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

fermi

anna2007 wrote: »

　
@ 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.

All correct as far as I can tell.

Erudio's claim that is is a legal and contractual requirement to keep a direct debt in place in deferment seems to be entirely false, and a deliberate attempt by them to misrepresent the legal position on this.

crapola

My husband and myself would like to thank all the contributors and the time spent comparing forms, T&C's and the like.

We echo everything that has already been commented on. We don’t have anything new to add, but really wanted to bring our voice to the fight. We live in hope that this feedback, all of it, is taken into consideration and acted upon; otherwise we will begin to lose respect for MSE and all that is stands for.

Eruidoed made a very valid comment on page 1 of this thread and it’s something we also feel strongly about. It’s the use of the phrase "….another gripe repeatedly aired by those with debts...". In our opinion, this tars us with the same brush as people who blatantly run from their personal financial responsibilities.

Helen, I’d like to ask MSE to stop referring to us in this way please and pay us therespect we deserve. You would not be asking for our feedback here if you didn’t think there we had clear points to make.

We didn’t ask for any of this. We have followed SLC’s rules for many many years and are legally entitled to be in deferral. The issues we are fighting have long surpassed the “gripe stage”, as can be seen from the threads we’re into legal territories now.

We would also like our feedback counted on the continuing topic of CRA reporting. We have worked hard at maintaining our credit files and are reaching the stage of purchasing our first house. It makes us pig-sick to think that this could affect us. We are of the opinion that these loans were miss-sold. We were clearly told these would not affect our future. Well, we are now 18 years into that future and having to deal with this, it’s downright disgusting and the BIS and Government should be made accountable and be hanging their heads in shame.

Helen, you can see from the comments here and the continuing main thread that the collective here is not daft, we know our rights and we are fighting for them. We will not back down and will not be bullied.

Please be true to your word and everything Martin Lewis has built MSE upon and help us fight this, we deserve better.

museli

So many pages. The previous one was a double sided A4!

All you need to ask is:

Is this your right address?
What is your income?
Who is your employer?
any benefits etc?
Sign here. (and send proof)

That's five lines, not five pages.

I agree take them to court if possible.

Lungboy

Considering people with split loans are being deferred by SLC, using SLC forms, it only seems fair that everyone should use the same form, albeit with Erudio's contact details in place of the SLC's.

Mr McGuffin: loads of people used to defer with SLC simply by sending a cover letter and the proof required but no DAF, so you're absolutely correct that while the SLC form had a similar "certificate and warranty" box, it was not a condition of acceptance of deferment and they would defer anyway. Erudio on the other hand either "lose" your documents if sent without their form, or flat-out refuse to defer unless you sign their form.

rmcelduff

I did not receive a deferment application from Erudio even though they contacted me by post 3 months before deferment was due to say this would sent soon.

I had a payment taken from my account and immediately contacted Erudio. Initially they refused to believe who I was because the address on their system did not match my own even though they had sent a letter to me at said address already.

It turned out that the address they used to send deferment form was a rented property I had moved out from 10 years ago and had never used for correspondence with SLC. Once this mistake was rectified they agreed to send new deferment copy to my proper address.

Now by the time I received forms and sent them back again I contacted Erudio and they informed me that a second payment would be taken out as deferment form was not received in time to stop the payment process!

I have since had both payments returned to my account. I would not be pleased that residents of old properties I lived in would be receiving post regarding my personal information and loans status however.

Pluthero

crapola wrote: »

My husband and myself would like to thank all the contributors and the time spent comparing forms, T&C's and the like.

We echo everything that has already been commented on. We don’t have anything new to add, but really wanted to bring our voice to the fight. We live in hope that this feedback, all of it, is taken into consideration and acted upon; otherwise we will begin to lose respect for MSE and all that is stands for.

Eruidoed made a very valid comment on page 1 of this thread and it’s something we also feel strongly about. It’s the use of the phrase "….another gripe repeatedly aired by those with debts...". In our opinion, this tars us with the same brush as people who blatantly run from their personal financial responsibilities.

Helen, I’d like to ask MSE to stop referring to us in this way please and pay us therespect we deserve. You would not be asking for our feedback here if you didn’t think there we had clear points to make.

We didn’t ask for any of this. We have followed SLC’s rules for many many years and are legally entitled to be in deferral. The issues we are fighting have long surpassed the “gripe stage”, as can be seen from the threads we’re into legal territories now.

We would also like our feedback counted on the continuing topic of CRA reporting. We have worked hard at maintaining our credit files and are reaching the stage of purchasing our first house. It makes us pig-sick to think that this could affect us. We are of the opinion that these loans were miss-sold. We were clearly told these would not affect our future. Well, we are now 18 years into that future and having to deal with this, it’s downright disgusting and the BIS and Government should be made accountable and be hanging their heads in shame.

Helen, you can see from the comments here and the continuing main thread that the collective here is not daft, we know our rights and we are fighting for them. We will not back down and will not be bullied.

Please be true to your word and everything Martin Lewis has built MSE upon and help us fight this, we deserve better.

Well said. Totally agree. In a very similar position. Erudio please feel free to track down defaulters and make them pay. Of course it is easier to pick on the law abiding using dubious DCA tactics.

I have been fighting Erudio since May!!! to have my loans deferred. I refused to use their DAF as I initially thought it was an elaborate Phishing scam and Googled it to check! I sent by recorded mail 3 months wage slips and a declaration of income which is all that is required under the original loan terms.

I am having to take legal action in order for my loans to be deferred which is a disgrace. I am pretty mentally robust and able to face up to these lowlife chancers. It makes my blood boil when I see Erudio picking on Single parents, the disabled, asking for people to get estranged/hostile spouses to write letters confirming income: just some examples on the various forums of this vile organisations practices . AND these are the people we know about. Must be thousands who have been duped/bullied into paying up when they did not LEGALLY have to.

Dear Helen/Martin and the MSE team please use all your influence to stop this Shell Company's unfair immoral practices.

:mad:

crapola

...One last comment from me Helen.

The feedback provided here should be considered for its quality, not quantity.

We worry that a large number of those effected have yet to discover the forums, or in fact realise that they are not alone in their concerns.

The feedback you have recieved here is valuable and should be used correctly.

Don't let us down.

fermi

Deadline for feedback is 5pm today according to MSE_Forum on twitter.

daswalkerdas

Unwittingly earlier this year I fully filled out Erudios form and was able to defer for another year, this after they stole a months loan repayments from me (and then paid them back)

Since that I have cancelled the DD with them with my bank.

I do hope in doing so I have not changed or unknowingly agreed to change the terms of the original SLC loan.

JeLaw

Hope I'm not too late to add my comments. Slightly garbled due to my current state of health - but I wanted to add my voice.

I'm trying to keep up with the Erudio threads - and the battle! - but my health hasn't been good the past few weeks.

Trying to catch up with it all today.

I suppose I don't really have anything new to add to the (well-written and well expressed comments) already on this thread - just that I completely agree with what's been said (and thank you to those who have articulated the issues so well).

I agree with some others on here who view this as a misselling issue. I also echo what others have said about the DD issue. There is nothing in the original terms and conditions requiring us to have an active DD during deferment.

Again, I agree with the comments about the CRA threads.

Finally, I think the suggestion that the original SLC deferment application forms are used (with a change of logo to reflect Erudio's) should be sufficient.

Edited to add. I forgot to say that I completely agree with the points raised over the language used to describe us. We should not be referred to as "those with debts" because it does convey the wrong impression about us to other people/the general public/the media. We should be referred to as "those eligible for deferral" or "those in deferment" or "those earning under the repayment threshold". We are legally entitled to defer.