ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

Thats staggering, brilliant work Anna.
Still processing it, but just on some formalities, they redact the consortiums actual name and even redact parts referring to the same consortium's involvement in the Honours student loans sale.
Arrow uses its Pilot Collections Bureau (on Experian's platform and now renamed) as a key selling point. As this seems to involve Arrow Global selling and sharing data/checks with other paying members, it must be time for Arrow to explain where our data and by whom our data is being shared. BIS also needs to explain how it could allow our own personal data, given to the government in confidence, to be sold to such a debt collector as Arrow Global. This document states Arrow will check deferment eligibility "using our private sector data to validate income and flag questionable or missing information". I think this needs explaining in the grand scheme of things.
All the treating customers fairly gumpf is blown apart by many of the issues many of us have been having (all detailed within this forum), none more clearly than not sending out DAFs at the right time (or at all) and then lying about what they say happened on its own website and then to the Press. If they can get away with that, they can get away with most things, but i do think that all these releases Anna and others are getting will continue to make a compelling case at some point in the future if some of us go to court or even if someone in the press decides to conduct a detailed investigation in this Government/Erudio/student loan sales farce.

Brooker_Dave

The signing the form thing does seem crucial in Erudio's plan.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

anna2007 wrote: »

BIS/DfE and Arrow Global would surely be miffed at that, considering how much it must have cost them (well, the taxpayer) in professional services - PwC, Barristers, etc - to make the whole thing as complicated and opaque as possible.

The simple truth is, Erudio is a sham, set up to protect the interests of Arrow Global and the Government, at the expense of the taxpayer's and borrowers' interests.

Been away for a while, work and other delights cropped up...

I remember when Erudioed and I over at Mumsnet figured out the Capita involvement. Everything about Erudio felt like a shell company at a time when Private Eye did much to expose the use of shell companies. Seeing it all displayed here, I think I can be forgiven for thinking "We were bloody right all that time ago".

The Project Ariel document I have been reading courtesy of Erudioed's Twitter feed... more of the same. Seeing something like the migration of the loans section makes me go misty-eyed at the sheer useless nature of the whole thing. Ah, the word Erudio first came to my attention when a company with that name had taken money from my account and not even introduced themselves.

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

anna2007 wrote: »

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!

Thank you for putting that up. It is staggering to read it.

anna2007

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect wrote: »

Thank you for putting that up. It is staggering to read it.

I need to thank Erudioed, if it wasn't for the gentle reminder to follow up with ICO on BIS's FOI refusal, I'd have missed the complaints deadline for a second time on the same request

GinOClock

A small point to make re FOS. They are currently going through a transition - amongst other things adjudicators are currently being rebranded as 'investigators'. This means they will take a much more pro-active and investigative approach in establishing the facts and merits of the case.

Hopefully it may benefit borrowers complaining about Erudio, but of course time will tell. I've certainly noticed that FOS seems to be taking a harder line with Erudio recently.

I'll keep posting any Erudio complaints that have been upheld by FOS - I hope they may prove useful or, at the very least, provide everyone with a bit of cheer!

anna2007

Banksters wrote: »

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.

Schedule 5 of the SPA contains a ‘Deed of Assignation and Trust’ relating to the Scottish loans, which has a space to be witnessed and signed by the various parties to the agreement. It's blank and looks like a redaction, but BIS/DfE provided a list of redactions and this section isn't on there. It's possible they missed it off the list, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was never signed at all, which I'm guessing is needed to give the document legal effect? I don't know much about how assignation works but I've mentioned it in the appeal - if it's dodgy I'm hoping the tribunal panel pick up on it.

It looks like the differences in English and Scots law on assignation are problematic, otherwise they wouldn't need a separate (unsigned) schedule in the SPA. I don't remember seeing any equivalent provision for the English/Welsh and Irish loans, but it could be that the SPA itself is enough under English law?

anna2007

erudioed wrote: »

This document states Arrow will check deferment eligibility "using our private sector data to validate income and flag questionable or missing information". I think this needs explaining in the grand scheme of things.

From what I remember of talks with Experian, Arrow Global/Erudio intended to use one of Experian's 'packages' to find out about income declared on previous credit applications, pretty pointless when payslips/HMRC documents/pounds of flesh are already provided. I posted about it at the time - if they checked my credit file, they'd find I declared household income on credit card applications - that doesn't mean I lied about my own income on the DAF, which excludes my husband's income. Using the CRA's in such a way to validate income is completely flawed, but Arrow Global probably don't care about the finer details, they would see it as reason enough to hound someone whose income is below the threshold.

There's also the fact that deferred borrowers have been made out to be somehow cheating the system - that House of Lords inquiry a couple of months ago, we were all completely cheating the system by telling porkies about our income :mad: They made no distinction at all between defaulted and deferred borrowers. The SLC had a perfectly reasonable system where we provided proof of income. What further proof could we possibly give?!

Selling our loans to a !!!!!! DCA called Arrow Global, abusing our rights over personal data, then calling us out as the ones responsible for their own !!!!-fest - If that's not the definition of mis-sold, I don't know what is.

GinOClock

I think they use something like this Anna:

http://www.nhunter.co.uk

anna2007

GinOClock wrote: »

I think they use something like this Anna:

http://www.nhunter.co.uk

Yep, we definitely qualify as victims of fraud!