Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Helen
    • By Former MSE Helen 31st Oct 14, 4:31 PM
    • 2,324Posts
    • 971Thanks
    Former MSE Helen
    MSE News: Are you an Erudio student loan holder? We want your feedback
    • #1
    • 31st Oct 14, 4:31 PM
    MSE News: Are you an Erudio student loan holder? We want your feedback 31st Oct 14 at 4:31 PM
    We want your thoughts on Erudio's revised deferral form and revised 'how to guide' on applying for deferral ...

    Read the full story:

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




    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.

Page 1
    • Moneyer
    • By Moneyer 31st Oct 14, 6:32 PM
    • 109 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    Moneyer
    • #2
    • 31st Oct 14, 6:32 PM
    • #2
    • 31st Oct 14, 6:32 PM
    Draft form is a big improvement. A small but important confusing technical point: Sections 4-7 ask you to work out ANNUAL income, and then Section 8 asks for total gross MONTHLY income from the other sections. Most people will probably add up sections 4-7 and write the result (i.e. their ANNUAL) in Section 8. If this is then interpreted as their MONTHLY income, the application will probably be declined….
    • Moneyer
    • By Moneyer 31st Oct 14, 6:34 PM
    • 109 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    Moneyer
    • #3
    • 31st Oct 14, 6:34 PM
    • #3
    • 31st Oct 14, 6:34 PM
    Question on data-sharing: for those of us with 1998 accounts (which don't allow data sharing with credit reference agencies unless in arrears), is it really true they have the right to do a credit search and leave a footprint? I'd have thought that is very dubious….
    • Brooker Dave
    • By Brooker Dave 31st Oct 14, 6:55 PM
    • 4,922 Posts
    • 3,152 Thanks
    Brooker Dave
    • #4
    • 31st Oct 14, 6:55 PM
    • #4
    • 31st Oct 14, 6:55 PM
    Still claims that a direct debit is needed, same old lies.

    Looks like you wasted your time meeting these clowns.
    "Love you Dave Brooker! x"

    "i sent a letter headded sales of god act 1979"
    • Pluthero
    • By Pluthero 31st Oct 14, 8:09 PM
    • 221 Posts
    • 564 Thanks
    Pluthero
    • #5
    • 31st Oct 14, 8:09 PM
    • #5
    • 31st Oct 14, 8:09 PM
    Question on data-sharing: for those of us with 1998 accounts (which don't allow data sharing with credit reference agencies unless in arrears), is it really true they have the right to do a credit search and leave a footprint? I'd have thought that is very dubious….
    Originally posted by Moneyer
    That sticks out for me too! Why leave a credit footprint? I am not asking Erudio for credit or anything except hassle free deferment of my govt loan. I never borrowed from Erudio. If I wanted a loan I would go to someone more reputable like Wonga or the Cheque Centre.

    What happened to the threat of registering our legally deferred loans with CRA's??? This was on page 5 of the first Erudio DAF??
  • Tinalvin
    • #6
    • 31st Oct 14, 8:50 PM
    • #6
    • 31st Oct 14, 8:50 PM
    It is Still a very intrusive form, compared to student loans company.
    • Mr McGuffin
    • By Mr McGuffin 31st Oct 14, 9:04 PM
    • 91 Posts
    • 313 Thanks
    Mr McGuffin
    • #7
    • 31st Oct 14, 9:04 PM
    • #7
    • 31st Oct 14, 9:04 PM
    Preposterous. Erudio have no right whatsoever to obtain any information from any third parties to check, verify, or confirm information given in relation to deferment, period. The basis of deferment is self-certification and such evidence that the graduate is able to 'show' of their income. No access to third party information whatsoever is required or permitted in the Education (Student Loan) Act & Regulations 1998.

    Certificate and warranty part (d) and 'verification checks with third parties'? No, any such agreement is outside the terms of the Education (Student Loans) Act and Regulations 1998. Erudio has no rights to 'undertake checks to confirm that you are eligible for deferment', other than it's own checks against internal records to show name and accounts match and so forth. It has no right to make checks with third parties.

    Also, why is it that :

    'final versions are sent to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to approve'

    ??

    These loans were sold outright weren't they? So what has BIS now got to do with it? Unless BIS still has a say and a stake in this process, which is fundamentally different to what it had been saying for seven months? That means BIS is responsible for the deferment process all along? Who then? Martin Donnelly? Michael Harrison? Anthony Odgers? Greg Clark? Vince Cable? Who please in BIS is responsible for approving the particulars of the deferment process of Erudio?
    Last edited by Mr McGuffin; 31-10-2014 at 9:21 PM.
    • anna2007
    • By anna2007 31st Oct 14, 11:22 PM
    • 1,182 Posts
    • 2,079 Thanks
    anna2007
    • #8
    • 31st Oct 14, 11:22 PM
    • #8
    • 31st Oct 14, 11:22 PM
    Big thanks to Martin and the MSE team for keeping this going and giving the customers a chance to have a say. You did ask, so here goes

    General
    The DAF states in several places "based on your current circumstances", when it's actually based on income in the month before applying for deferment - should be reworded to reflect this and make it clearer what "current" means.

    Page 1
    1 e) As this field is optional and there is no need for Erudio to have this information, it should be removed from the DAF.

    1 f) The loan agreement states that it's the responsibility of the borrower to keep the lender informed of a change of address, and as the form already asks for confirmation of correct address details at 1 b), there is no need to ask for previous address details in the last 3 years (this isn't a credit application, deferrers have kept SLC informed of address for 20-odd years, why is this needed when it wasn't previously given?).

    Page 2
    The statement "In line with the terms and conditions of your original loan agreement, you are required to maintain a Direct Debit Mandate for your repayments even if your repayments are deferred" is factually inaccurate and misleading to borrowers. This is one of the main issues with the DAF, and I'm surprised to see it's still there, especially as Erudio told me in their final response to my formal complaint:

    "Please accept our apologies for the correspondence from Erudio which stated you would be in breach of your agreement if you did not have a direct debit set up on your account. We have reviewed our policies and we can confirm we no longer require a direct debit to be set up on an account when it is deferred".

    Every reference to a DD in the original loan agreement and student loan regulations relates to repayments and not deferment. Could you ask Erudio to show where in the terms it states a DD is required during deferment? They won't be able to, so this statement has to be removed from the DAF, as it's plainly not true. Erudio are not trusted with bank details, they have a proven record of taking payments they are not entiteled to, this will be a major issue to many who simply can't afford for random, illegal payments to be taken from their bank accounts.

    Page 4
    Section 5 Income from Savings and Investments - this should be set out in the same way as the other income sections, i.e. showing Amount Received, Frequency, and Annual Equivalent (as it's only the income in the month before deferment application that's relevant).

    Page 5
    Section 6 h) Can't find any reference to "One parent benefit" online, so it's unclear what's referred to here. If they mean the lone parent allowance that is factored into income support, then this has already been declared at Section 6 a) of the form. Does it mean child maintenance? There have been reports on the Erudio thread of this being counted as the borrower's income whereas the SLC disregarded it (seems reasonable when it's meant for the child). If a benefit's specifically mentioned on the DAF, it has to be given its proper name, or it'll just create confusion.

    Section 8 - why just section 4 a)? There might be income at 4 b) and c) which they're saying should be excluded from total income.

    Certificate and Warranty
    8 d) states "I understand that Erudio Student Loans reserves the right to request further information and/or to verify the information which I have provided. I also authorise the organisation or persons from whom my income is derived to give Erudio Student Loans such confirmation or information about that income as Erudio Student Loans may reasonably request".

    The terms of the original loan agreement and the legislation don't give any right for Erudio to request/verify information in this way, so again it's misleading to borrowers and should be removed.

    8 e) states "I have read the terms and conditions as set out overleaf"... assuming Erudio are referring to the following pages 6 & 7, I'm sorry but WTF? THESE ARE NOT TERMS AND CONDITIONS!! There's plenty in those 2 pages "set out overleaf" which is not in the original T&C's, which to me means NEW T&C's - pages 6 & 7 are simply a statement made by Erudio on a deferment application form (NOT part of the original contract) and should not be put across this way. This is a prime example of why there is so much upset/outrage/distrust at these Government loans being sold off to a private sector debt consortium - people want to know that they remain on the same t&c's that they signed up to. Something like this immediately sets alarm bells ringing and does nothing to restore trust with the new owners of our debt.

    I'm getting annoyed so will leave the rest for now, there's so much wrong with this revised version, pages 6 & 7 are probably the more worrying parts too!

    @ Mr McGuffin - noticed the BIS stamp at the end - I took it to be an attempt at keeping us the 'customers' happy, rather than any genuine obligation?

    Last edited by anna2007; 01-11-2014 at 8:52 AM.
    • erudioed
    • By erudioed 1st Nov 14, 5:02 AM
    • 662 Posts
    • 937 Thanks
    erudioed
    • #9
    • 1st Nov 14, 5:02 AM
    • #9
    • 1st Nov 14, 5:02 AM
    I echo the above and also add that 1 G, H, I & J are irrelevant as well. Most of us only want to be contacted through direct mail. The last thing we want to do is give them our phone numbers/email for them to continually pester us with (see Honours Student Loans criticisms). It seems mandatory on the form you show but surely as long as they have our address, that is the only mandatory one. MY PREFERRED METHOD IS DIRECT MAIL but that isnt an option anywhere?
    1 d,e & f do definitely feel like a CRA data gathering exercise, and what is the point of the past 3 years info, they asked that on the first form so have that info already! Why ask it every year.

    For the proof of additional income in the guide, it asks for a letter from the supporting party but also the last months bank statement with the credits clearly identified. What if someone is given the money by hand, or a lump payment is given 6 months before, or there is no real evidence other than the supporting, signed and dated, letter? Surely Erudio need to sort that out.

    I may also add that giving info about the pre-1998 loans to CRAs, such as being on a 'payment holiday' etc can affect ANYONE living at your address or associated with you if it is deemed a negative (which it clearly is because it infers we are not paying the loan back yet, even though we have fully honoured our loan agreement)...THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED AND GOES AGAINST THE ORIGINAL T & Cs that a student loan wont affect anyone else. I believe that is why the SLC never did hand our loan info over to CRAs because it could have been a potential bombshell! This really does need clarifying.

    The CRA info at the end still comes over as a threat. Why say the info 'MAY' be passed on to CRAs...it either will or it wont. The threat lies in that word 'MAY'. In fact, very little has changed to me and if this is the most that Erudio will allow MSE to influence, it seems pretty futile as it looks like Erudio wont give an inch.

    I also think that the form should state which companies have our information and state things more clearly, in the interests of honesty and openness. Capita have it (what is its data sharing policy), Ventura have it, The Wilmington Trust surely have it and Arrow Global and CarVal must have access to it as well...what are all their policies? It isnt like just Erudio have it...in fact, as The Wilmington Trust are Erudio officially, they are probably, in a twisted shell company way, the least likely to have our info but the ones who we target with all our criticisms. They want us to be honest about our personal info with them, they should be the same and tell us exactly who they are and what each company does with our personal information because when I signed up for a student loan I thought the only body with access to my personal info (unless I broke my loan agreement) was SLC. I think i can speak for most of Erudio's 'customers' and there is probably not one person who trusts them, especially given the mess concerning the Direct Debit thefts and disregard for the DD mandate during those thefts! As such, they should have to state things clearly on these forms if they have nothing to hide.

    One final, very important, overlooked issue concerns when we need to return the form by BEFORE they guarantee they will process the form and NOT take a Direct Debit. This is a key issue in the trust cycle between us and them. This needs to consider people being abroad and having to mail the form backwards and forwards to our home addresses in the UK, before being posted on to Capita. We need guarantees that our forms will be treated and processed, not lost in their seemingly terrible system. We need to know we are dealing with an honest, trustworthy company that treats its customers fairly (like Arrow Global continually state in their 2013 annual report and throughout their website), and that means having a system that doesnt lose our forms when we send it via normal mail, and the promise they will not take a DD payment if we return the forms by a set certain date. I suggest they send the forms out 2 months before the DD date, then allow 21 days for them to process the forms (which should be easier now they have been doing it for a year). This relationship will only work FAIRLY if they have systems in place to do so; not like now, where everything seems like a trap or potential pitfall!

    I would like to thank MSE though for trying with this, at least we have someone outside of ourselves trying to help get this mess sorted out!!!
    Last edited by erudioed; 01-11-2014 at 6:22 AM.
    • Sarebear78
    • By Sarebear78 1st Nov 14, 7:20 AM
    • 146 Posts
    • 232 Thanks
    Sarebear78
    I agree with the above comments by Erudioed and Anna2007 - not much more to add but thanks to MSE for looking at it x
    • Pluthero
    • By Pluthero 1st Nov 14, 7:24 AM
    • 221 Posts
    • 564 Thanks
    Pluthero
    Well said Anna and Erudioed and Mr mcguffin!

    The very fact that erudio felt the need to redo their horrible DAF would I imagine give some very good legal arguments for those about to start legal action over NOT signing it in the first place. So bit of a win there!

    New form still asking for a lot of info that arrow have no right to under original loan terms!

    Does arrow not realise they are trying to con graduates? We are not zipped up at the back you know!
    Last edited by Pluthero; 01-11-2014 at 8:08 AM.
    • rizla king
    • By rizla king 1st Nov 14, 7:57 AM
    • 2,843 Posts
    • 1,903 Thanks
    rizla king
    Every reference to a DD in the original loan agreement and student loan regulations relates to repayments and not deferment. Could you ask Erudio to show where in the terms it states a DD is required during deferment? They won't be able to, so this statement has to be removed from the DAF, as it's plainly not true. Erudio are not trusted with bank details, they have a proven record of taking payments they are not entiteled to, this will be a major issue to many who simply can't afford for random, illegal payments to be taken from their bank accounts.
    Originally posted by anna2007
    100% correct.

    The loan agreements says just that.

    The repayments shall be paid by direct debit from your Bank or Building Society unless we agree otherwise.
    They DO NOT say that you must maintain an active direct debit while deferred, or as a condition for being able to defer.

    Erudio saying it is on the DAF is a big fat lie.
    Last edited by rizla king; 01-11-2014 at 8:02 AM.
    Still rolling rolling rolling...... <----- SIGNATURE - Not part of post
    • erudioed
    • By erudioed 1st Nov 14, 11:19 AM
    • 662 Posts
    • 937 Thanks
    erudioed
    I would also like to comment on this statement as i think it kind of gets thrown around a little, but doesnt really do us justice. It is this from the article we are commenting on:
    "Another gripe repeatedly aired by those with debts..."

    The phrase, those with debts, and although playing around with semantics and nitpicking, we have of course been in deferral, and i would suggest not in debt, which doesnt become the case until we break our T&Cs and the loan then becomes payable. If we miss a payment, then i suggest we would be in debt. But until that time, we should be spoken about using terminology that is suggestive of us fully honouring our T&Cs and never once breaching them. For 15 odd years, we have kept in touch and followed all the necessary procedures. That Erudio is kind of treating us as a potential money crop shouldnt mean that the language used by both us and those writing about us sways towards similar language used for those poor devils, who, for one reason or another, have lost contact with SLC and are now being chased by Erudio's lawyers for being 'in debt'. We should, in effect, be referred to using the same positive language as those who immediately started paying off their loan and have cleared it now. Just semantics i know, but we should never forget this. It shows we are honouring our agreements and should be treated with the respect we deserve, which i would suggest, is part of the reason why many of us immediately had our backs put up when we saw how Erudio initially approached us. That they want to prove we are giving them the right info is one thing, but the implicit threats, which may not stand out to someone not personally addressed by their communications, are there and they are real! If they want to use clever lawyer drafted language to contact us its one thing, but we cant let it pervade our own use of language, almost subconciously, because we must maintain the balance and not let the real issues be swayed so subtly they are invisible to the naked eye.
    Last edited by erudioed; 01-11-2014 at 11:30 AM.
    • anna2007
    • By anna2007 1st Nov 14, 3:18 PM
    • 1,182 Posts
    • 2,079 Thanks
    anna2007
    Continuing from previous post -

    Section 8 e) page 5 should be deleted from the 'Certificate and Warranty', as new terms and conditions have no place on a DAF.

    The terms and regulations require borrowers to show that income is below the deferment threshold, nothing more, and pages 1 to 5 of the DAF allow for this. Pages 6 & 7 are irrelevant to a deferment application and should be deleted. However, assuming that these 2 pages remain, I'd make the following comments:

    Page 6 - Could you ask Erudio to show you where in the terms or regulations it states that they have the right to udertake the checks/verify the accuracy of information as set out on page 6? They won't be able to, as they have no such right, therefore all such statements should be removed.

    It states CRA's will place a credit application search 'footprint' on our credit files. We are not making a credit application, we are applying for deferment, so there is no need for a 'footprint' to be left. If Erudio had the legal right (which they don't) to search our credit files to verify our information, then a 'soft search', similar to that made by insurance companies when obtaining quotes, would be appropriate, as it allows information to be verified and leaves no 'footprint' on the credit file.

    I agree with erudioed's comment re their statement that our accounts MAY be registered with CRA's - will they or won't they? Under what circumstances will they be registered? Erudio need to be very clear on this, rather than continuing to threaten that they might be registered, which is a constant stress and worry for us 'customers'. This hasn't really changed or improved on the original DAF - I'm still worrying and waiting for Erudio to register my loans with CRA's, which they first implied they were going to do over 7 months ago in the FPN included with the Notice of Assignment. Why should any of us have to worry and wait for our credit files to be affected? Please could you ask Erudio to specifically state under what circumstances our loans will be registered?

    "How To" Guide:

    Page 2
    "This information should be based on the month in which you complete this form". This is incorrect, as the regulations state that the "relevant month" for proving (and assessing) income is the month before an application for deferment is made. On a practical level, if someone applies for deferment at the start of the month, it would often be impossible to provide evidence of that month's income until the end of the month, e.g. when payslips are received.

    "If you apply for deferment we will get back to you about your request within 28 days of receiving it". What does "get back to you" mean - is it acknowledgement of the application, or Erudio's decision on the application? I'd hope that after a month, it would be the decision - this should be reworded to make it clear that we can expect a decision within 28 days.

    It would be helpful if Erudio could include guidance here on the timescales if the application's marked by them as incomplete/insufficient evidence. As 28 days should be sufficient time to fully process an application, a period of 14 days seems reasonable for notifying customers if, for example, more evidence is required.

    Page 4
    Direct Debit set up - as already mentioned, keeping DD details current is not a condition of the credit agreement - any reference to this (or the processing of the deferment application being conditional on DD details being provided - coercion surely?), should be removed.

    Page 5
    Depending on the timing of the deferment application, a person's most recent self assessment tax return might relate to the previous year. As Erudio have stated this is what should be submitted, could you confirm that this will be accepted as proof of current income?

    Erudio have no legal right to contact the employer - all reference to this shoud be removed from the guide and DAF.

    Page 6
    5 c) Rents - This should be amended to state that it's gross income, after allowable deductions, that should be declared, and that it's the applicant's share of that gross income, where a property is jointly owned. There have been reports on the forum of Erudio counting the actual rental figure, and the whole amount when a property's jointly owned, which is clearly unfair.

    Disability benefits - this needs to be amended to state that all disability-related COSTS (with examples of these costs) are also excluded, as this is what's stated in the regulations. Again, there have been reports of these costs, e.g. direct payments for care, discretionary payments related to a disability, etc, being counted as income by Erudio. The guidance needs to be very clear on this, as it's scandalous Erudio can get away with something like that.

    Page 7
    7 b) Maintenance Payments "This refers to any payments made to you for child maintenance to assist with the care of a child, for example, payments from an absent parent". Seriously?? Child Maintenance payments were disregarded by SLC for good (and obvious) reason - it's income for the child and not the applicant! My husband financially supports our children, but I don't have to declare that support on the DAF - why should someone receiving CM payments to financially support their children have to? They are effectively being penalised for being separated from their partner, which is completely ridiculous.

    7 d) I'm glad to see that reference to loans and credit cards has been removed from the guidance, as it seems unfair that debt should be classed as 'other income'. Could you ask Erudio to confirm that loans and credit card expenditure no longer has to be declared as income, so that we know it won't be classed as an omission by Erudio if we don't declare these debts?

    Page 8
    Erudio are not entitled to ask for a copy of the applicant's P60. We are only required to show income in the relevant month (and, if asked, that income in the following 2 months is unlikely to be over the deferment level). The last 3 months' payslips is more than enough to evidence this. Depending on the timing of the deferment application, the most recent P60 may also not reflect current earnings. Therefore the reference to the P60 should be removed.

    Savings or Investment - if account statements have to be provided - for how many months? As for payslips, the previous 3 months should be more than enough to evidence income in the "relevant month".

    Rental income - the evidence requested would only show the rent amount and not gross income. The tax return to HMRC, showing gross income, would be more appropriate evidence.


    If there are no support payments actually made by a third party, is a letter confirming the level of support all that's required? For example, I'm financially supported by my husband, in that he pays the bills, mortgage, etc, but he doesn't make any 'support payments' to me.

    "If you have borrowed money to live on, a copy of your loan agreement" - should this be removed (see comment on oans above)?

    Page 9
    Direct Debit setup - should be removed - see previous comments.

    CRA searches/footprints - should be removed - see previous comments.
    Last edited by anna2007; 01-11-2014 at 3:31 PM.
    • erudioed
    • By erudioed 1st Nov 14, 5:55 PM
    • 662 Posts
    • 937 Thanks
    erudioed
    I should clarify by saying £90 each.

    Anthony Reeves
    Originally posted by AReeves
    Well, you can count me in on that Anthony, its time to test these barstewards metal. They are not giving an inch, and only a good jab in the ribs seems like it will work. And if we dont do it, then no one will, so it sounds like a small price to pay. Lets hope we can share the costs amongst as many of us as possible!!!
    • Pluthero
    • By Pluthero 1st Nov 14, 7:03 PM
    • 221 Posts
    • 564 Thanks
    Pluthero
    Well, you can count me in on that Anthony, its time to test these barstewards metal. They are not giving an inch, and only a good jab in the ribs seems like it will work. And if we dont do it, then no one will, so it sounds like a small price to pay. Lets hope we can share the costs amongst as many of us as possible!!!
    Originally posted by erudioed
    I am up for that too. You have to stand up to bullies!
    • anna2007
    • By anna2007 1st Nov 14, 8:38 PM
    • 1,182 Posts
    • 2,079 Thanks
    anna2007
    I am up for that too. You have to stand up to bullies!
    Originally posted by Pluthero
    Yep, count me in too.

    With the amount of time put in to complaints that so far haven't resolved any of our problems, this seems a small price to pay for a little payback!

    Edit: We should probably move this over to the main Erudio thread to ask if others are interested, it might not be picked up here?

    Another Edit: Just popped over to the main thread and erudioed's way ahead and already posted, doh!
    Last edited by anna2007; 01-11-2014 at 9:05 PM.
    • Mr McGuffin
    • By Mr McGuffin 1st Nov 14, 10:42 PM
    • 91 Posts
    • 313 Thanks
    Mr McGuffin
    Thank you to moneysavingexpert.com for your efforts with this. Unfortunately Erudio is deliberately wasting your time with its fraudulent nonsense.

    Erudio has no right to demand the completion of any 'Deferment Application Form' as a condition of obtaining deferment.

    No 'Deferment Application Form' is prescribed in the Education (Student Loan) Act and Regulations 1998. No form is referred to. There is no relationship between the right to deferment and completion of any form.

    Erudio has no right to prescribe this or any form, and it has no right to demand agreement to additional new terms within its form.

    Anyone who may be misled by such bogus official sounding documents should refer to Schedule 2 of the 1998 Regulations.

    The attempt by Erudio to unilaterally mandate the completion of its form as a condition for deferment is completely outside the 1998 Regulations. It is a change to the terms of the 1998 Regulations to refuse borrowers their rights unless they complete and consent to its proprietary form. The form also demands agreement to additional new terms outside the original agreements and legislation.

    Erudio is seeking consents that allow it to unilaterally define the evidence of income the graduate must 'show'. This is outside the terms of the loans as specified in the 1998 Regulations. It is also claiming the right to 'check' and 'verify' income with third parties and seeking consent to this, again outside the terms of the loans.
    Last edited by Mr McGuffin; 01-11-2014 at 11:24 PM.
    • anna2007
    • By anna2007 2nd Nov 14, 12:31 AM
    • 1,182 Posts
    • 2,079 Thanks
    anna2007
    Great post Mr McGuffin, makes me regret completing their damn form, and tempted to refuse next time around on principle.

    An important consideration for me (and I'm sure many others in the next few years) is the cancellation of loans. It's unlikely I'll earn over the threshold before the loans are due to be cancelled in 3 years' time, so I decided to do everything by the book (Erudio's book, admittedly) to avoid arrears, then fight them once deferred.

    Erudio are obviously aware of the impending loan cancellations too. It's not in their interests to allow over half of the purchased loans book to be legitimately written off, so will use every trick they know to prevent that happening. I suppose they have a fairly big legal team at their disposal too.

    So, what to do? My feeling now is that court probably is the best option to sort out these crooks (although I'm waiting for FOS decision, which I think has to be done first, but will also cost Erudio precious money, ha).

    I have zero experience of going to court, so will have to play it by ear, and hopefully get lots of sound advice on the forum
    • fermi
    • By fermi 2nd Nov 14, 8:44 AM
    • 39,669 Posts
    • 47,650 Thanks
    fermi
    I would point out that SLC also asked you to sign a somewhat similar warranty. See below.

    Not saying that was fair or legal either, or that they could refuse deferment if you didn't, or even that Erudio's is as fair as SLCs was, but it's not something exclusively introduced by Erudio that wasn't there before in some form.

    I'm a Board Guide on the Debt-Free Wannabe, Bankruptcy, Credit Cards and Loans boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Any views are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com. Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

    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
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,711Posts Today

7,389Users online

Martin's Twitter