MSE News: Are you an Erudio student loan holder? We want your feedback

mrsval

count me in as well Anthony,because this company terrifies me. They could make me homeless. If you don't mind me saying Anthony your info is brilliant but needs wider circulation because there are thousands of students out there that needs this information. And thank you mse without this site I wouldn't have a clue what to do or where to go for help.

erudioed

mrsval wrote: »

OMGGG The form they want filling in is not only intrusive but abusive. They want to know spouses income ?????? I'm 59 and my husband is already retired and has a state pension do they really need to take his state pension into account ??? I'm terrified to fill this form in. If I do and they decide I have to pay because my husbands state pension is added I will have to move out of my home and find somewhere really cheap. Or do I just run away because that's what I feel like doing because this is terrifying me.

That isnt going to happen, so dont worry about that!!! And what your husband earns has nothing to do with them...it is your loan/contract only. Welcome on board for the fight though, we should be quite soon reducing the potential cost to us all when we go to court. Lets hope many more commit as well very soon, we need as many as possible (and then more)!

kathrynha

They are still wanting a P60.
As my deferment date is March/April time my current P60 relates to the year before, which I have already been given deferment for, so is of no use to them what so ever. I explained it to them on my last deferment, and they accepted it.

Also do we have to provide all contact types? As long as we give them our preferred one (email or address so everything is in writing) then why do they need our phone numbers?

kathrynha

Also for benefits they want benefit letter from current year or bank statement.
Last year they got a bank statement that had 90%+ of the writing blacked out, but I'd prefer not to send them that, especially as it's a joint account.
Our only benefit is child benefit, so the last letter I got about that was 8 years ago. Do you think benefits people would be willing to provide a new letter every year?

Student1983

kathrynha wrote: »

Also for benefits they want benefit letter from current year or bank statement.
Last year they got a bank statement that had 90%+ of the writing blacked out, but I'd prefer not to send them that, especially as it's a joint account.
Our only benefit is child benefit, so the last letter I got about that was 8 years ago. Do you think benefits people would be willing to provide a new letter every year?

Just phone child benefit and they will send a new form out. I have done this often. They are usually very quick about it. Also as child benefit was frozen you probably didn't get one for a while.

Student1983

GinOClock wrote: »

Obviously this will never happen, but the best and most simple solution would be to take the current SLC DAF, and replace the details of SLC with Erudio Student Loans Limited. This is because:

i) The SLC DAF asks only for what is relevant and necessary, and does not ask the borrower to give permissions or information not required under the Agreement;
ii) It would put Erudio borrowers on an identical footing to shared borrowers who are currently deferred by SLC;
iii) The SLC DAF has worked well for 20+ years;
iv) At only two sides of a single A4 page, it saves trees and reduces our carbon footprint.

Completely agree that this is how the form should be. I also agree with everyone else's comment. The reason they want us to sign their form is to get us on the CRA's by arguing that we have given INFOrmed consent.

Edwood_Woodwood

This thread is a waste of time.

The old SL deferment forms were completely fine and can be used now with just a logo change from SL to Erudio all that is needed.

Instead, Erudio want more intrusive info so that they can be threatening to those with loans, even those in deferment.

My loan was administered just fine for 22 years and within just a few months of Erudio owning this loan they claim I am now in arrears and are threatening me.

They are a complete shower and, as a new company only formed in 2013, they are clearly incompetent and the ICO should immediately act on this, as should other authorities.

Mr_McGuffin

Requirement and authorisation for contact with third parties does not exist in the Education (Student Loan) Regulations 1998 or in the original loan agreements. As far as I am aware, no agreement for contact with third parties to 'check' or 'verify' anything in relation to a request for deferment exists outside the 'Deferment Application Form'.

The SLC 'Deferment Application Form' contained a 'Certificate and Warranty' with a similar but not identical form of words to the Erudio 'DAF'.

Deferment with the SLC could not be conditional on acceptance of the additional terms in this 'Certificate and Warranty'. Despite the appearance of the form and the impression created, I do not believe completion of a 'Deferment Application Form' and agreement to contact with third parties was a condition for the SLC to process deferment, because it is not a condition of the 1998 Regulations.

This 'warranty' and apparent additional agreement with the SLC to terms outside those of the loans themselves was not only optional, it was made with a government owned, non-profit, non-departmental public body, not with a private profit-seeking company.


As I understand it, there are two elements in the SLC 'Certificate and Warranty'. Certification of the truth of the income declared and of the evidence the graduate can 'show' is consistent with the 1998 Regulations and the original conception of deferment based on 'self-certification':

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Kenneth Baker) 'Deferment will be arranged with the company on the basis of self-certification of income and subject to audit.' (HC Deb 19 June 1989)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Robert Jackson) 'The Government are proposing a simple test which will rely on the honesty of graduates, and we expect it to he fulfilled. There will be a process of self-declaration, subject to sample checking… People will have to assess for themselves whether their income is above or below the threshold, and the whole process will be subject to sample survey' (HC Deb 15 February 1990)

The signatory of the SLC 'DAF' seems to in effect also be asked to 'warrant' contact with third parties. This is an agreement outside the original loan terms. If this 'warrant' is not given or is refused, it seems to me that such contact or threatened contact would not be warranted.


In February 1990 it was proposed in the Department of Education and Science publication 'Top-up loans: rules & procedures' that an application for deferment would authorise checks of income with an employer and bank. By July, when the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990 were made, it had been decided that this right would not be included in the legislation and the terms of the loans. Contact with employers and banks as part of the verification process was categorically excluded:

Mr Jackson 'The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks. Borrowers wishing to defer repayments will be required to produce evidence that their income falls below 85 per cent of national average earnings.' (HC Deb 19 June 1990)

'The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked about the use of the banks to verify graduate income. Policy has developed since February. The Student Loans Company will not contact a graduate's employer or a bank for evidence of income, but it will seek evidence from the graduate.' (HC Deb 9 July 1990)

No such permission existed in the Education (Student Loans) Act and Regulations in 1990, and does not exist in the now applicable 1998 Regulations. No debt owner has ever had the right to do this. The Minister responsible confirmed unambiguously in 1990 that evidence of income for deferment must be obtained from the graduate.


A 'Certificate and Warranty' was incorporated in the SLC 'Deferment Application Form' specified in the 1998 sale. In that context it appeared to give rights to a body that would not or could not use them, while completion of the form was not itself mandatory for deferment. The 1998 and 1999 sale agreements separated the operation of the deferment process and the rights agreed in any additional 'warranty' from the commercial owners of the loans. The current situation is of course quite different, and consent to similar terms may also have different consequences to consent with the SLC.

This is how I understand the situation, and as far as I am aware neither the SLC, BIS nor Erudio have shown anything to demonstrate this is not correct.

Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v.1.0

anna2007

　
@ MSE - surely Mr McGuffin's strong evidence, together with the fact that the loan agreement and regulations do not give the lender the right to verify income with the employer or any other third party, means that all reference to this should be removed from the DAF and related documentation?

On another issue, the DD requirement, the following might be helpful, which is lifted from my formal complaint to Erudio:

"...the original loan agreements and relevant legislation only stipulate that repayments should be made by Direct Debit; there is no requirement for me to have a Direct Debit set up during a period of deferment (when no repayments are due). For your reference, the relevant sections are set out below:

"The repayments shall be paid by direct debit from your Bank or Building Society unless we agree otherwise" Clause 4.3 of the loan agreement

"Repayments shall be made by direct debit from the borrower’s bank or building society account unless the loans administrator agrees otherwise". The Education (Student Loans) Regulations for each of the eight years from 1990 to 1997 (see 1990/1401, Part IV, 7(4) in the first instance)

"Unless the lender agrees otherwise the lender will collect the borrower’s monthly repayments by direct debit. If the borrower’s account changes he must give the lender a new direct debiting instruction" The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998/211, Schedule 2, Part I, (14)

Clearly, the legal obligation for me to have a Direct Debit in place relates to periods of repayment, and is not a requirement during a period of deferment".

To resolve the complaint, I asked Erudio to confirm the following in writing:

"I am not required to maintain a Direct Debit whilst repayment of my loans are deferred, and any failure by me to maintain a Direct Debit during deferment will not be considered a breach of my loan agreement by Erudio. If Erudio is unwilling to change its position on this matter, please provide documentary evidence that I have an obligation to maintain a Direct Debit during a period of deferment".

The likely reason Erudio backed down on the DD requirement in their final response to my complaint (and even apologised for insisting on it) is because there is no documentary evidence that the borrower is legally required to maintain a DD during deferment.

chiefdave

Think others have already covered this well.

I think the fact that for nearly 20 years I have just had to fill in a box showing my annual income, sign and send with a copy of my tax return to get deferred and now I have a form so complicated it requires a 20 page instruction book on how to fill it in tells you everything you need to know!

One thing that's not clear on the form is what they are classing as gross income for those of us who do self assessment tax returns. SLC have always taken the taxable income. For example if you had income of 30K but costs / allowable expenses of 15K they would class it as the equivalent of a 15K salary. Erudio aren't doing this, at least with me, and are classing it as the equivalent of a £30K salary. They are using the term gross income without understanding it or how it doesn't apply to all circumstances. I feel they need to make clear on the form what criteria they are applying.

As with other things this isn't particularly clear on the old SLC form but there was a level of trust with them that simply doesn't exist with Erudio who seem to be desperately searching for any loophole they can find to try and force people into making payments.