ERUDIO student loans help

in Credit File & Ratings
6.6K replies 876.4K views


  • edited 20 October 2015 at 11:54AM
    anna2007anna2007 Forumite
    1.2K Posts
    edited 20 October 2015 at 11:54AM
    fermi wrote: »
    Are they stating or relying on that anywhere else apart from the annual statements?

    Sorry, I've not had time to go through everything to check.
    Page 11 of the 'How to' guide states:
    You may be eligible for a longer period of deferment or even for the loan to be cancelled if you are unable to work through disability or long-term sickness. Please contact our Helpline on 0333 003 7188 and we can provide you with more details.

    This isn't what paragraph 11 of the Regs states -surely a declaration along the lines of the one for a 12 month deferment (along with proof of receipt of a disability-related benefit), would be enough, confirming income will not (or is unlikely to be) over the threshold for the next 36 months?

    Edit: I had a look through the SLC's deferment processing manual, there's no mention of 3 year deferment (it does mention the right to have loans cancelled if permanently unfit for work - no criteria other than in receipt of PIP or Armed Forces Independence Payment).

    Does anyone know how SLC processed 3 year deferment applications?
  • Hi all,

    Thanks for flagging this point on the change to the wording for disabled borrowers. We've spoken to Erudio about this today and it says the following, which it's also posted on its website here:

    Have deferment and loan cancellation entitlements for disabled borrowers changed?

    No. We are aware the wording we have used on our annual statements has caused confusion and apologise for any inconvenience. The terms and conditions of your loan(s) have not changed and the legal requirements to successfully apply for deferment remain the same as previous years.

    For customers with a disability, if you can evidence that you receive a disability related benefit and that your gross monthly income during the following 36 months is unlikely to be more than the deferment level, you will be eligible to defer for 36 months. If you can show us that you receive a disability related benefit and because of your disability are permanently unfit to work, we will cancel your loan.

    We will be updating the wording on our statements shortly to avoid any further confusion and can assure you that the wording doesn't represent a change in the requirements to defer or have your loan(s) cancelled. Apologies for any confusion this has caused.

    If you want more information on this please contact our Helpline on 0333 003 7188 and we can provide you with more details.
  • fermifermi Forumite
    40.6K Posts
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker Intrepid Forum Explorer Rampant Recycler
    Thank you Helen for taking the time to investigate. :)
    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
  • Worried former graduates with Erudio loans have raised questions about when it's wiped and the impact on credit files...
    Read the full story:

    Erudio customer? Here's what you need to know about paying off your loan


    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.
  • Interesting read but fails to point out the facts of when they are legally entitled to report to CRAs.
    Paying for uni to get a job... just to get a job to pay for uni
  • Jill18Jill18 Forumite
    24 Posts
    No mention at all in the article of whether loans currently in deferment will be reported and, if so, how they will be reported. "Payment holiday" is not correct and will adversely affect many people who had no idea 20 years ago that this would one day affect their credit files.
  • Thanks BorderReiver14 and Jill18. I've put your questions to Erudio to confirm so I'll come back to you/and update the story as soon as I hear back. Kind regards, MSE Paloma
  • edited 21 October 2015 at 6:56PM
    erudioederudioed Forumite
    682 Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 500 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 21 October 2015 at 6:56PM
    I am rather troubled again by this creeping in of the word DEBT into Paloma's article. It isnt a debt most of us have (even though we are being subconsciously forced into thinking that it is by the language being used after the sale to Erudio), it is a student loan we are fully entitled to defer and thus should not be mentioned in the same breath as a typical loan one is entitled to pay immediately!

    The article also carries on with the CRA reporting threat Erudio have been using since year dot! If we pay off our loans now, it wont show on our credit files...mmmm. Can a student loan affect another persons credit worthiness is an important question to try and answer because reporting a loan to a CRA will definitely affect other people. Is this really what a loan to get an education can lead to?
    The answers again given by Erudio tread that thin line between threat or payment, and whether they really are TREATING CUSTOMERS FAIRLY remains unanswered/unchallenged. SLC didnt report our loans if we honoured our T&Cs, and as Erudio purchased those loans and the historic processes chosen by SLC for our loans, is Erudio TREATING CUSTOMERS FAIRLY by going against the historic process used to manage this specific loan portfolio by placing this rather large negative over all our heads and creating much stress and worry, especially because Erudio itself has no clear answer/interest in whether it will affect its CUSTOMERS badly.
  • edited 21 October 2015 at 7:05PM
    PlutheroPluthero Forumite
    222 Posts
    100 Posts
    edited 21 October 2015 at 7:05PM
    MSE_Paloma wrote: »
    Thanks BorderReiver14 and Jill18. I've put your questions to Erudio to confirm so I'll come back to you/and update the story as soon as I hear back. Kind regards, MSE Paloma

    MSE Paloma. Please do ask Erudio if or indeed when they will be registering Our loans with CRA's as the term 'payment holiday' would not reflect the ICO definition of A payment holiday. See below for a brief summary of why. Hopefully the ICO will back the honest consumer if/when our loans are registered and fine Erudio accordingly.

    I sent this to the ICO:

    [FONT=&quot]I wish to complain strongly that it will be wrong under the DPA (Data Protection Act) and ICO (Information Commissioners Office) guidance to report that my ‘deferred’ student loans are on ‘payment holiday’ as this will not accurately describe my account. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]My argument is with the use of the term ‘payment holiday’ to describe my deferred loans and the reporting of my monthly repayments being on hold. This is not a true reflection of my account/information and flies in the face of the ICO’s definition of ‘payment holiday.’ The ICO provides a link on its website to guidance on 'payment holidays' in the document Principles for the Reporting of Arrears, Arrangements and Defaults at Credit Reference Agencies. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]

    The ICO describes this as:

    'Guidance for lenders and others who provide credit about when and how to file information about defaults with the credit reference agencies to ensure credit reference agencies are able to hold fair and accurate records about the financial standing of those individuals'

    The foreword by the ICO says:

    'We thought it best for this 'principles' document to become the main source of advice for the public on the reporting of arrears, arrangements and defaults with the credit reference agencies (CRAs).

    A record lodged with a CRA must be a reliable reflection of an individual's credit standing. The Data Protection Act 1998 is likely to have been breached where, for example, inaccurate, out of date or excessive personal data is being used to assess your credit-worthiness.'

    This ‘principles’ document 'drawn up by the credit industry in collaboration with the ICO', defines a 'payment holiday' as 'a temporary change in terms' and goes on to say:

    'Should a temporary reduction in the payment amount be jointly agreed between you and your lender, this 'arrangement' will be recorded at the CRAs.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]My student loans being ‘in deferment’ are not the same as a ‘payment holiday’ as defined in the above ‘principles document’ and it is categorically wrong to state that they are or list them on CRA’s as such. The ‘deferment mechanism’ is an integral provision in the terms of the Student loans legislation and the original loan agreement. Deferment is not something that I ‘jointly agreed with Erudio’, it is my right under the original loan terms. ESL state in their DAF guidance ‘This will confirm to the CRAs that we have agreed to temporarily stop your monthly repayments.’ I never asked ESL to temporarily stop my monthly repayments. I am not asking for any ‘amendment of loan terms’ from ESL and I am not seeking a ‘temporary reduction or cessation’ in payment: that has already been granted to me by the deferment mechanism of the original loan agreement. It is because of this that it is misleading/inaccurate to describe and record deferment as a 'payment holiday' with CRAs. The ICO states that it would consider 'the Data Protection Act 1998 is likely to have been breached' if 'inaccurate' personal data is used to assess credit worthiness. I am not taking a ‘payment holiday’ if I am in deferment. I do not have to repay my loans if I am earning under the deferment threshold. I get deferred for a year at a time under the original loan terms. I don’t get a ‘payment holiday’ for a year under the terms of the loan: so for ESL to place my loans on a CRA as ‘payment holiday’ is incorrect.[/FONT]
    [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Furthermore this could hardly be described as a ‘temporary arrangement’ as the ICO also define a ‘payment holiday’ as it has been ongoing for the 15 years my loans have been in deferment. No responsible lender would very grant a 15 year ‘payment holiday.’ Indeed few if any lenders would grant a one year ‘payment holiday.’ ‘Payment holiday’ is described by the ICO as ‘a temporary change in terms.’ However being ‘in deferment’ is a permanent part of the original loan terms and emphatically not a temporary change in those terms.

    So how can it then be 'accurate' for ESL to report deferment to CRAs as a ‘payment holiday’ where it will be used to assess credit-worthiness? ESL is threatening borrowers in deferment with action that, from the publically available guidance of the ICO, appears certain to result in the deliberate recording of inaccurate information. It is malicious on the part of ESL to do this and the real reason they are threatening to do it to get people to PAY UP when they do not legally have to do so as they fear the ruin of their credit rating. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is an abuse of the spirit and function of the original loan terms and breaches the DPA/ICO guidance on the accurate reporting of student loans on CRA’s. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]By threatening to report deferred loans erroneously as on 'payment holiday' and thus affect/ruin my credit rating ESL are denying my right to deferment. This is a violation of the original loan terms[FONT=&quot].

    [/FONT] [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The ICO will only address this complaint IF[FONT=&quot]/WHEN our loans are placed on p[FONT=&quot]ayment holiday. S[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT] I suggest anyone concerned about this contact them[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] with these concerns.

    [FONT=&quot]Keep fighting folks.[/FONT]

  • Thank you Paloma but I can hazard a guess at what sort of statement you will get from Erudio. They need to maintain their threats to report deferred loans and will give you hazy answers as to when this may happen as legally they know they are on thin ice. We shall see.

    We know thanks to the FOI requests placed by several people on this thread that BIS sold these loans on at a very good price to Erudio\Arrow Global\Carval etc with terms to exploit procedures and walk a fine line to maximise profits at the expense of taxpayers and ex-students.

    We know what Erudio 'thinks' the original terms and conditions allow them to do and we know their 'different procedures' are nothing more than a way to wage a war of attrition on us to pay up when we have every right to defer.
    The evidence to date clearly shows they are not interested in treating customers fairly. They treat customers as badly as they can get away with.
    Paying for uni to get a job... just to get a job to pay for uni
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides