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?

@emptycoffers
Thats is interesting. If they breech that rule, especially for those who have had cash taken, does that set one up for compensation? I.E complain to Erudio, ask for compensation, get refused by Erudio who probably take another DD payment in spite, then complain to the ombudsman asking for compensation for time spend, costs incurred etc etc. I think it is £10 per hour of time taken to solve the problem...trips to bank and petrol, oyster card, etc.
Yes, they are getting to another tipping point...

The DD Guarantee also has a DORMANCY condition:

The banks have a rule to protect us: www.directdebit.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/DD_guarantee_leaflet.pdf

If a DD hasn't been acted on in the 13 months since it was set-up - they MAY reject a request for payment - woo-hoo!!!

Mine's been inactive for more than 13 YEARS!!!

@Erudioed. I'm going to wait for the deferment process to begin before taking it further to newspapers and suchlike. My experience working in politics and Standards Committees is that it's nice to build up a good amount of evidence before presenting it. Thus far I have still had no written confirmation that Erudio hold my account. On the 20th, the next DD payment may well be taken. Two payments taken by Erudio and no letter? Prime material for roasting them.

The SLC advisor I spoke to this morning says that Erudio are still sending out letters informing their clients (for that is what we are, after all) that their loans are now held by Erudio. Given that the official switchover from SLC to Erudio was March 10th, that's a frankly pisspoor level of contact and management. I'm hoping Private Eye will get involved as they usually know how to get to the heart of the matter.

@Northernlurker. I would suggest that Erudio had a very low staff level when they started. In their minds there was no need to have highly trained staff and an efficient process in place for handling these loans, given the high number of deferred clients and corresponding low amount of money coming in. Any delay in processing can be written off as 'teething troubles'. Judging by my conversation with the Erudio advisor this morning, I am positive that they have had to drag in a lot more staff who are not vaguely knowledgeable about the student loans market and deferment processes at all.

@Emptycoffers. Bang! You may well have them there. If you have nothing in writing from them telling you how much they will take, then that agreement should indeed be invalid.

In my situation, they have taken money from me and will do in four days without any letter a) informing me that they have my loan account b) that I am their client and c) how much they will take.

Here's something that has just come to mind. Going by this thread and by what I was told today, not all of the accounts have been set up correctly. If this is true, then how on earth did Erudio manage to take money from my account on March 21st? They managed to transfer my payment and DD details but not my deferment form?

If they take money out on April 21st then it's time to escalate my complaint and to issue the full Arkell v Pressdram response.

@ erudioed - ha ha - it's a nice thought! I don't think compensation would be on the table - but who knows!

It's a proper slap in the face though and would undermine their claims to be capable of the job --- particularly when they bid for more loans

...And they will certainly get the chance to bid for more loans. Many have asked why the Government sold the loans at such a low price. The low number of loan repayments being made is one reason. Most people know about the huge amount of unpaid student loan debt in Canada and the US.

Another reason is to get the loan debt off the public books before the 2015 General Election. Expect other things to be sold off before then. The decision to sell to Erudio was as much political as it was financial in my eyes.

Agreed - loans introduced for political reasons - loans sold off for political reasons.

Here's one to ponder regarding Erudio's failure to produce copies of the original agreements: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8435867.stm

*Judge Waksman did point out that the banks could not simply invent the loan agreement retrospectively to comply with the law.

(edited highlights)

Judge Waksman ruled that:

1. a copy of the loan agreement must contain the name and address of the borrower as it was at the time it was signed

1. if an agreement has been subsequently varied by the lender, then the lender is obliged to supply a copy of both the original agreement as well as the current one.*

This was 2009 so not sure if still 'good law' but points 1 and 2 might prove tricky for Erudio if their records are up the spout.

What are the penalties for failing to comply with the 12 day rule under the Consumer Credit Act?

More interesting info from the OFT this time. Guidance on CCA including lenders duty to provide information to borrower.

Very legal eagle on the language/jargon and I am not a lawyer, however,

Section 5.9 OFT hold that it is wrong to tell borrower you intend to report debt to CRA unless you are ACTUALLY going to do that - presumably don't threaten or intimidate.

Section 5.10 Misleading debtors into making payment may amount to unfair commercial practice.

www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT1272.pdf

Can I also just ask again, if you have been deferred OR you have asked for your original agreement and either had a reply, or the 12 day limit has passed, pleeeez post details on this thread... PLEASE!

Why the refunds for some.

www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2014/04/refunds-for-1990s-students-after-loan-company-blunder

Hi. Having a minor freakout here! Would appreciate some advice.

One of my (deferred) loans has been taken over by Erudio and I just realised I haven't previously advised SLC that I changed my bank account. I'm now terrified they're going to try to get me under terms and conditions. Should I call and give them my new details?

I'm also unsure what to do about the Fair Processing Notice.

Please help, I am at my wits end!

Thanks.

Just to clarify, I was referring to my main bank account. I still have the original account I set up when I first took out the loan.

The deferment form gives you the option to give your bank account details or, if you haven't got a bank account, the option to contact Erudio to arrange a different means of repayment (although you may still be deferred)

I don't think you would need to worry as long as you are willing to give details at this stage - even if you still get deferred.

My deferment has already been accepted through SLC, although the new letter from Erudio doesn't state when this period is up.

I now have the Notice of Assignment and Fair Processing Notice, which they want me to sign and return.

I am so confused and anxious!

@LadyVioletta

I would not sign and return the fair processing note. You are not obliged to agree to that in the slightest. They are trying it on hoping you think you do.

Thanks everyone. Slightly more at ease now. It's good to know there are so many of us out there!

I'll keep my eye on any more developments re this story and add more info to this thread if anything further comes to light.

Cheers people!

Can someone please shed some light, the deferment form gives you the option to give your bank account details, if you don't have a current account you are asked to contact them, which I did today and was told to write a letter stating that i can't fill in the direct debit form which is because I don't have a current account, however, I'm slightly confused tho having read the earlier posts saying that I would breaking the original terms and conditions set by SLC which state it is a mandatory requirement that they have an up to date direct debit mandate from me?? I don't trust these people, will they get a chance to state I am breeching the terms and conditions

the first thing asked was to confirm my customer reference number, than my DOB, at which point I refused, worrying because the operator refused to discuss any thing further unless it was general,,,

I wont also be signing to any of there terms and conditions, just writing a letter accompanied by my wage slips (crossing out my NI which is none of there business)

^ Often - at some point next week when I can really be bothered to deal with the phone muppets at Erudio, I will be calling them for their ban account details so I can setup a standing order for an unkown amount.

I'm overseas and it specifically says I don't need a DD with them. When I first spoke to them a few weeks ago, they seemed adamant that I needed one, I requested a local language form in Mogolian so that my bank would understand, which flummoxed them completely.

note: email number 9 has been sent, two days ago and still no reply. Not one of y emails has been answered to any of their email addresses.

@ Oftenbamboozled

I think some of the DD confusion comes from how the loans were marketed. I remember at my Uni (and on the application forms) being told if I didn't have a bank account to which a DD could be attached then I wouldn't get a loan. So everybody had to have a current bank a/c at the point of application. We would have sold our mothers to get the money though! So we went paying a lot of attention to the details I have to say.
It's become clear from the Erudio deferment application that obviously you can't 'force' somebody to have a bank account - after all - what if none of the banks wanted to have you as a customer? - so, don't worry about breaking the T&Cs on that point.
I think it's just become a common misconception - which suited SLC and Eudio.
Quirrel - don't let them have your phone number - they will haunt you.
dial 141 first to block your number being given out.

Or email them - they got back to me in 2/3 days.

Again, anyone who gets deferred or gets a reply to a CCA original agreement request please, please post here and help everyone else.

Quirrel - just saw note about unreplied-to emails. I think they are just swamped. Phoning from abroad though - not sure it will get you reliable advise judging by the response others have had - and will bviously cost you more than others.

May be better to post in your application - at least get a response logged and then argue the toss with them - certainly cheaper! - good luck

Hi all,
Just updating on my situation.....erudio have 2 of my loans, thesis 1.
Basically, I had to defer as normal through SLC. My deferent ends tomorrow 19/4/2014, I sent my deferment letter last week, phoned SLC on Monday, all good deferment accepted, erudio and thesis informed.
Received written confirmation of this on Wednesday.
Check my bank tonight and blinking erudio have taken money out via dd!!
Have had no letter from them informing me of a monthly amount that would occur if I wasn't defering (received one of these from thesis), in fact I've had no letter at all from anybody regarding the take over...sigh
How can they do this.....my blinking deferment has been accepted plus it didn't even run out til tomorrow!
Will I ever see this money again.......?

If they have taken money without informing you of the amount they were going to take then they have breached the DD guarantee. I would say this in turn breaches item 1a of the Credit Services Association's Code of Practice.
Nail the b'stards.

Just noticed that the thread is almost full, does anyone want to volunteer to start a new one?

New thread started.

Yes, it does say that we are breaking an agreement by not having a DD set up or refusing to set one up. But, my question is if we were to have one set up as part of the original loan because we needed to have one in order to get a loan then Erudio can't use that to say we aren't sticking to the agreement. We didn't take loans out with them, we took them out with SLC. I wasn't consulted in the sale of my loans so why should I give them access to my bank account so they can freely help themselves as they have done.

My argument is they can try and take me to court over it but why would they? It would cost them a fortune and I'm not refusing to pay by not having a DD set up if I'm in deferment and still eligible for deferment.

Their muppets told me over the phone that unless I was paying it back I didn't need to have a DD set up to make payments. In my mind, if I'm in deferment I don't need to arrange to make payments to them. If I'm eligible to pay it back then I need to make arrangements to pay them otherwise why should I give them access?

What makes them think they can do what they like to protect their investment and I can't protect my bank account from their obviously very sticky fingers?

Thank you halfprice!

New thread here