them because they already bought the debt and dealing with a third party was not part of our loan agreements.

I don't want to say anything here is fact but I wanted to know if anyone else has looked into this?

Ed-1

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Perhaps this is the point where everyone including the BIS stops trying to pretend that Erudio were anything other than debt collectors Arrow/Capquest pretending to run a loans company?

BIS are history - the department was closed in July!

Brooker_Dave

Consumer action group seems to think arrows fca covers Erudio due to Erudio being a subsidiary?

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Consumer action group seems to think arrows fca covers Erudio due to Erudio being a subsidiary?

Not quite a subsidiary, but Erudio is a 'Special Purpose Vehicle' (SPV) and the Government kindly brought in an SPV exemption to FCA authorisation in 2014. There's a good article here explaining the SPV exemption and the conditions the SPV must meet to be exempt.

From that article:

The most notable conditions are that the SPV seeking the benefit of the exemption:

is not the original lender and does not grant (nor is required to or promises to grant) credit under the relevant consumer credit agreement;
does not undertake debt adjusting, debt counselling or debt collecting (as those terms are understood in the Regulated Activities Order);
has entered into a servicing arrangement in relation to the relevant consumer credit agreement with a servicer that is authorised to carry on specific regulated activities relating to consumer credit16; and
has arranged for the servicer to comply (or, where it acts without the servicer, it complies) with relevant provisions of FSMA and the CCA in relation to the variance of terms and conditions of the credit agreement.

I doubt if Erudio are complying with the last one on varying t&c's.

But yes, Capquest is the 'servicer' and has just been given full authorisation by FCA, on the same day Erudio's interim permission lapsed. Kind of looks like the name 'Erudio' has taken all the !!!!!! on FOS complaints/media attention, etc for over two years, to ease Arrow Global/Capquest's journey to full authorisation, when we all know they're one and the same. Erudio doesn't have a single employee !!!!!!. Arrow Global/Capquest's authorisation is long overdue, and I don't believe the FCA could possibly be oblivious to it all - they've certainly known for a long time that both Erudio and Erudio Customer Management Ltd missed their window for applying for full authorisation and their interim permission would therefore lapse. FCA could have updated Erudio's status many months ago, but waited until the day Arrow Global got the ok.

There's also the fact that both BIS/DfE and Erudio have insisted from the outset that Erudio is authorised and regulated by the FCA, that us borrowers have that protection. The time to claim SPV exemption should have been when Erudio took over the loans. By not doing that, they have misled everyone - the borrowers, the taxpayer, the media, the Government Committee inquires into student loans (ok, maybe not that last one).

There will be much more to the reasons behind all of this, but it does stink of the Government looking out for Arrow Global's interests (and probably its own interests too), before those of the borrowers.

It's unclear what role Erudio Customer Management Ltd has to play, why they brought that company in as a 'servicer' to borrowers' bank accounts, and made it out to be the debt collection arm of Erudio (it had those permissions with FCA until 2 days ago), when we all know that's Arrow Global/Capquest. Both Arrow Global and FCA would have known at that time that ECML wasn't applying for full authorisation, so shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near our loans, as the FCA says "If you know that your permissions are going to lapse you should not continue conducting and (sic) regulated business from that point".

An unregulated firm now has my bank details and set up a Direct Debit in its name in December last year, without my authorisation, at the time the accounts were "migrated" by Erudio, another unregulated firm - it doesn't get much more dodgy than that. What a shambles the Government's created, and what a bunch of crooks we've been lumbered with.

Edit: Looking at that second condition above, that could be why ECML was invented, to take over those functions, as Erudio couldn't enjoy SPV exemption otherwise? And it's unthinkable that they could admit Arrow Global was the DCA arm, given the !!!!! treatment of borrowers and the pesky FCA hoop to jump through to get authorised! If there's any doubt about Arrow Global's contempt for the whole process of regulation, you only have to read Tom Drury's flippant statement, almost rubbing FCA's nose in the smelly stuff:

We are delighted to have received the necessary FCA authorisations I]I bet you are, relieved too, no doubt?[/I. They are an important milestone I]obstacle?[/I for the Group and are core to delivering on our strategy I]to act like a typical DCA and coerce money that isn't due out of borrowers?[/I

Parasitism, condoned by a Regulator supposedly acting way tougher than the OFT ever did. I bet you're really delighted, Mr Drury.

http://www.arrowglobalir.net/news/rns/id/657

Brooker_Dave

So arrow/Erudio can do pretty much what ever they want free of any regulation?

Surely the loan holders would have to have been told of capquests involvement in the day to day running of the loans?

GinOClock

All sounds dodgy to me.

Of course, we already know Capquest administer and deal with Erudio complaints, and are the in-house DCA for Erudio (Capquest 'buys' terminated loan accounts etc).

Did the S&P agreement not state that the purchaser (i.e. Erudio) has to cooperate with FOS and is liable for the FOS case fees? This would imply they need FCA authorisation. Can they legally transfer that responsibility to another entity, i.e. Capquest? This appears to be a different arrangement than with Capita.

Erudio well-publicised the transfer to Erudio Customer Management Ltd (at least by their standards) so I wonder why this is being kept hush.

Brooker_Dave

But if we were sold these loans as a regulated product, how can they suddenly become unregulated?

BorderReiver14

interestingand perhaps another reason why Erudio were so keen to have us sign their forms which confirm we agree to their data sharing practices. I'm sure they will introduce new 'strategies' to maximise their profits.