erudio student loans

[mrsbug]

Hi, I have an old student loan from 1998 which I have been deferring since then as I have never earned enough to pay it back (there are some advantages to being poor )

I recently had a letter from a company called erudio student loans saying they have bought my student loan from the government. All very reassuring about how the t and cs of my loan won't change, etc.

Now I've had the regular deferral letter from them and it's much more detailed than before. They want my bank details which I'm not really happy to give, and they say my details will be checked with a credit reference agency, which I don't think they used to do - my loan has never shown on my credit file.

Has anyone else had this? Do I have to give them this info?

For people who are getting near the cutoff point this is an interesting comment in coffers post
Mick Laverty: I wonder whether I could provide some clarity. The working assumption is that it will use the same model as we used for the mortgage-style loans. So when the mortgage-style loans were sold, the terms and conditions for a student were fixed, and they were fixed at no detriment to the student. To answer the point made earlier, if the buyer of that loan subsequently decided to cut a deal with the student to get a payment and commute some of the loan, that was entirely up to them. The working assumption is that the ICR loans would do the same. A student will be protected and that protection will last if the loan is sold on. That is the working assumption.

That means we should be able to settle with Erudio for a lesser price.

The main problems people have are;

The collection of extraneous info.
Registration of deferrers with CRAs

BIS, the government and no doubt Erudio are all now arguing that both of the above are allowed (registration with CRAs for pre 98 because of original sec 16) (extra info is allowed because deferment process was never set down in legislation so they can ask for whatever they want).

So their line of attack is no terms have been changed.

If we take collection of extra info first, if the actual processes of deferment (not the eligibility criteria) are not set down in legislation, doesn't that work both ways? Surely this means as long as we satisfy the criteria all we have to do is prove that and nothing else.

As far as section 16 is concerned Erudio have stated to me over the phone, by email and via P Lewis on BBC that they won't do that/won't do that if we request they don't, we have to wait and see on this.

Another question is, if BIS and Erudio are so certain why did it take do long for anyone to come out with this. And if Erudio are certain you can share deferrers details with CRAs then you can be certain they would do this without any wavering/need for fair processing notices etc.

As with many things I'm sure both Erudio and BIS are not certain how any of this would stand in a court, and are thinking a unified front and robust official sounding statements will be enough to keep people in their place.

I am furious with it, I have just been on the martin lewis website and there is a whole thread on it. It's news to me, but I have always thought this would never appear on credit files unless you start paying it back. I always saw it as a system to help the poorer students try and get an education and get a life. As a young 19 year old over 15 years ago I took three loans out to help me survive, pay for digs and eat. I only took them knowing that unless I earned a certain amount I would never have to pay it back and it would not go on a file. I am quite honestly livid, it is totally unjust, to change the conditions. The government promised there would be no changes and it is a total lie. It is discusting how we have to suffer over a student loan over 15 years ago. I for one will be following with interest the governments response to MSE's enquiry and will sign any petition going.

BIS did say thats what they thought it meant concerning CRAs weeks ago when i spoke to them but whether that was fair was another matter, especially as BIS said SLC chose not to apply that policy probably because of that. This is why i keep mentioning fair treatment of borrowers by BIS is key to this issue of passing info to CRAs.
The negotiator with Erudio at BIS also told me Erudios guy specifically asked if they could settle short. BIS said yes. But Erudio has decided against that right now so it seems and settled for blanket data collection first to see who they have on their books...i assume to see who they may potentially be able to squeeze for the whole amount. BIS said it was upto them if they chose to implement that policy and that it did make sense for deferers to be offered a short deal because BIS deemed deferers the group Erudio would least likely get anything from. BIS thought defaulters would be where they got most of their recouperation. I just hope Erudio hasnt gone the short cut to find defaulters though and decided to try and turn a substantial percentage of deferers like some of us are suspecting if they can.

Forget the above it has a key error in. it should be this...sorry!

BIS did say thats what they thought it meant concerning CRAs weeks ago when i spoke to them but whether that was fair was another matter, especially as BIS said SLC chose not to apply that policy probably because of that. This is why i keep mentioning fair treatment of borrowers by ERUDIO is key to this issue of passing info to CRAs.
The negotiator with Erudio at BIS also told me Erudios guy specifically asked if they could settle short. BIS said yes. But Erudio has decided against that right now so it seems and settled for blanket data collection first to see who they have on their books...i assume to see who they may potentially be able to squeeze for the whole amount. BIS said it was upto them if they chose to implement that policy and that it did make sense for deferers to be offered a short deal because BIS deemed deferers the group Erudio would least likely get anything from. BIS thought defaulters would be where they got most of their recouperation. I just hope Erudio hasnt gone the short cut to find defaulters though and decided to try and turn a substantial percentage of deferers like some of us are suspecting if they can.

The House of Commons public accounts committee minutes make for some very enlightening reading. Can't say I am terribly re-assured by any of it.

It very much looks like they more or less sold it, got what they wanted and didnt ask too many questions. I think the assumption they made was that offers would be made to current deferrers as incentives to pay off what they owe.

However, Erudio obviously had different ideas and would have likely looked very closely at the original terms and conditions prior to bidding to see what they could potentially get away with. Something that I seriously doubt the SLC or anyone else did on the other side of the equation.

Erudio obviously had different ideas and would have likely looked very closely at the original terms and conditions prior to bidding to see what they could potentially get away with.
this
I doubt many MPs have ever had dealings with debt collection agencies hassling them for money.

i agree littlemissgreen, i would suggest that very few MPs understand the stress/pressure it can lead to, especially when one has done nothing outside of their agreements and are still being punished...and not only that, but after 15 odd years.

just for some more background on Erudio and Honours Student Loans.
From Honours Student Loans Website:

""Honours Trustee Limited (HTL) was established in 1999 to purchase a £1.03 billion portfolio of student loans from the UK Government. This was the second sale of loans by the UK Government following a similar sale to Finance For Higher Education Limited in March 1998. Honours Trustee Limited was set up and backed by a consortium of Deutsche Bank AG and the Nationwide Building Society which was selected by the UK Government as its preferred bidder after a rigorous tender process.

When HTL purchased the loans in 1999 it entered into a contract with the Student Loans Company to continue to manage the loans. This contract terminated in October 2004 and HTL transferred the administration of the loans to Honours Student Loans (HSL).""

Honours Trustee 2 limited was Erudio's previous name as registered, changed near the time of this loan acquisition. One may also find that HSL and Erudio have PO Boxes listed in Rotherham about 1km apart.
That doesnt mean much, just a coincidence i am sure. But if you take the addresses for both Honours Student Loans and Erudio directly from their websites, you get this:
Registered office: Honours Trustee Limited
c/o Wilmington Trust SP Services (London) Ltd, Third Floor, 1 King's Arm Yard, London, EC2R 7AF
Company Number 3716001

Registered office: Erudio Student Loans Limited

c/o Wilmington Trust Sp Services (London) Limited, Third Floor , 1 King's Arms Yard, London EC2R 7AF
company number 08605918

I would recommend searching for those company numbers and seeing what you find as well. HSL are even offering a debt consultation line for people to offer cash to who cant afford their leccy or gas if you can believe that, again run out of The Wilmington Trust's building.
www.debt-line.net/Default.aspx?tabid=255&CreditorID=8024
seems like a good way to collect info on people on the sly.

So it may be that even those with the old clause 16 (which allows passing of data to credit agencies) pressure of the Government and press might mean that they do not pass that data on. However it is not guarantee.

If I were advising erudio I would include that new data protection consent (fair processing notice) now to be on the safe side even for people with the old clause 16 although whether they have made it clear enough to satisfy the Information Commissioner remains to be seen. if it said in big letters - your current loan terms may not allow us to disclose your deferment when you are not in default to credit reference agencies. Tick here to allow us now to do so. Warning - this may affect your ability to obtain credit including a mortgage." and it was in large print may be it would be okay. I doubt it has been made so clear.

Against my better judgement i have rung them this morning, firstly i was advised that i didn't need to sign the form, then i was told i had to sign it to have my application processed. I have lodged a formal complaint, but i don't suppose that will get me anywhere. I suppose as my date is so close i will have to risk filling it in and signing it. I could cry!

perse - you could sign the form but cross out the bits which give them consent to pass data to CRAs.

Thank you Jane yes i may do that, i am so close to it being cancelled i can't risk not deferring it, i am so sick of worrying about it, we are moving tomorrow too, so already pretty stressed. :-) I asked him to send me a new form and i will only give them what i want to. He did say someone would ring me back, i won't hold my breath lol. I will update when i know something.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I just phoned Erudio again, you know - for a laugh.

Asked a few difficult questions and am once again on hold and have been for the last 10 minutes. This happened last time and I got cut off. It seems these wankers can't answer a single difficult question - even one that goes "can I arrange a one off payment to clear this account?" Apparently an advisor can't answer that question and has opted to put me on hold............ still waiting............ waiting.......... waiting...... oh, hangs up

@halfpricedebt

Not just me then lol, made me laugh, i wonder if they are making enough money to cover the debts from the phone line, and anything they get out of us is a bonus! The hesitations say it all, they have no idea what they are doing, and as usual its the front line staff who get it in the neck, i did try to be civil lol.

Ok. Just spoke to the Erudio collections department who told me these sections on the deferment forms are not needed in order to defer:

Page 1 - Section B and C
Page 3 - Section 4c
Page 4 - All of Section 8

I also told them I planned to send a recorded letter with headed paper from my employer saying what my annual salary was and they also told me I show as a "low risk" account so this information should be enough in order to defer.

You also DO NOT have to give them DD details if you are in deferment. The only reason they need your DD is if you are repaying your loan. You would fall into arrears if you cancelled your DD while in repayment mode.

Yes, this was over the phone but she also read out some official Erudio-sounding document about low risk customers and Direct Debits - this seems to be their official line on these issues.

Oh gosh that is helpful, how did you get through to the collections dept?

I posted the extracts from The House of Commons public accounts committee minutes above

I'm sorry that seems to have caused a fair amount of confusion. I did clarify in a further post that ONLY from Q49 onwards is it directly/exclusively referring to mortgage style loans.

The opening exchange, where it says, the government don't need to enact secondary legislation and can changes the Ts&Cs as they wish, refers to ICR - Income Continggent Loans NOT mortgage style Loans

For mortgage style loans - the government DID, in fact enact secondary legislation for mortgage style loans every time the repayment threshold/interest rate changed (annually) hence the statutory instruments updating the regulations on the Legislation.gov website:

www.legislation.gov.uk/all?text=student%20loans%20deferment

I din't mean to confuse people with that.

As far as I know, having seen the pdfs posted by mandakl - this supposed 'clause' allegedly found on every student loan and discovered on 'the internet' [rolls eyes] DOES NOT exist in relation to 'mortgage style loans.
I don't know anything about ICR loans as I don't have any.

**Q43 Mr Bacon: Can I clarify something else? I have just found this on the internet, so goodness knows it may be wrong, but apparently all student loan agreements carry the following clause, which looks like it is lifted from somewhere, so is probably correct: "You must agree to repay your loan in line with the regulations that apply at the time the repayments are due and as they are amended. The regulations may be replaced by later regulations." The narrative on the website goes on to say: "As such, students ‘are told to sign an open-ended loan agreement where the interest rates and term of repayment can change, at any moment in time, at the whim of government, without the need to [pass] legislation.’" Is that correct? Is that a fair summary of the current position?

Martin Donnelly: The Government does have the ability to change certain terms of the loan, including, for example, the level of indexation. I don’t know, Mick, whether we always require secondary legislation or the way we would have to do that.P

More conflicting information oh yes i like being frustrated, the woman i spoke to told me a footprint will be left on my credit file, in spite of the term and conditions of the original credit agreement, which she said is a good thing, right?

Ok i have decided to fill in the forms and just protest as loudly as i can, i have to have this deferred i can't take a risk with that, she said i would be if i satisfy the criteria which she agreed i do. Thats it now i am meddling no more and just hoping it turns out ok.

Persephone - I asked about making a payment to pay off some of the loan and they put me through so I asked the collections team the questions and that's what they told me. I think if you have consistently deferred and always updated your details then I think you're seen as low risk so they're probably not worried about those people. I think they are mainly concerned about the ones that have done a bunk but this is also just my opinion based on what they said. I think they've been given a line to follow following the news stuff.

It's utterly APPALLING. The whole thing is a shambles. Why doesn't anyone know what they're doing? Why are people being told different things every time they phone? Why does the form say one thing (quite aggressively) but then it appears that, actually, nah, you don't need to complete those bits after all?

So ummm I'm I the only one that signed the forms, bunged my pay slip in the envelope and posted it off?

I'm my defense below the earnings threshold so didn't give it much thought

@halfpricedebt, ah thank you, i hadn't thought of that duh! hey ho, i have just emailed Richard Bacon for what its worth, again won't hold my breath, as he is quoted in the Public Accounts Committee minutes, I did tell the woman it is blackmail, her reply, its only blackmail if its a bad thing. i need a lot of now!

I wondered if anyone has managed to obtain a copy of their original signed agreement between ourselves and the SLC? Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 they must be able to provide such within 12 working days.

Well i had an auto reply so he has got it!

Lecia - yes it is appalling you would think they would have their script sorted before launching this thing, obviously lacking some good graduates lol. All i can say they have picked on the wrong kind of people who obviously have a good deal of intelligence.

I can't get any more stressed i have a neck injury that responds to stress really badly so i am off to try and do something else, or maybe drink wine!