We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
MSE News: Are you an Erudio student loan holder? We want your feedback

Former_MSE_Helen
Posts: 2,382 Forumite
We want your thoughts on Erudio's revised deferral form and revised 'how to guide' on applying for deferral ...
Read the full story:
Are you an Erudio student loan holder? We want your feedback

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.
Are you an Erudio student loan holder? We want your feedback

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.
0
Comments
-
Draft form is a big improvement. A small but important confusing technical point: Sections 4-7 ask you to work out ANNUAL income, and then Section 8 asks for total gross MONTHLY income from the other sections. Most people will probably add up sections 4-7 and write the result (i.e. their ANNUAL) in Section 8. If this is then interpreted as their MONTHLY income, the application will probably be declined….0
-
Question on data-sharing: for those of us with 1998 accounts (which don't allow data sharing with credit reference agencies unless in arrears), is it really true they have the right to do a credit search and leave a footprint? I'd have thought that is very dubious….0
-
Still claims that a direct debit is needed, same old lies.
Looks like you wasted your time meeting these clowns."Love you Dave Brooker! x"
"i sent a letter headded sales of god act 1979"0 -
Question on data-sharing: for those of us with 1998 accounts (which don't allow data sharing with credit reference agencies unless in arrears), is it really true they have the right to do a credit search and leave a footprint? I'd have thought that is very dubious….
That sticks out for me too! Why leave a credit footprint? I am not asking Erudio for credit or anything except hassle free deferment of my govt loan. I never borrowed from Erudio. If I wanted a loan I would go to someone more reputable like Wonga or the Cheque Centre.
What happened to the threat of registering our legally deferred loans with CRA's??? This was on page 5 of the first Erudio DAF??0 -
It is Still a very intrusive form, compared to student loans company.0
-
Preposterous. Erudio have no right whatsoever to obtain any information from any third parties to check, verify, or confirm information given in relation to deferment, period. The basis of deferment is self-certification and such evidence that the graduate is able to 'show' of their income. No access to third party information whatsoever is required or permitted in the Education (Student Loan) Act & Regulations 1998.
Certificate and warranty part (d) and 'verification checks with third parties'? No, any such agreement is outside the terms of the Education (Student Loans) Act and Regulations 1998. Erudio has no rights to 'undertake checks to confirm that you are eligible for deferment', other than it's own checks against internal records to show name and accounts match and so forth. It has no right to make checks with third parties.
Also, why is it that :
'final versions are sent to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to approve'
??
These loans were sold outright weren't they? So what has BIS now got to do with it? Unless BIS still has a say and a stake in this process, which is fundamentally different to what it had been saying for seven months? That means BIS is responsible for the deferment process all along? Who then? Martin Donnelly? Michael Harrison? Anthony Odgers? Greg Clark? Vince Cable? Who please in BIS is responsible for approving the particulars of the deferment process of Erudio?0 -
Big thanks to Martin and the MSE team for keeping this going and giving the customers a chance to have a say. You did ask, so here goes
General
The DAF states in several places "based on your current circumstances", when it's actually based on income in the month before applying for deferment - should be reworded to reflect this and make it clearer what "current" means.
Page 1
1 e) As this field is optional and there is no need for Erudio to have this information, it should be removed from the DAF.
1 f) The loan agreement states that it's the responsibility of the borrower to keep the lender informed of a change of address, and as the form already asks for confirmation of correct address details at 1 b), there is no need to ask for previous address details in the last 3 years (this isn't a credit application, deferrers have kept SLC informed of address for 20-odd years, why is this needed when it wasn't previously given?).
Page 2
The statement "In line with the terms and conditions of your original loan agreement, you are required to maintain a Direct Debit Mandate for your repayments even if your repayments are deferred" is factually inaccurate and misleading to borrowers. This is one of the main issues with the DAF, and I'm surprised to see it's still there, especially as Erudio told me in their final response to my formal complaint:
"Please accept our apologies for the correspondence from Erudio which stated you would be in breach of your agreement if you did not have a direct debit set up on your account. We have reviewed our policies and we can confirm we no longer require a direct debit to be set up on an account when it is deferred".
Every reference to a DD in the original loan agreement and student loan regulations relates to repayments and not deferment. Could you ask Erudio to show where in the terms it states a DD is required during deferment? They won't be able to, so this statement has to be removed from the DAF, as it's plainly not true. Erudio are not trusted with bank details, they have a proven record of taking payments they are not entiteled to, this will be a major issue to many who simply can't afford for random, illegal payments to be taken from their bank accounts.
Page 4
Section 5 Income from Savings and Investments - this should be set out in the same way as the other income sections, i.e. showing Amount Received, Frequency, and Annual Equivalent (as it's only the income in the month before deferment application that's relevant).
Page 5
Section 6 h) Can't find any reference to "One parent benefit" online, so it's unclear what's referred to here. If they mean the lone parent allowance that is factored into income support, then this has already been declared at Section 6 a) of the form. Does it mean child maintenance? There have been reports on the Erudio thread of this being counted as the borrower's income whereas the SLC disregarded it (seems reasonable when it's meant for the child). If a benefit's specifically mentioned on the DAF, it has to be given its proper name, or it'll just create confusion.
Section 8 - why just section 4 a)? There might be income at 4 b) and c) which they're saying should be excluded from total income.
Certificate and Warranty
8 d) states "I understand that Erudio Student Loans reserves the right to request further information and/or to verify the information which I have provided. I also authorise the organisation or persons from whom my income is derived to give Erudio Student Loans such confirmation or information about that income as Erudio Student Loans may reasonably request".
The terms of the original loan agreement and the legislation don't give any right for Erudio to request/verify information in this way, so again it's misleading to borrowers and should be removed.
8 e) states "I have read the terms and conditions as set out overleaf"... assuming Erudio are referring to the following pages 6 & 7, I'm sorry but !!!!!!? THESE ARE NOT TERMS AND CONDITIONS!! There's plenty in those 2 pages "set out overleaf" which is not in the original T&C's, which to me means NEW T&C's - pages 6 & 7 are simply a statement made by Erudio on a deferment application form (NOT part of the original contract) and should not be put across this way. This is a prime example of why there is so much upset/outrage/distrust at these Government loans being sold off to a private sector debt consortium - people want to know that they remain on the same t&c's that they signed up to. Something like this immediately sets alarm bells ringing and does nothing to restore trust with the new owners of our debt.
I'm getting annoyed so will leave the rest for now, there's so much wrong with this revised version, pages 6 & 7 are probably the more worrying parts too!
@ Mr McGuffin - noticed the BIS stamp at the end - I took it to be an attempt at keeping us the 'customers' happy, rather than any genuine obligation?
0 -
I echo the above and also add that 1 G, H, I & J are irrelevant as well. Most of us only want to be contacted through direct mail. The last thing we want to do is give them our phone numbers/email for them to continually pester us with (see Honours Student Loans criticisms). It seems mandatory on the form you show but surely as long as they have our address, that is the only mandatory one. MY PREFERRED METHOD IS DIRECT MAIL but that isnt an option anywhere?
1 d,e & f do definitely feel like a CRA data gathering exercise, and what is the point of the past 3 years info, they asked that on the first form so have that info already! Why ask it every year.
For the proof of additional income in the guide, it asks for a letter from the supporting party but also the last months bank statement with the credits clearly identified. What if someone is given the money by hand, or a lump payment is given 6 months before, or there is no real evidence other than the supporting, signed and dated, letter? Surely Erudio need to sort that out.
I may also add that giving info about the pre-1998 loans to CRAs, such as being on a 'payment holiday' etc can affect ANYONE living at your address or associated with you if it is deemed a negative (which it clearly is because it infers we are not paying the loan back yet, even though we have fully honoured our loan agreement)...THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED AND GOES AGAINST THE ORIGINAL T & Cs that a student loan wont affect anyone else. I believe that is why the SLC never did hand our loan info over to CRAs because it could have been a potential bombshell! This really does need clarifying.
The CRA info at the end still comes over as a threat. Why say the info 'MAY' be passed on to CRAs...it either will or it wont. The threat lies in that word 'MAY'. In fact, very little has changed to me and if this is the most that Erudio will allow MSE to influence, it seems pretty futile as it looks like Erudio wont give an inch.
I also think that the form should state which companies have our information and state things more clearly, in the interests of honesty and openness. Capita have it (what is its data sharing policy), Ventura have it, The Wilmington Trust surely have it and Arrow Global and CarVal must have access to it as well...what are all their policies? It isnt like just Erudio have it...in fact, as The Wilmington Trust are Erudio officially, they are probably, in a twisted shell company way, the least likely to have our info but the ones who we target with all our criticisms. They want us to be honest about our personal info with them, they should be the same and tell us exactly who they are and what each company does with our personal information because when I signed up for a student loan I thought the only body with access to my personal info (unless I broke my loan agreement) was SLC. I think i can speak for most of Erudio's 'customers' and there is probably not one person who trusts them, especially given the mess concerning the Direct Debit thefts and disregard for the DD mandate during those thefts! As such, they should have to state things clearly on these forms if they have nothing to hide.
One final, very important, overlooked issue concerns when we need to return the form by BEFORE they guarantee they will process the form and NOT take a Direct Debit. This is a key issue in the trust cycle between us and them. This needs to consider people being abroad and having to mail the form backwards and forwards to our home addresses in the UK, before being posted on to Capita. We need guarantees that our forms will be treated and processed, not lost in their seemingly terrible system. We need to know we are dealing with an honest, trustworthy company that treats its customers fairly (like Arrow Global continually state in their 2013 annual report and throughout their website), and that means having a system that doesnt lose our forms when we send it via normal mail, and the promise they will not take a DD payment if we return the forms by a set certain date. I suggest they send the forms out 2 months before the DD date, then allow 21 days for them to process the forms (which should be easier now they have been doing it for a year). This relationship will only work FAIRLY if they have systems in place to do so; not like now, where everything seems like a trap or potential pitfall!
I would like to thank MSE though for trying with this, at least we have someone outside of ourselves trying to help get this mess sorted out!!!0 -
I agree with the above comments by Erudioed and Anna2007 - not much more to add but thanks to MSE for looking at it x0
-
Well said Anna and Erudioed and Mr mcguffin!
The very fact that erudio felt the need to redo their horrible DAF would I imagine give some very good legal arguments for those about to start legal action over NOT signing it in the first place. So bit of a win there!
New form still asking for a lot of info that arrow have no right to under original loan terms!
Does arrow not realise they are trying to con graduates? We are not zipped up at the back you know!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.3K Spending & Discounts
- 240.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.6K Life & Family
- 253.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards