Erudio Student Loans Continued

[halfpricedebt]

Started a new thread following mrsbug's request.

I got an email from Erudio today telling me that an issue I raised with them on 27 March that was then completely ignored even though they asked for confirmation of my details to process the initial email. I gave them the details they requested and seven days later I still hadn't heard anything. So I wrote them a rather threatening complaint telling them if they didn't respond within 7 days I would report them to the relevant financial services. That was on 3 April and today they've told me that my complaint has been forwarded to their Customer Resolutions Team.

I wonder what they do?

Of course it's Arrow. Like I said ages ago, Erudio is nowt more than a shell company.

Capita handle the complaints, the deferment process, the accounts, everything else. They report the call data etc that Lewy mentioned to Arrow.

I need to investigate more on the setting up of Direct Debits. Is it right that a person can have a DD with the SLC, have it cancelled, and then have Capita set up a new one without any correspondence with that money going to Erudio?

I think Martin Lewis needed to make more out of the fact the government stated people won't see any change in how they are dealt with from SLC to Erudio, there's no doubt Erudio are within their rights registering Pre 98 loans with CRAs but if forced the government could put pressure on them not to because of this statement made at the time of the sale.

Would also have been nice to put him on the spot about the differences between section 16 and 12b.

I think it's very hard to convey the huge incompetence of their staff and demonstrate the sheer amount of mis-information and lies they spout. You really have to be using their 'services' to have any idea of how totally unsuited they are for this purpose.

^^
HSL has been going long enough for Arrow to know the systems they needed to put in place to handle the Erudio clients. A straight migration like that should have been relatively simple. This sort of incompetence smacks of trying to do it on the cheap.

The lack of interest in the essential privatisation of student loans from the Guardian is decidedly sad. I thought that Shiv Malik would have been all over this story.

www.theguardian.com/profile/shiv-malik

Why so little coverage from the Grauniad? A little memory that I can't confirm for being exact thinks that Private Eye reported on Capita sponsoring some Guardian events in the not so distant past...

Not defending them, but the big difference is that HSL and Thesis both left the deferment process with the SLC so the sold and unsold loans were all done by the same people at the same time and by people who knew what they were doing. This is the first time someone buying the loans had had to do all the deferments themselves, and the daft idiots allowed themselves to buy the loans just before everyone was due to defer, so they didn't have long to get organised.

If the government and Erduio had have had 2 brain cells to rub together between them, the would have allowed SLC to do this years deferments AND THEN sold the loan book, giving the buyer best part of a year to get their systems in order.

They didn't, hence this cluster f*ck of a situation.

I think some of you are perhaps getting a bit carried away with things: halfpricedebt - you borrowed an amount of money (originally from SLC). It was always the case that you were expecting to repay that money or defer repayment and have it written off after 30 years. It doesn't really matter to you, who you repay the money to.

Yes, Erudio bought the debts for peanuts, but it was an open sale, and that was presumably the best offer on the table. That's the market rate of the loan book. It might seem a bit low, but it it's hardly an attractive financial proposition to buy loans with an interest rate of inflation, where the vast majority are either in default or long term deferment. Lets face it, of those people who are still deferring loans they took out over 10 years ago, how many of us will ever have a high enough income to have to repay? The only prospect for Erudio to make any money on the deal is if they can squeeze it out of deferrers or track down defaulters and extract it from them. My guess is that most of the defaulters are long gone - either statute barred or abroad (or both), so that leaves the deferrers as the best hope for Erudio.

It's also irrelevant who Erudio subcontract the admin/call centre work out to (or it should be). Companies do it all the time, just be thankful it's a UK based team that's dealing with it!

However, the things to be concerned about at this stage are Erudio bending the rules, trying to sneakily change t&c etc. Even David Petitt's reply shows he's aware of it and not that bothered: disclosure to CRAs will only occur if the account is in arrears or default as specified in part (b) of section 12 (Disclosure of information) or if a borrower has give their consent.

I'll be honest, I could probably have got through Uni without the student loans - I always worked though the holidays etc. I only took them out 'just in case' I needed the money. We were always told that they would not go on our credit records or be held against us when applying for a mortgage. Now it seems that both of those statements were lies, and I would never have taken out the loans if I knew they would change the rules later. Is that not a case of mis selling?

The student loans scheme was always going to be a time bomb, the people at the top were either incompetent or liars if they said that it wouldn't operate at a loss. In 10 years time the problem will be much much bigger as well. We 'only' borrowed

@mandakl.

"Not defending them, but the big difference is that HSL and Thesis both left the deferment process with the SLC so the sold and unsold loans were all done by the same people at the same time and by people who knew what they were doing. This is the first time someone buying the loans had had to do all the deferments themselves, and the daft idiots allowed themselves to buy the loans just before everyone was due to defer, so they didn't have long to get organised."

So with HSL, am I right in thinking that the SLC took care of the actual deferment process and HSL outsourced the Customer Service Helpline and appears payment process to Capita? Going from Capita's own website (www.capitacustomermanagement.co.uk/CAREERS/about-us/our-clients/), they've had that outsourcing contract for eight years.

Enough of the processes used there should have been migrated over for the Erudio contract with additional input from the SLC for the deferment process.

"If the government and Erduio had have had 2 brain cells to rub together between them, the would have allowed SLC to do this years deferments AND THEN sold the loan book, giving the buyer best part of a year to get their systems in order."

I'm not sure when the bulk of deferments actually come up each year so can't really comment on when the best time to migrate over would have been. What is certain is that they weren't ready for March 1st when they took over the accounts and the conflicting information I was given from SLC and Erudio (including Erudio representatives contradicting each other in separate phone calls) backs up this assertion.

This is the same Capita who had to be bailed out by civil servants over the PIP assesment backlog. The same Capita who screwed up Army recruitment. The same Capita engaged in much debate over the Service Birmingham debacle. The same Capita in Barnet... sigh.

i mailed shiv malik weeks ago and heard nothing back from the guy, so maybe you are right breakwind, i have been surprised not to hear anything back. And i agree, the HSL experience should have been relatively seemless by now and just in need of transferring the identical system over

@ekim, i dont really get your acceptance of it, it is student loans sold by the government not credit card or bank debt. If you cant see the difference in that, then all things really are equal. Plus i dont get why you then say Erudio are bending the rules, you havent dealt with them yet! Youre not even using the right name, yet you still cant see why it is important who has been subcontracted to do the work or why that is an issue? Erudio's loan negotiator purchased the dept after passing BIS's due diligence process for them to handle the loans specifically. That they have passed on all work to another unvetted (i assume) agency is cause for concern and rather shocking to me, regardless of what industry practice is for all debt sales. That aaid though, i fully agree with you, we are just the tip of the iceberg.

@ekim

I agree. This talk of people wanting to pay the same percentage of the debt that Erudio bought is fairly ridiculous. Erudio bought a pretty unattractive package and they will do all they can to get their return on it.

What we as customers and clients have to do is make sure they adhere to the terms and conditions we signed up for all those years ago.

We have to report their poor customer service and shady practices if and when they happen.

We have to make sure that the terms and conditions do not change.

I will disagree with you here though:

"It's also irrelevant who Erudio subcontract the admin/call centre work out to (or it should be). Companies do it all the time, just be thankful it's a UK based team that's dealing with it!"

In this case, it is not. We are all customers and clients of Erudio. In some cases, we are clients of Erudio and have had money taken with absolutely zero communication from Erudio. For our complaints and attempts to gain some clarity into the situation, we call the numbers given and write letters expecting to speak to Erudio, not a shonkily-set up Capita setup with phone advisors who don't seem to have much of a clue what's going on.

It's all about the clarity of communication. That has not been there from the start and so it is entirely relevant who Erudio subcontract the administrative side to when that administrative side has been shite.

"However, the things to be concerned about at this stage are Erudio bending the rules, trying to sneakily change t&c etc. Even David Petitt's reply shows he's aware of it and not that bothered: disclosure to CRAs will only occur if the account is in arrears or default as specified in part (b) of section 12 (Disclosure of information) or if a borrower has give their consent."

Absolutely and as you rightly say we are the tip of the iceberg.

Until the FOS really get to work, we are stuck. Lewy's performance today made Maria Miller look like a bastion of truth and honesty.

@erudioed.

Maybe I'll go back through my copies of Private Eye over the last two years and see what gets said about any Capita-Guardian link. It seems like it should be a prime Guardian story, the right age range for Malik based on his book 'Jilted Generation' (currently looking at me from the bookshelf in the corner) yet they've been very very quiet.

Until then, I like this site...

namawinelake.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/capita-aka-crapita-%E2%80%93-service-provider-for-one-of-nama%E2%80%99s-most-lucrative-contracts/

yep, very interested to know about that. Sounds like someone else who needs to be pestered into taking an interest.
As an aside, i just listened to Martin Lewis again on the BBc today. Its a shame he had to rush to get to the point and wasnt given more time, he was making real progress. You are right as well, Zack Lewy makes Tony Blair look like Jon Pilger! Welcome american style neo-liberalism...fuck you, you're wrong, but were sorry for the errors we've made and will do everything we can to get it right in the future.
"Were in year one of a twenty year journey" was a classic.
Another one was at the end "Its a very important project were absolutely focused on it...". Yeah, important because they are eying up future student loans and planning on controlling the financial lives of all future students.

ibreakwind, that link to capita is a real shocker. I suggest everyone reads it. If they were mentioned during the Dept of BIS's due diligence test, we really do need to petition for the results of the due diligence to be published. The whole thing stinks...

Wow @ibreakwind thats some very interesting reading.

Still had no response to my emails, however i did receive an interesting one from them asking if it was ok to discuss my complaint with my MP, of course it is lol. I did point out i was still waiting for a response from my previous emails and that it was strange they could contact me regarding a complaint from the mp but not my original email complaint. I copied him in of course!

Smacks of arse covering now they are being found out!

I think persistence and complaints in numbers are the key.

As an aside i have set up alerts on my credit file that detects any misuse of my information, should prove interesting in the coming months!

I'm new here.

I have been on the phone to this company all afternoon. Literally. They told me they were allowed to set up a direct debit because student loans sold them my bank account information and that it was in my terms and conditions they could do so, I cannot find this. I've been a victim of severe identity theft (tens if thousands of pounds) so my bank alerted me.

My deferment finishes 20th may. I am severely disabled and have been unable to afford someone to help me to do the form. Today I was told there is no chance I can defer in time and money will be taken, if there is no money my loan account would register as being in arrears.

This would result in my bank account being locked and the consequences would be no money in and no money out. They said they would refund 'sometime' and cancel the notice to Credit agencies about me being in arrears but I don't trust that. I'm really really scared. I'm already fighting homelessness at the moment and there's no way I can manage this company on top of that.

Can anyone help? Is deferment really taking that long? Don't you just send in the form and it's granted? Ive all the evidence requested, but don't have the money to pay for someone to fill it in for me. One person I spoke to said not to worry once it was received no money would be taken but the other said it definitely would.

If I go into arrears I will never be able to get a home with that on my credit record, all landlords here go by ability to pay and credit rating to rent to people on benefit.

Anyone got any advice? I've been trying to save for the form to be done since mid march, but am still a bit short. The old one wasn't a problem as it was so short, but this one is so long I must pay. There is no CAB or anything like that where I live.

Becca19962014

only exposure and negative coverage will force them to treat us fairly, i totally agree and we are all doing a great job thus far...its a shame they had to treat us poorly for us to start bringing pressure on them. How hard could it have really been to approach us with a lighter touch. If we start calling them Arrow and Capita/Ventura it will also help force that pressure. If we criticise Erudio, what are we actually criticising?

Is anybody able to let me know the correct law/regulations that are relevant to my '94-'96 loans?

I have found my credit agreements from that time, regulated by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 and made under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990.

There is nothing in my agreements that relate to what evidence I need to apply for deferment of payments, in fact there is nothing about deferring at all.

There is also no information on them about reporting to credit reference agencies.

Which regulations should I refer to for this information?

I think someone gave the law back on the first thread on this topic near the start of the thread - is it not likely to be under that 1990 Act you mention?
The laws about passing data around are the Data Protection Act 1998.

The law on when contracts can be assigned - transferred to other organisations are just in case law/common law not in any Act.

Your agreement probably has some kind of general data protection clause. It may say to whom they can pass data. It may be so broad they can - they do not need to name the exact bodies to whom they can pass the data. I believe some older contracts allow the data to be passed and newer ones do not.

I think it was a good article. Probably the best yet. Interesting how the Arrow guy didn't like that somebody was told by erudio to cancel a DD if they were worried erudio would take a payment. Of course he didn't like that! At the moment they're guaranteed money from "administrative cock ups"!

Interestingly I spoke to them today soon after that stint on the radio. They've received my letter and crossed out erudio form. Apparently I need to give them two months payslips and a letter from my employer (I haven't been there three months and erudio's initial line was to tell me to supply a letter from my employer which I did!). Apparently, once I send this I'll get deferred. Makes me wonder about the fact my account is registered by them as a low risk - wondering if that means they won't push me but will chase others logged as high risk.

Thanks for your response JessicaMary.

I also get the impression that older contracts like mine, ie. pre '98, do allow the data to be passed on and so I am questioning whether it is worth me worrying about signing Erudio's form.

I feel that I may as well send in my application with the form, as Erudio require, because reporting deferred loans to CRAs is something they can do anyway and therefore by signing it I am not consenting to any changes. IYSWIM

I presume that everyone that really doesn't want to use Erudio's form has a post '98 loan whereby signing the form with the Fair Processing Notice would be consenting to a change in THEIR T&Cs, whereas mine, and anyone who has pre '98 loans, would not be affected by this (?)

My original agreement says, in part 16.Disclosure of Information,
' The Loans Act prohibits us from disclosing information about you to anyone else for use for soliciting custom for goods or services. The Data Protection Act 1984 also contains protections in relation to the disclosure of automatically processed information about you. Subject to these prohibitions and protections, and to any other relevant statutory provisions, we may however, if we judge appropriate, disclose to any person any information concerning or relating to this Agreement '

The thing I don't understand is that I thought all the loans that Erudio are dealing with here were 1990-1998 mortgage style loans, so how come some of them have different T&Cs?

MM, in my view you may as well sign Erudio's form then unless it changes any other terms - read it carefully.

It is possible that data protection clause from all those years ago was too general to be valid. The Information Commissioner likes companies to set out a bit of detail about who the data might go to and that clause is a bit of a wide sweep up covering a lot but probably it is likely to be valid. You could sign Erudio's form but just cross out the fair processing bit perhaps?

I think terms changed someone said on the other thread - earlier loans under the Data Protection Act 1984 I think it was (I am that old that I remember its coming out) and later ones under the Data Protection Act 1998 which replaced it.

@ *mandakl

I've been looking at your agreements that you posted on the first thread and they are definitely different to mine. (94-96 loans)

Would you mind telling me which years your loans with these agreements were taken out?

Also, I presume you received a FPN with the letter of assignment correspondence that Erudio asked you to sign and return (?), which I did not.

I have to say though - the people saying my idea was ridiculous ought to do some research. This sort of scheme has been done by others and has been done in the States. It might seem ridiculous and while I have no problem with the fact I borrowed money from the SLC with the view to paying it back. I was prepared to either have to pay it back some day or it would end up getting written off when I'm old enough.

What I do have a problem with is not being offered the chance to buy my loan at a cut price, while a company I have had nothing to do with and certainly didn't borrow any money from, are asking me to pay them a tonne of money that I never took from them. We can over complicate the issue by talking about market rates and legal documents to tow the line about what's legal/moral when really capitalism, debt and profit exist because of psycj

Psychological value placed on them by the debtor. There are two types of people in the world - debtors and creditors. It's clear who we are but that relationship is not fixed and can be altered. At the moment we accept the debtor is the only person who can do this and that's how we've ended up with such a system.

It might sound like bollocks, or even off-topic but this relationship isn't fixed and this little drop in the ocean with Erudio is a part of the wider issue. I know we're not fighting that so I'll stop mentioning it.

can someone help me out please. I am trying to compose an email to Erudio to chase up my deferment. This is how I've got on so far.

*I wrote to you on 8th April 2014 and requested the deferment of my student loans. This letter was sent by recorded delivery and was signed for at your offices on 9th April 2014 by a W. Sellars. I have a copy of this person's signature should you require it.

I note that you have since failed to make any contact with me with regards to my deferment. There has been no acknowledgement of my letter from yourselves and certainly no mention of my deferment which I am legally entitled to do as a result of my earnings.

I have attached a copy of all the information that was sent to you on that day; a covering letter, a copy of my P60 and 3 months pay slips. As I get paid fortnightly I submitted 6 payslips for your perusal.

I also note that you have since submitted a Direct Debit mandate to my bank with no details attached to it. I did not consent for you to do this as you have not made me aware to me how much my payments are likely to be nor have you advised of the date the direct debit will come out. Under the terms of the direct debit guarantee I'm sure you are aware that you are required to give me notice of both the amount and the frequency of such payments*

And that's as far as I've got with it. Not sure whether I should put in about me now making a formal complaint or should I give them a chance to respond to my email? Should I say I would like a response in X amount of days?

Thanks in advance