MSE News: Hit by 1990s student loans blunder? Check for Erudio packs in post

Former_MSE_Darryl

"If you're one of the 58,000 former students who received the wrong correspondence about their loans, look out for packs containing the right paperwork coming in the post...."

Read the full story:

Hit by 1990s student loans blunder? Check for Erudio packs in post



Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

CKhalvashi

So, in effect, Erudio have made this as confusing as possible, with the intention of taking more money from those that don't owe?

Brilliant.........

anna2007

CKhalvashi wrote: »

So, in effect, Erudio have made this as confusing as possible, with the intention of taking more money from those that don't owe?

Brilliant.........

Couldn't agree more - anyone who's had the misfortune of dealing with Erudio in the last few months will recognise this for what it is - yet another attempt at scaremongering. Why send out these 'notices of arrears' when the error was rectified by the SLC before Erudio took over the loans? Surely Erudio wouldn't be manipulating a situation for their own gain? Oh, but wait, it's a debt collector we're dealing with here.


There have been reports on the main Erudio thread of people receiving these notices when their accounts have never been in arrears. The article's right in that there's nothing to be alarmed about here, but kind of misses the important point that Erudio are using DCA tactics. Maybe I'm being cynical, having been through the Erudio mill, but I think we need to be aware of the likely purpose of the notices.

CKhalvashi

IMO, it should have been maybe sold as an investment fund, but kept under government control.

I'd have preferred it wasn't sold at all, but unfortunately this is the Tories we're talking about here.

anna2007

CKhalvashi wrote: »

IMO, it should have been maybe sold as an investment fund, but kept under government control.

I'd have preferred it wasn't sold at all, but unfortunately this is the Tories we're talking about here.

Too sensible for the current government, and too late for Mr Cable.


It's shocking what a government thinks it can get away with in the name of reducing public debt, it's not like the Erudio sell off will even make a dent. At least the Select Committee's recent report, and the Government's subsequent turnaround, means later student debts are safe from DCA's (for now).

CKhalvashi

Except it's technically reduced the governments equity, and also the net worth.

The gov wouldn't have sold to a private company, for that company to make a loss.........

LuckyEskimo4

Well I think we are all about to have our Credit Records trashed if we have applied for deferral!

The constantly changing FAQs on Erudio's website now have a very distressing update advising that deferred loans will be registered with CRAs as being on a 'Payment Holiday.'

Erudio state :-

"Where your account is in deferral it will be treated in the same way as any other form of loan which is in a payment holiday and will not be treated as a default."

The Money Advice Service set up by government advises that Payment Holidays will adversely affect credit records. They state :-

"Even where your lender agrees this temporary solution, your credit file WILL be affected – this in turn could affect your ability to get credit in the future."

I think it is SHOCKING that this is being drip fed to us, and this low down and frankly deeply distressing update almost 5 months after most of us received our deferment form shows that Erudio never planned to be transparent, fair, or even compliant with the Data Protection Act.

And it apparently does not matter if we write all over the form that we do not agree to our details being passed to CRAs in this way. In using the form and signing the declaration, we apparently HAVE agreed to this distinct change to the terms and condition of our loan. There is no good news. I think we have been abandoned and Vince Cable could not care less about us. We were the experiment for student loans when they were introduced, and we have been the experiment again to see how fully selling loans to shady debt collectors would go.

If anyone is prepared to fight on, then the most important route is to complain to The Information Commissioner's Office. We have to make them aware that our original loan agreement did not make things clear, and we should be allowed to consent to having our details shared with CRAs. After all, the 1998 Data Protection Act has given students who took out loans from 1998 onwards the right NOT to have their details passed on to CRAs if they so choose - AND SO SHOULD WE!

Further more, I object to the 'payment holiday' term being used on 'deferred student loans.' It is worth complaining to the Information Commissioner's Office that this is not strictly accurate and WILL be detrimental to our credit records.

TO COMPLAIN TO THE INFORMATION COMMISIONER'S OFFICE call them on 0303 123 1113.

This is going to be a MAJOR issue for us all. It is worth reading through all Erudio's latest FAQ's. It is no surprise that the full extent of ther evil wickedness has only been revealed on their website now that the vast majority of people have folded and returned their UNFAIR deferment form. THEY HAVE GOT US. I am very depressed.

And finally, it looks like Martin Lewis's Money Saving Expert team have turned their backs on us too. The latest 'nothing to worry about' article by senior new reporter Helen Knapman seems to have a subtext. Doing Erudio's job for them in my opinion. It looks like Helen Knapman has received a press release from Erudio, and helped them out by saying how Erudio is doing the right thing while the SLC were bad.

ericctheking

NEWS FLASH!

Heard that erudio's remedy of accounts letters that are removing interest added are adding interest for the year that the RPI was negative!!!!
In effect that year when the interest was negative so people had negative interest rates and the balance was reducing, the SLC didn't send out statements as is there statutory duty so they have decided now that people lose that bonus of the negative RPI through the SLC's own fault!
Surely that can't be right???

ElwoodBlues

LuckyEskimo4 wrote: »

And it apparently does not matter if we write all over the form that we do not agree to our details being passed to CRAs in this way. In using the form and signing the declaration, we apparently HAVE agreed to this distinct change to the terms and condition of our loan. There is no good news. I think we have been abandoned and Vince Cable could not care less about us. We were the experiment for student loans when they were introduced, and we have been the experiment again to see how fully selling loans to shady debt collectors would go.

Where have you got this from? Is it an official statement from Erudio, or anywhere in writing?

NicolaG

I paid my loan in full in 1997. I still received a letter stating I owed money a couple of months ago. I called Erudio who told me I needed to prove this.17 years later I no longer have the paperwork. I had had a CCJ from student loans as I did not change my address and forgot to apply for deferment so had to pay loan back. This is why I know I do not owe them money. I got absolutely nowhere talking to Erudio, goodness knows what I will hear next from them next. Scary what organisations can dream up against the little guy. No idea how to get this sorted.

fraziola

Hi

I've only just heard about this! I've checked my paper work and I was in arrears for one missed payment. At the time I received a letter from SLC stating a single amount owed. As I understand it the error was that this amount should have been broken down into the three loans that I had. I've read that this error only applies to people who missed two or more payments. I feel that I have been subject to the error but I've not received anything from SLC or Erudio.

Should I write to both SLC and Erudio?

Any advice would be very welcome, thanks in advance.