ERUDIO student loans help

Lungboy

AReeves wrote: »

That seems a sensible decision from the FOS.

It does indeed, very well reasoned.

plong979

GinOClock wrote: »

FOS have now confirmed that Erudio must accept DAFs where the user has indicated on the form that they do not accept that Erudio can share information with CRAs.

Furthermore, they have indicated that, in the opinion of the Ombudsman service, that Erudio cannot alter the terms of the loan via the DAF. They have indicated the original loan terms apply, not what is on the DAF.

I think this is positive news.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=123902

That is good news.

Wish they accepted mine when I used Erudio DAF with signed SLC form but alas not. FOS didn't seem to care about the T&Cs back then, wonder why now? Probably should have just signed the form but I'm down this path now.

I have still yet to receive any letters from Erudio about CRA reporting or whoever they passed my loan onto about 3 months ago.

fermi

Now on Erudio site:

Erudio Student Loans Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 8605918. Its registered office is c/o Wilmington Trust Sp Services (London) Limited, Third Floor, 1 King’s Arms Yard, London, EC2R 7AF.
Your account is administered by Arrow Global Limited (“AGL”) for Erudio Student Loans Limited. AGL is part of the Arrow Global Group and is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for certain credit-related regulated activities. AGL is registered on the Financial Services Register under registration number 718754. AGL is registered in England and Wales with company number 05606545 and its registered office is at Belvedere, 12 Booth Street, Manchester M2 4AW.

anna2007

I've heard from a few people that SARs are causing Arrow Global/Erudio a headache, seems they're not sure !!!!!! they're doing or what exactly they're responsible/liable for, or when exactly they became responsible (I use 'responsible' in the most forgiving of terms). It must be fairly time consuming and costly for Arrow Global to not know !!!!!! they're doing.

Now that our Government loans are officially in the hands of the global DCA Arrow Global, it might be an idea to to send them a SAR, so you know exactly what info Arrow Global holds and what's happening with your personal data. It costs £10 for a SAR, a small price if it gives you info Arrow Global would rather you didn't see, might be the reason they find it so difficult to comply with a SAR. And if it costs Arrow Global/Erudio to fulfil the request, that's their problem, it's not like they've gone out of their way to instil a relationship of trust and understanding.

We can put a SAR template up for people to use, but there are already loads out there that just need tweaking to suit, here's an example:

"Re: Account Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent by recorded delivery.

Dear Data Protection Officer

Re: Subject Access Request – S.7 Data Protection Act 1998.

Under the Data Protection Act 1998 I request that you supply me with all data in your possession that relates to me and am entitled to under Section 7(1) of the Act.

If you store older records on microfiche, the Information Commissioner clearly states that you must send me this in fully legible and comprehensible form.

I hereby request the following information;

a) A true copy of the signed credit note (credit agreement)
b) The Deed of Assignment
c) Novation Agreement
d) Statements of Accounts
e) Duplicate statements or print out of all transactions
f) Copies of any stored telephone calls
g) All internal/external emails sent by you
h) All internal/external letters sent by you
i) All computer logs, notes, transcripts and memos stored on your computer
j) Details in any format of ALL information disclosed to a third party by you and to who and why
k) A true copy of the terms and conditions when the account was opened
l) A true copy of any subsequent amendments to those terms and conditions
m) True copies of any Notice of Assignment
n) True copies of any default notices, court orders or pending legal action
o) Information related to any charges such as returned payments etc, please include your breakdown of the actual costs and your liquidated damages
p) All information that is stored by you, by any means of storage.
q) All handwritten notes, memos and letters sent by you
r) All information held by you and any of your other companies, including all of the above requests for each company

If you are unable to comply with any of the above listed requests, you must inform me of such and give your reason why you can not comply.

I enclose the maximum £10 statutory fee to access all the data that you hold about myself. You have 40 days in which to comply with this request as under The Data Protection Act 1988 regulations. Failure to comply with this request will result in a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office and potential legal action.

If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner's Office can assist you and can be contacted on 0303 123 1113 or at http://www.ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely"

Taken from a website that it seems not allowed to link to on MSE, but pretty much covers it.

kern_debug

I got my SAR reply, half a ream of A4 photocopies.
Copies of:
Recent letters and notices from Erudio;
Copies of letters I had sent to Erudio, though (apparently) not all letters make it to the record, because some are missing.
FOS letters to Erudio, plus FOS invoice for £550;
Printouts which look like screenshots of an admin interface, with transaction data for payments, interest, and similar, also comments about telephone calls, and status of deferment application process. The comments are short and potentially misleading.
Copies of some (but not all) correspondence with "Student Loans Company" of old.

Absence of:
Telephone recordings... they cetainly had these during the FOS procedure, because I got hold of some of them (after aguing the point with the adjudicator, whom initially offered to provide them, but then said she wouldn't because they weren't relevant!). Notably, the recording which was missing, was of Erudio's operator confirming that they had received my several written instructions to stop direct debits, but would be taking another payment in a few days time. I did record this conversation myself, but I'd like a version from them.
Copies of my notices and cease and desist orders to Erudio relating to my property and accounts.
I didn't find the letter in which Erudio stated that they wouldn't take funds from my account without permission either... I'll look for that one again.
List of companies whom data was shared with... KGS Associates and Arrow at least, should be on the list.
Logic involved in automated decisions... I guess this one might need more specific wording (though I did explicitly ask for this). One interesting comment described my deferment application as 'auto accepted', which fits the bill for enquiry, especially as arrears could still be in question, despite Erudio's offer to remove them.

A point of interest regarding the £10 postal order fee, which KGS (or someone) appears to have scanned (then presumably posted to Erudio, or binned): Ten pounds has been credited to my loan account. This might be construed as acknowledging the debt in the context of statute barring, but I'm not disputing that I took out the loan.

anna2007

An update on the FOI request for info on the due diligence process followed by the Government in selecting Arrow Global as purchaser, original request here.

It's only taken a year to get something, but there's an ongoing complaint with the ICO, also the former Shareholder Executive of BIS seems to have morphed into UKGI (now looks like a more commercial arm of the Treasury, just what's needed to sell off every public asset in sight, as quickly as possible).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xir2wotrbc6n5s5/Consortium%20Project%20Ariel%20-%20redacted%20for%20FoI%20release%20v2.pdf?dl=0

Not exactly the due diligence report we were looking for, and it's kind of bizarre that they've chosen to release this, rather than the more mundane stuff they surely must hold... maybe this is all they have?

Some of it confirms what we always suspected/knew, but still feels :eek: seeing it in black and white. Some of the redactions seem downright odd, e.g. the references to the consortium and loan portfolios... why should that be commercially sensitive when we already know (or have been fed a version of) the info? That to me looks like concealing the truth, rather than a legitimate exemption from disclosure.

This is still only at the stage of the IC's initial assessment, which I haven't seen yet, so there's still the options of a formal decision notice from ICO, then tribunal if we continue to disagree, but I really hope it doesn't come to that, mainly because it takes forever to get there.

Another FOI update - the tribunal appeal for the redacted info in the Sale & Purchase Agreement is at the stage where the ICO should be issuing the hearing bundle tomorrow (due 2 weeks ago). The actual hearing should be a matter of weeks after, but delays are the norm, almost as if the DfE wants the hearing to just go away This FOI request was made in January 2015... democracy in action!

Brooker_Dave

"The Consortium expects to enable full credit bureau reporting of the loans"

"Seeking third party validation of key data"

So not what we were promised when we were first sold these loans.

Mis-sold.

Brooker_Dave

"while only qualifying customers who follow the relevant procedures, will successfully exercise their deferment rights under the loans"

So only those who jump through enough hoops can exercise their rights under the terms of the loans?

(A standard term is unfair 'if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'– Regulation 5(1). Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.)

GinOClock

Another FOS decision upheld after Erudio refused to write off a loan. The ombudsman thinks Erudio needs to get a grip and stop "putting process before people".

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=125484

Banksters

Have been busy with other things.

Well done for getting more info Anna. This document adds to the factual evidence also in the "Purchase Agreement", that certain things would be changed. It is there in black and white. So, we have more than one document now, that shows the Erudio / Arrow Global would he changing things.

To change things is not allowed under some agreements, there is no variation clause. Under others, there is a variation clause. The main point is though, is that they were going to change / have changed things, and we did not sign up to that. They should also send out a "Notice of Variation" letter, if they were changing stuff. They did not. Breach of contract on that. All can claim breach on that.

This again arguably also makes the agreements void under Consumer Credit Act, as we were under the impression, that Credit Reference Agents etc etc would not be used, and that nothing would be changed, without a Notice of Variation. For CCA 1974 voidability, please see my earlier posts about "antecedent negotiations etc". Threatening to use CRA's for deferment is disgusting. It was a scam.

One other important thing, I think the assignment of the loans may have been done in an "electronic batch". So the loans may not have been assigned correctly. I know for sure my loans were not assigned correctly. The reason Erudio / Arrow are / were, so desperate for everyone to sign their deferment form, is because, that is you legally "contracting" with them, by signing, recognising the loans with them. So by signing a DAF, this may sort of assign the loans, without the need for proper assignment. As, they will presume that no one will question the validity of the loans / assignment process etc.

Blessings to all.