ERUDIO student loans help

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Credit File & Ratings
6.6K replies 872.1K views
15253555758656

Replies

  • anna2007anna2007 Forumite
    1.2K Posts
    rizla_king wrote: »
    Those terms with that wording were all from the 1993 to 1997 regulations, all of which have been revoked and do not now apply to any loan no matter what date it was taken out.The regulations had to be revoked completely and remade each year to change the deferment threshold, meaning that it was only ever the current set that applied to ALL loans.

    The final current regulations for the mortgage style loans are the 1998 ones that set the threshold differently, and so have never been revoked and remain in force.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/211/schedule/2/paragraph/9/made
    Accepted (I even said the original Act was repealed in 1998!), I was linking to the original Act and regulations in case it helped the person who thought the quote was from a term of the loan agreement.

    If it helps, there's a list of all changes affecting the 1990 Act here:
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/changes/affected/ukpga/1990/6
  • edited 9 May 2014 at 1:35PM
    anna2007anna2007 Forumite
    1.2K Posts
    edited 9 May 2014 at 1:35PM
    rizla_king wrote: »
    Yes but also under the terms only certain breaches entitle them to refuse deferment or demand the loan back in full.

    Not maintaining a DD is not a breach that allows them to do that. That clause does not have the teeth you think it does.

    Which is why they are deciding with people that they can't insist on it.
    Again, I agree with you! I never said that I thought the clause had teeth (quite the opposite), only that I think Erudio will claim that it does.

    My understanding of the terms is that they can require immediate payment of the whole loan if you fail to make a repayment required under the loan agreement. I suppose the best way to ensure this never happens is to have the DD set up.

    I'm more thinking ahead to what happens when these loans qualify for cancellation (Erudio don't have much choice but to defer the loans in the meantime, if you can prove your income's below the threshold, although this won't stop them making the whole deferment process a nightmare compared to SLC). The terms state something like the loans will be cancelled after the 25 years/age 50 so long as you're not in breach of ANY obligation to them. Maybe I'm being paranoid or over-thinking things, but I simply don't trust Erudio, I think they're trying to create an obligation for us to have a DD set up by adding that statement to the DD form, which they'll use against us if the loans reach the stage of being eligible for cancellation.

    Hope that explains where I'm coming from with this, I completely agree with you on the point of the DD (or lack of) having no impact on your rights to defer.
  • rizla_kingrizla_king Forumite
    2.9K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Undoubtedly that is what they hope people will think. It's clearly not true from the agreement terms though.

    If Erudio could be trusted with the direct debit details than I don't think it would be an issue. Unfortunately they've shown that they can't be trusted in the slightest. Yes you can claim payments back but sometimes you can't always get that done immediately even when the DD rules say it should be, and in the meantime the money swiped from some people's accounts can leave up a !!!!!! creak without a paddle.

    In the end if you are deferred or entitled to defer then there is no need to have a DD in place. Or if you are due to pay then you can set one up or pay direct. No need for one to be permanently in place.
    Still rolling rolling rolling...... :) <
    SIGNATURE - Not part of post
  • rizla_kingrizla_king Forumite
    2.9K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Same applies to cancellation though. The loan terms and regs are clear. As long as you are not behind with payments then you are entitled to have them cancelled at the appropriate time.
    Still rolling rolling rolling...... :) <
    SIGNATURE - Not part of post
  • CloudsinSkyCloudsinSky Forumite
    17 Posts
    anna2007 wrote: »
    Education (Student Loans Act) 1990 (repealed in March 1998):
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/6/section/1/enacted

    The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990:
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/1401/contents/made
    I don't see how it matters where the terms are - whether in the regulations or credit agreement. Either way, you'd expect at the time you took out your loan (in many or most cases, as a naieve teenager) that whatever official paperwork you were given at the time, formed your contract. Any subsequent change to that is mis-selling, surely?

    On this forum, none of us seem to be totally clear where we stand, and there is no way any of us would trust Erudio to inform us impartially, of course. So who else can tell us? Why should any of us have to seek legal advice. The Government - BIS, I guess, should be giving us a lot more information to remove all doubt. The information they provide should be impartial (I don't know the process of how that could happen. Based on information already provided to some of us from BIS, it would not be impartial. So they would have to demonstrate to us that it could be given impartially somehow).
  • Erudio Student Loans has admitted over 500 people have mistakenly had money taken from their accounts – not 50...
    Read the full story:

    Erudio Student Loans: 500 people had mistakenly taken from accounts

    OfficialStamp.gif


    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.
  • anna2007anna2007 Forumite
    1.2K Posts
    @ MSE Helen, thanks for the update to the article.

    Something doesn't add up with the number of deferred borrowers affected by this - your article says it's 45,000, but the Government's press release from last November on the loan sale states the loans are owed by around a quarter of a million borrowers, 46% of whom are deferring - so 115,000 - quite a discrepancy.

    The press release also goes on to say that "Approximately 1 million borrowers were retained by the SLC following the previous sales and 69% of those have fully repaid their debt", which leaves 310,000 borrowers with outstanding debt, so perhaps even the government don't know the true figure... maybe you could check with your source on the number of deferred borrowers whose loans were sold, as it looks like it's far higher than the article suggests? Press release here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sale-of-mortgage-style-student-loan-book-completed

    I've PM'd you about a couple of other issues, would really appreciate it if you could have a read and let me know what you think, thanks :)
  • Just been perusing Arrow Global's FAQs page. I'd not looked at it before, maybe others have and if I've missed their post(s), apologies.
    Interestingly (and I could be wrong. It's just opinion) the text/format within it is very, very similar to that of the FAQs page on Erudio's site.
    Clearly, it's been sub-edited and re-sculpted for Erudio, but the style [blue text - click it and the drop-down elaboration appears] is quintessentially the same. I'd even go so far as to imagine the same web software was used and the same IT bods created it!
    And there are a couple of fascinating little tit-bits on there too. As I'm a new forum member (although it now feels like I joined in 1994 - wish I had, wouldn't have taken the flipping loan out with such hindsight), I probably can't link to the page. But it is simply Arrow's UK site, and the FAQs page.
    On the subject of CRAs, Arrow's FAQs (while constantly assuring customers are treated fairly) indicate credit files could be hurt by defaults and arrears on debts they have purchased. And while I accept that we're in a slightly different boat (maybe a bit like a stricken, but still steady life raft aside the doomed Titanic), there is no mention of any 'oooh, we need to tell tales on you to check you're not fibbing about the millions you have stashed in that Swiss bank account' scenario. And that's my illustrative imagination there! I basically refer to Erudio's argument that to gain information on us, they need to supply it. Mere BS I suspect. Who knows?
    But I do, personally, interpret the passing of data to CRAs info on Arrow's FAQs to mean a totally different thing to the suitably amended FAQs provided for we little Erudions!
    Basically, Arrow say, in a nutshell, to Arrow debtors, 'Default on a debt we've bought, we could potentially damage your credit file by informing CRAs' Standard practice I'd assume in the debt collection world. We've all heard the stories.
    Yet, tailored for our individual needs, as mortgage-style loan-holders, we're told that they need to inform CRAs so as to enable a flow of information about us, to ensure we're not telling porky pies about our means to stump up money. Yet we're constantly reminded it could 'positively' affect our records.
    Erudio must know the gravitas of a CRA threat. Their parent company has been using it and openly admits so on its website!
    One final note. A weird thing on the actual Erudio FAQs page.
    There are two questions relating to deferment. One is; 'Will I still be able to defer?' The other asks what will happen if the loan holder is currently in a period of deferment instated by SLC. The answer given by Erudio to both questions is identical and purely summarises how one should go about the deferment process. It doesn't answer the second question!
    I will again reiterate my key point. I do not blame Erudio or Arrow Global for ANY of this. They are debt collectors and a private operation with profit at the forefront of their actions.
    The government needs to end its silence and speak to those of us enduring this farce that even the Chuckle Brothers would stand and marvel at!
  • edited 10 May 2014 at 1:20AM
    anna2007anna2007 Forumite
    1.2K Posts
    edited 10 May 2014 at 1:20AM
    I don't see how it matters where the terms are - whether in the regulations or credit agreement. Either way, you'd expect at the time you took out your loan (in many or most cases, as a naieve teenager) that whatever official paperwork you were given at the time, formed your contract. Any subsequent change to that is mis-selling, surely?

    On this forum, none of us seem to be totally clear where we stand, and there is no way any of us would trust Erudio to inform us impartially, of course. So who else can tell us? Why should any of us have to seek legal advice. The Government - BIS, I guess, should be giving us a lot more information to remove all doubt. The information they provide should be impartial (I don't know the process of how that could happen. Based on information already provided to some of us from BIS, it would not be impartial. So they would have to demonstrate to us that it could be given impartially somehow).
    The only one I would trust to be impartial in our situation is the ombudsman. I've only brought two cases to an ombudsman (both mobile phone companies, two separate ADR schemes), both found against the company, I thought both were completely impartial. The first case was on my ownsome, the second was with huge support from other people on the MSE forum last year. I would never take a complaint to these guys for the sake of it (because it takes up a silly amount of your free time), but if it feels like they're taking the pee, then it's time to dig your heels in and fight.

    Think about the potential sale of the later student loans.(with their loose terms).. that seems scary, as millions of people will be in the same situation as our wee minority are in now. Sadly, I'm old enough to remember the Poll Tax being trialled in Scotland in a similar guinea-pig style, that hardly ended well for Maggie and her minions... another legacy of the Tories that didn't turn out too good then.

    What really gets me is that our Government walked into this deal with their eyes wide open. They knew exactly the beast they were dealing with - a DCA who give not a !!!!!! about the customer or their circumstances. It makes sense for a DCA to take over defaulters, that's their job, but why would they include deferred loans... maybe because they're worth near to half a million and made the deal that bit sweeter for Erudio. Fed to the CRA wolves for the sake of an education, well thank you so much, but I think I'll use my right to defer, ignore the scare tactics and fight your shoddy tactics with every breath :-P Basterds...
  • fermifermi Forumite
    40.6K Posts
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker Intrepid Forum Explorer Rampant Recycler
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Text of the article for the record on this thread.
    Erudio Student Loans has admitted over 500 people have mistakenly had money taken from their accounts – not the 50 it formerly said. All those affected have been refunded, but if you've had money taken and haven't had it back, let us know.

    This week, MoneySavingExpert.com met Zach Lewy, founder and executive director of Arrow Global, which part-owns Erudio. Our meeting followed the major problems that emerged following the Government's sale of pre-1998 mortgage-style loans to Erudio last November.

    See MoneySavingExpert.com's founder Martin Lewis' blog post The Government has sold people out over Erudio student loans for a full round-up of the issues.

    The majority of these issues centre around the some 45,000 former students who took out loans between 1990 and 1998 and currently defer repaying the money, as they fall short of the £28,775 per year earnings threshold.

    The issues occurred despite ministers promising there would be no real change for borrowers when the loans were sold (see the Student Loan Graduates deserve truth MSE News story for more).

    MoneySavingExpert.com has been urging the Government to urgently clear up the confusion for Erudio customers, but despite receiving assurances from his department, Universities and Science Minister David Willetts has yet to provide a comment.

    Here's what Erudio told us on a number of our key concerns. We've also asked it to become a company representative on our forum so it can reply to your questions there. It says it will look into doing this.

    1. Payments being taken when they shouldn't and without notice

    Erudio told us last month that about 50 people whose loans are deferred had mistakenly had repayments taken from their bank account by direct debit (see the Graduates have money taken from accounts despite deferring MSE News story).

    But it has now confirmed that after carrying out a thorough check, there were actually 531 people who had money taken incorrectly. It says this mistake has since been rectified and all those affected have been refunded.

    If you've had money taken from your bank account and you haven't been refunded, please let us know via the forum link below. You should also report it to Erudio. If you don't get a satisfactory response, you can take your complaint to the free Financial Ombudsman Service.

    You can also get a refund from your bank or building society under the Direct Debit Guarantee.

    Customers whose loans were deferred when Erudio bought them from the Student Loans Company's (SLC) don't need to do anything until the end of their deferral period. Deferrals last 12 months before they have to be reviewed, at which point Erudio will send you a deferral form to complete.

    If you don't complete and return this form, Erudio will assume you're no longer eligible to defer and will start collecting loan payments. The SLC has confirmed this is the same process it used.

    2. The form is far more invasive

    When the SLC operated the loans, there was a form to "apply for a deferral of repayment". But now there's an untitled form, which asks far more questions. It's also left many former students confused about what questions are compulsory and whether they will actually get their deferrals.

    Erudio told us it's setting up a new deferral form, which clearly explains what it's for, and which tells customers which questions are compulsory or optional. It says it's working to incorporate all of the feedback received to date and will update the deferment form in due course.

    It will also share this form with MoneySavingExpert.com before it's published, so we can put it to our users and then share this feedback. There's no date yet as to when the form will be updated, but Erudio says it will be this year.

    It adds that customer feedback will also influence changes to its guides.

    3. Erudio is handing over information to credit reference agencies

    The SLC only registered information with credit agencies when someone defaulted, but Erudio is telling credit reference agencies about all those with outstanding loans that are deferred.

    Erudio says it's promoting responsible lending by doing this and that accurate credit reports are important. It also says if it doesn't put data into credit agencies, it can't get any data out of them.

    The Government says the terms and conditions of fixed-term student loans have not changed as a result of their sale to Erudio. But this is obviously a change to the customs and practice of the SLC's dealings with borrowers.

    4. Poor customer service and delays processing deferrals

    We've been inundated with reports of poor customer service from Erudio, as well as of lengthy delays processing deferrals.

    Erudio outsources the servicing of its loans to Capita. It says poor customer service from its helpline is down to the fact it sent out a lot of letters about the sale, deferments, and direct debits in a short period of time, leading to a lot of people getting in touch.

    It adds this was exacerbated by students who hadn't kept their addresses up to date, so had not received any letters and were confused about what was happening.

    Erudio says it had extra staff working over the recent bank holidays to catch up on enquiries. It adds deferrals are now being processed much quicker, taking 21 days.
    Free/impartial debt advice: National Debtline | StepChange Debt Charity | Find your local CAB

    IVA & fee charging DMP companies: Profits from misery, motivated ONLY by greed
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest News and Guides