ERUDIO student loans help

Bungaroosh

I succumbed and phoned them ... the form will be sent out in about four weeks (I have a late deferment date given months of clarting about in the first year that these sharks started "administering" the debt).

Annoying that they send out such a suggestively worded and concern-inducing letter: "We have not received your ... deferment". What would have been to stop them saying, "A paper deferment form will be sent out in due course"? Ah yes: the fact that they want to lassoo you into doing it online.

martybhoy79

forgot to reply with help of P60 got deferred using salary sacrifice figures

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect

anna2007 wrote: »

The quickest (paper - don't know anyone willing to use portal) deferment I know of with this shower of shysters was within 24 hours, so 4 hours is the new benchmark for both paper and online applications. Scanned payslips uploaded via the online portal must be poorer quality than photocopies sent through the post, so at least that's one of Arrow Global's delaying tactics in tatters.

I received my DAF on Friday, one week late. Same delay as last year - paperwork printed on 13/4, covering letter dated 14/4 (but also printed 13/4), received by snail-mail 21/4. Why not send it out first-class on the day of printing, so it arrives on time? Or if that's too much of an ask, set the print-run one week earlier? Easily sorted and would do wonders for Arrow Global's reputation I'm sure... they abide by the 8 week rule and also have more time to process the DAF - a win-win for their reputation really.

It's a new DAF, now 1 sheet of A4, double sided, plus less than a page of additional information, about supporting evidence required and a bit on additional benefits. NOTHING on data processing/sharing. So it's similar to the SLC's old paperwork ... maybe Erudio/Arrow Global felt bad about killing all those trees with their 6 page DAF and 20 page 'how to' guide? There's a copy of the new paperwork here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u5q25dcxpkqyo4b/AACABgKydzrkoFrTN-eA3pypa?dl=0

The DAF took 5 minutes to complete, but there are a couple of things worth pointing out. Section 1 asks you to confirm that the name and address on the covering letter are correct, you only complete this if they need to be updated. I was [STRIKE]paranoid about[/STRIKE] wary of sending a DAF that doesn't actually have my name and address on it, when Arrow Global think it's necessary to now cover this at section (e) of the declaration (wasn't part of previous DAFs). Just looks and feels dodgy, so I ticked 'yes' at section 1 of the DAF and filled out my name and address anyway. I did score through a wee bit of section e) too but I can't see how they can argue with adding your name and address to a DAF!

There's a QR scanning-type-thingy (square to the left of the wise Erudio owl), which I've blanked out on the Dropbox copies as I'm guessing it's unique and used by them to identify my account. The square is on page 1 and page 3 (additional info), but not page 2 containing the declaration/signature, so I added their 16 digit reference number at the top of the page and also wrote my 3 original loan account numbers under my signature (remember those, i.e. the original loan agreements we signed up to?) They don't appear on any paperwork from Arrow Global now, so there's no harm in reminding them.

3 versions of the DAF in the 3 years Erudio/Arrow Global have owned the loans... I'm sure they'll get there eventually

Mine was printed 24/4, covering letter 25/5, not received until May 2nd.

There is one obvious issue with the new DAF pack. Where's the Direct Debit Mandate? This was always part of the SLC and the previous Erudio packs. By not including this, personally I think it's stretching out the process a bit more for those who may have changed banks and/or are updating details. Previously my DD was wiped out by Erudio during one of their great system migration "mistakes". I have no idea if I have a DD set up with them or not now. I asked last year in writing for them to provide me with a Yes/No on whether they had a DD set up on my account. It will surprise nobody to know that I didn't receive a reply.

evenstar2009

Hi all!

I owe Erudio about £350 which I've offered to pay back over 12 months which is manageable for me. Their customer service came back saying they reckon I can pay the whole lot from my disposable income (?!)and keep rejecting the offer

I can't afford £350 in one month and this just seems unreasonable
to me considering I've offered to pay it back within the year

Has anyone else had this treatment from them?

They requested literally everything that I spend in one month as well. Thesis loans accepted my offer straight away without requesting any income/expenditure info

Banksters

Please complain over the Consumer Credit Act 1974 / APR letter(s) Erudio sent to you in circa September 2014. They sent letters saying they had made "a commercial decision" to put a Consumer Credit Act 1974 error wrong, and removed interest for a period of time whilst this was sorted out.

I have got compensation from Erudio via Financial Ombudsman Service for these letters being too vague. More than one person now has had compensation. I have put a template letter to send to Erudio below. EVERYONE WHO GOT THESE LETTERS IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. I will make another post identitical to this, but thought I would put it on the main thread first.

Anna - Have you got the unredacted Purchase Agreement yet?

Keep fighting these parasites.

LETTER TEMPLATE:

TO:
Erudio Student Loans Ltd


Your Account Number:

My Reference:

Conusmer Credit Act / APR Statement

Date:

Dear Sir

Regarding your letter dated September 2014. I wish to make a formal complaint about this, as I am not happy with the explanation given as to what the “issue” with the “Consumer Credit Act 1974” and APR was. Your letter lacked clarity, and I found it confusing.

I would like you to supply full details of what the Consumer Credit Act 1974 / APR issue was. Please send me full clear details of what the mistake was.

As far as I am aware, this may be a breach of contract under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 parts that are binding on the original agreements. Please provide full clarity, in order for me to decide whether a serious breach has occured.

If you are aware that there may have been an issue, then you must know what the issue was.

I have had to spend more time writing this letter, and also looking through various statements sent by you, which has taken more of my spare time and has been an inconvenience. I have been delayed in sending this query due to having to deal with other misleading information sent by your company. Dealing with your company has caused me a lot of stress and worry.

I wish to be financially compensated for the inconvenience caused over this matter, and will not accept anything less than £150. Please also put this matter right, by sending me full clear details of what the issue was, in a non gobbledegook manner.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely





YOUR NAME

FILL IN YOUR OWN INFO AND PLEASE SEND TO ERUDIO. AS THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY YOU COMPENSATION OR IT WILL GO TO THE F.O.S. AND YOU WILL DEFINATELY GET THE COMPO. HAPPY DAYS AND ANOTHER TWO'S UP TO ERUDIO! lol

Banksters

One other thing. Yet again, we have more evidence of "Unfair Treatment" by Erudio. The evidence continues to stack up.

Anna - Please let me know if the unredacted Purchase Agreement has been released to you?

anna2007

Banksters wrote: »

Anna - Please let me know if the unredacted Purchase Agreement has been released to you?

Whatever the result from the appeal, the first place I'd post news of that is on the forum!

FuriousFeline

Well, it looks like it was too much to hope for that this year's Erudio deferment would go smoothly. It has now been nearly a month since I returned my competed DAF to them (along with supporting evidence), yet I have still not received confirmation of whether or not I have been granted deferment for another year. Conveniently for them, we have another Bank Holiday coming up soon- a day on which they will not be processing anyone's forms. Not long after that, my current deferment period runs out, with almost £100 a month due immediately the day after- £100 a month that I certainly don't have, and that I should not have to give them, as I am eligible to defer. I did not receive my DAF 8 weeks before the end of the current deferment period, as I should have done, although the date on the letter which came with it was exactly 8 weeks before my current deferment period ends. I wonder whether Erudio are just incompetent, or whether they are desperately trying to think of ways they can force people into paying them? Of course I am fed up of having to wrangle with them every year, but perhaps that is the idea? It's hard to believe that they aren't deliberately causing problems, especially as I had no issues when it was still the SLC dealing with my loans.

anna2007

Ibreakwindinerudiosdirect wrote: »

Mine was printed 24/4, covering letter 25/5, not received until May 2nd.

There is one obvious issue with the new DAF pack. Where's the Direct Debit Mandate? This was always part of the SLC and the previous Erudio packs. By not including this, personally I think it's stretching out the process a bit more for those who may have changed banks and/or are updating details. Previously my DD was wiped out by Erudio during one of their great system migration "mistakes". I have no idea if I have a DD set up with them or not now. I asked last year in writing for them to provide me with a Yes/No on whether they had a DD set up on my account. It will surprise nobody to know that I didn't receive a reply.

They certainly have form for randomly cancelling DD's, it's been reported here on the forum and I know of a couple of people who've checked with their banks - it's Arrow Global who are cancelling it, not the banks.

So Arrow Global/Erudio's strategy has been:

Insist DD's are a requirement of the original t&c's, despite it only being a requirement during repayment (even then, the t&c's are flexible enough to allow other methods of repayment).

Falsely claim that successful deferment is conditional on completing the DD mandate.

Splat it all over the media that Erudio are incompetent enough to take 500+ DD payments in error from borrowers' bank accounts - guaranteed to put people off letting such a shower of shysters anywhere near their bank accounts.

Last year, turn the DD from an absolute requirement to optional. This year, the DD requirement/option disappears completely.

All of this makes setting up a DD as unappealing as possible, when Arrow Global/Erudio knows that an active DD is the only way that a borrower's account can never be put in arrears. It certainly explains why Arrow Global are the ones cancelling DD's, rather than the bank due to inactivity, or the borrower due to changing their mind.

On the print dates, my deferment acceptance letter has a print date of 03/06/17 (deferment due to end 09/06/17). The letter is dated 04/05/17, received 06/05/17. That surely means the print date shown is a scheduled date, rather than the date it was actually printed? It suggests to me that Arrow Global want to delay the deferment acceptance letter until the latest possible date (to maximise the wait borrowers have to endure and therefore cause maximum anxiety?), but can override the scheduled date, if they want to. It also explains why a DAF pack of a certain date takes a week to arrive - Arrow Global chose to delay beyond the scheduled date for printing.

anna2007

FuriousFeline wrote: »

Well, it looks like it was too much to hope for that this year's Erudio deferment would go smoothly. It has now been nearly a month since I returned my competed DAF to them (along with supporting evidence), yet I have still not received confirmation of whether or not I have been granted deferment for another year. Conveniently for them, we have another Bank Holiday coming up soon- a day on which they will not be processing anyone's forms. Not long after that, my current deferment period runs out, with almost £100 a month due immediately the day after- £100 a month that I certainly don't have, and that I should not have to give them, as I am eligible to defer. I did not receive my DAF 8 weeks before the end of the current deferment period, as I should have done, although the date on the letter which came with it was exactly 8 weeks before my current deferment period ends. I wonder whether Erudio are just incompetent, or whether they are desperately trying to think of ways they can force people into paying them? Of course I am fed up of having to wrangle with them every year, but perhaps that is the idea? It's hard to believe that they aren't deliberately causing problems, especially as I had no issues when it was still the SLC dealing with my loans.

It took them 9 days this year to confirm my deferment - there's no excuse for taking any longer than that, it seems Arrow Global suffers from selective incompetence.

Definitely get a formal complaint in now, here's a link to the FOS complaint I made last year, with supporting evidence. In the end, I didn't escalate to the ombudsman because Erudio confirmed deferment quickly (within 5 days I think). But because Erudio has sat on your DAF for a month and it's getting close to deferment end, you stand a good chance of winning at FOS. You should ask for compensation too, as the closer it gets to deferment end the more stressful it is for you. And Erudio/Arrow Global get hit with a FOS fee too.