Rosskie wrote: »
1997 loan then they can pass on your info under the terms of your agreement, and wont need any further signatures, so no, you cant stop that.
Cant speak for 97 loans on the DD point but the terms of 98 on do not require a direct debit to be in place to defer, and I would challenge Erudio to show otherwise. If your not eligible to defer then they can insist on direct debit payments if they so wish, but have the option to accept other means.
rizla_king wrote: »
Direct Debit Mandates.
If you analyse the agreement terms, having a direct debit mandate is NOT a requirement for deferment and they should not be able to refuse you deferment if you dont. Apart from being over the income threshold, the only reason they can refuse deferment under the agreements is if the loans have previously been demanded back in full. Under the agreement they can ONLY demand the loans back in full if you fail to make a required payment under the agreement. In other words not having a DD in place is not a breach of the agreement that allows the to demand the loan back in full, so it is not a breach that gives them legal grounds to refuse a deferment. Again Erudio do their best to make you think otherwise with deceptive wording on the forms.
erudioed wrote: »
Anyone believe the claim by Erudio/Ventura/Capita in the new MSE article that only 50 people have had DDs taken?
...claim council tax rebates from Ofgem
Share your photos in this thread
Slightly blemished shoes at low prices