ERUDIO student loans help

ptolomy

I had a rather pleasant surprise this morning - Erudio have already refunded the payment they took last week.
I was just thinking maybe they are improving their customer service when I got an email reply to my complaint about the Direct Debit. It was to say that they can't can't deal with it unless I give them my DOB and full address - to pass their 'Authentication process'. Is this not slightly mad? I surely don't need to pass Data Protection screening if I'm not actually asking them to give me any data, I just want to make sure they received the complaint letter quickly - which does have my full address on it, but it seems they aren't able to open an attachment until they get my date of birth!
Does this also mean that my original complaint is languishing somewhere and I'll get a letter in a few weeks to say they can't address it as I hadn't included my date of birth?
It's odd that they are so keen on us sticking to their own ridiculous processes but they can't manage to abide by any other regulations...

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

Using your example vs keeping the DD in place and seeking redress through the ombudsman/small court you would have:

But there's nothing in the loan agreement that says a DD is needed if you are not paying.

Given todays posts featuring yet more DD "mistakes" it would be reckless to have a DD in place.

anna2007 wrote: »

If you lose your case (unlikely, but adjudicators/judges have been known to make bad decisions), you owe Erudio the full amount of your loans + legal costs vs you continue to defer as normal with the DD in place (zero risk with the DD guarantee to rely on).


Your credit rating trashed vs your credit rating intact.


I'm with GirlGeek on this one, keeping the DD in place while you make a FOS/small courts claim is by far the most sensible and least risky option.

The point of mentioning the Durkin case is that from now on CRAs and the organisations who place information on them are now fair game for compo ($$$$$$$$) if they make mistakes or use the threat of trashing credit ratings.

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

There's nothing in there about the DD being a requirement of deferment, which has been stated in other deferment letters... too much to hope that they've backtracked on the DD requirement?

Erudio can say what they like about DDs, all that matters is what's in the loan agreement, no mention of the need for defers to keep an active DD.

rizla_king

Some agreement terms do in a roundabout way suggest that keeping a DD in place might be a condition of the agreement. Unless agreed otherwise.

Even if that was the case though, it's not a term of the agreement that if you broke it would allow them to either refuse deferment, default the loan, or demand earlier repayment of the loan. The agreements are clear that ONLY being behind in payments allows them to do those. Absolutely no other minor breach of the terms allows them to do that, or to end the the agreement.

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

But there's nothing in the loan agreement that says a DD is needed if you are not paying.

Given todays posts featuring yet more DD "mistakes" it would be reckless to have a DD in place.

I don't see the DD as reckless when you can get an immediate refund under the DD guarantee.

As the regulations and loan agreement are open to different interpretation, it's possible to lose your case, then Erudio can say you're in breach of the loan agreement. I'm sure the reason they want to do that (and why they're so insistent on the DD), is because the loan agreement states that when the time comes for the loans to be cancelled, this is "as long as you are not in breach of any obligation to us". This is different to the regulations, which say as long as you're not behind with any repayments under any agreement. So the regulations are very specific, whereas the agreement can be twisted by Erudio to mean a failure to maintain a DD during deferment.


Although the regulations would take precedence, I don't see the point of giving Erudio the opportunity in the first place, so for me it's more reckless not to have the DD, at least until I get an independent decision on whether it's a requirement.

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

The point of mentioning the Durkin case is that from now on CRAs and the organisations who place information on them are now fair game for compo ($$$$$$$$) if they make mistakes or use the threat of trashing credit ratings.

I understand why you mentioned the case, but it doesn't stop your credit record getting trashed in the meantime. Many won't want that, even for a relatively short time (IF you win your case). Poor !!!!!! Durkin had to wait 16 years to get his credit record put right!

anna2007

ptolomy wrote: »

I had a rather pleasant surprise this morning - Erudio have already refunded the payment they took last week.
I was just thinking maybe they are improving their customer service when I got an email reply to my complaint about the Direct Debit. It was to say that they can't can't deal with it unless I give them my DOB and full address - to pass their 'Authentication process'. Is this not slightly mad? I surely don't need to pass Data Protection screening if I'm not actually asking them to give me any data, I just want to make sure they received the complaint letter quickly - which does have my full address on it, but it seems they aren't able to open an attachment until they get my date of birth!
Does this also mean that my original complaint is languishing somewhere and I'll get a letter in a few weeks to say they can't address it as I hadn't included my date of birth?
It's odd that they are so keen on us sticking to their own ridiculous processes but they can't manage to abide by any other regulations...

There were a few reports on the Mumsnet forum of Erudio doing this, usually after they had been sitting on an email for a few weeks, so more of a stalling tactic than genuine concern for the integrity of our data!


Also read on Mumsnet earlier that when someone's MP questioned Erudio over incorrect DD payments being taken, they said they reserve the right to request a payment, as it's the only way to check that the DD is still in place during deferment!! :eek:

rizla_king

anna2007 wrote: »

Also read on Mumsnet earlier that when someone's MP questioned Erudio over incorrect DD payments being taken, they said they reserve the right to request a payment, as it's the only way to check that the DD is still in place during deferment!! :eek:

I saw that on the mn thread, and it's complete rubbish what they were told.

You forget to mention that the MP's office was told different when they enquired again, so it will be some Erudio muppet spouting nonsense the first time.

anna2007

rizla_king wrote: »

I saw that on the mn thread, and it's complete rubbish what they were told.

You forget to mention that the MP's office was told different when they enquired again, so it will be some Erudio muppet spouting nonsense the first time.

Didn't see that bit, my fault as I just read through it quickly.

Still shocked that they said it at all, basically an admission that they're thieving from customers' bank accounts.

Forever

I had finally received an email on the 13th of June saying I am deferred.

Guess what I received in the mail today? A letter dated the 13th of June saying that they still do not have sufficient confirmation of my eligibility to defer!

Unbelievable. But not surprising.

Background: salary under 5,000 UK pounds in the last tax year.

I have sent in a fully filled in form (big sigh), pay slips for self employed position, bank statements, interest certificates, and more recently, a copy of my tax return - I still wasn't getting deferred and they even dipped into my bank account.

But on the 13th June, I finally received confirmation that I have been deferred.

Until I received a letter saying they needed more evidence....

showmethe£

Eventually after arguing with them somewhat [previous posts] my loan was deferred in May. HOWEVER yesterday they took £ out of my account - when I called it was due to a technical problem and I would be refunded in 5 days. Will this end before the next period of deferment comes round ...........