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?

Same situation i'm in. They admit that they have all the information they need but they refuse to process the deferment anyway until you sign their form. It's ridiculous and illegal.

Is it illegal?

Certainly not legal to refuse on those grounds, as once again there is nothing in the agreements or law that says you have to sign a declaration of SLC's or Erudio's choosing.

All you have to do is show that your income is below the threshold. That is all the law requires.

All else is pure BS from Erudio.

Fundamentally - I'd rather I could just give my word in an email and be deferred that way BUT, I accept that I consented to a particular set of conventions in order to get deferred by SLC - i.e. declare income and sign and return forms.

I accepted that was the way SLC wanted to do things and I was okay with that.

Now, I was as pissed off as anyone when Erudio bought the loans and started swaggering about threatening to change things AND I've rejected in my deferral any attempt to change the terms and conditions and rejected the FPN.

BUT, fundamentally, as long as I can give ONLY the same information that I gave SLC and complete the form in the same way - I can live with that.

I'll keep protesting and complaining about their assumed right to notify CRAs but I will go along with the same process I've been following every other year with SLC

Also if Erudio set their system up in a crap way that can't take account of other perfectly legal ways of doing thing, then that is their fault for being so arrogant and short sighted.

That is fair enough. It was after all a bigger issue when they were insisting on all the extra stuff.

Does remain the case that they have no right to insist you sign their forms though. There is no doubt on that.

@ mandakl

Sure I take on board what you're saying BUT did anyone ever test the legality or otherwise of being asked to sign the declaration when SLC were running the show?

I didn't - I didn't give a monkey's

I doubt if anyone else did either - because we were all fairly content.

It's important not to act like knobs and throwing all our toys out and start to refuse doing everything just because we're peed off with Erudio.

I'm content to do what I did before with SLC - and no more.

I don't see why now I should refuse to sign a form I signed for 20 years when it clearly doesn't commit me to anything more than it did before - regardless of the 'legality' or my perceived 'rightness'.

I don't think 'legality' is even an issue in signing the declaration.

@emptycoffers

Isn't it?

In the original terms and conditions there is nothing that says they are allowed to refuse deferment because of the method or format of your deferment application AFAIK.

AFAIK the ONLY way they can legally refuse deferment is if you don't meet the requirements set out in the original terms and conditions... and the only requirement in the original terms and conditions is that you are below the repayment threshold.

Or am I missing something here?

Also making deferment conditional upon using a set of forms which forces the borrower to agree to changes to the original terms and conditions is surely legally questionable at the very least? It certainly doesn't “adhere to strict OFT guidance about treating borrowers fairly” which was one of the conditions of the sale of the loans.

I see what you are saying about Erudio wanting everyone to use their forms to avoid a massive admin headache... but in that case they should change their forms and people would gladly sign them instead of going through all this.

I will argue the toss 'til the end of time about their 'rights' to change anything BUT if I'm going to deny them the right to change things.... then I have to be willing to continue doing what I always did before - no?

@simonpimpernel

Correct. There is nothing that allows them to refuse you for not using or signing their forms.

@ simonpimpernel

What change in terms and conditions is signing the form forcing you to accept?

The declaration is identical to the one you've always signed.

Cross out the FPN and write on the form that 'my signature does not give or imply consent to any changes in the t&cs of my original agreement'.

The only change I'm aware of, apart from wanting more info, (which you can refuse to give and still be deferred) is the post 98 borrowers being asked to consent to CRA notification.

If that applies to you - sign the form and state clearly in a letter and next to your signature that you refuse consent for any changes in the way your information is processed.

Let's face it, we may never know what they do with our data - if you want to make a stand on this - make sure you force them to take you to court for repayment of the debt (then and only then will any truth come out) - don't be mad enough to try and take Erudio to court.

@emptycoffers

I would be perfectly content to do what I did before with the SLC too... but the point is we can't do that because of the way Erudio have formatted their forms to include a bunch of crap they don't need and to change the terms and conditions in ways that leave us vulnerable.

@emptycoffers

As I said before we have no guarantee that blacking out sections of the forms will hold up legally. At the moment people are just doing that and hoping. If Erudio have the balls to take Direct Debit payments they are not entitled to etc what makes people think they won't try to find a way around some black ink?

Yes. Every person has to do this in a way they feel comfortable with.

Legally you don't have to use their form. If you choose to anyway then that's up to you.

So, does everyone also accept that SLC had no legal right to ask you to sign the forms?

And yet you still did?

So what's the issue unique to signing?

Be careful here about walking yourself into a world of pain. Signing the form with Erudio is 'of itself' NO different to signing the form for SLC.

It's the other issues that are important - and they're entirely separate from signing the form.

As the story goes though...
my mate bought a lighthouse... I said, that's your lookout.

Choose your battles carefully and sensibly - the signature issue is not a battle but Erudio have pissed you off and made you think that's the big issue - my feeling is - the signature is not the issue.

Don't get dragged into something you will regret over refusing to do something you always used to do anyway

@ simonpimpernel

blacking out sections of the forms may not hold up legally.

For sure - that's true - but it's just as likely that Erudio's chnages wouldn't stack up legally in a court either.

The truth is none of us know - and your statements and crossings out carry as much weight legally as Erudio's UNTIL it's tested in court.

Just be aware - that's all I'm saying - I consider that they've backtracked on almost everything except the CRA situation and we won't know anything about that until they actually do it.

If I were you - I'd get deferred and then see what ERudio do.

The luxury of arguing the finer legalities is unfortunately now in this country restricted to the rich - unless you can get Erudion to take you all the way to the point where they want to take your house and jail you - then you might get legal aid.

I doubt they want to do that - and I doubt you do either.

The ball, as they say is in your court, if you don't sign - it's back in their court - I couldn't hack the stress of it to be fair.

Interestingly have heard from 2 more people who after much badgering of the SLC have now had it confirmed that as they have a loan with both Erudio and Thesis/Honours, then the SLC is going to stay in complete control of doing the deferments for those as they have always done.

This is the case with mine i.e. split between Thesis and Erudio. I sent the SLC form to them, to Erudio and to Thesis and received notice from SLC that all were deferred.

Shortly after I received a letter from Erudio stating that they needed more information to process my deferment application. If I had been with Erudio alone I wouldn't have had the same response to this letter (namely to snort 'bollocks' and tell them it was deferred)

Perhaps the SLC have had more than one person on to them about the same thing happening which is why they've made this move for those of us with dual loan companies?

It must be 'easier' for them to abandon people for whom Erudio will be the only company they can use.

Has anyone contacted SLC saying that their application has not been processed despite supplying the same info SLC used to ask for

Has anyone had problems with Erudio 'losing' documentation? I sent my deferment cover letter (not the form) and evidence at the end of April, together with a CCA request and postal order for £1. I telephoned a few days ago (yes, I know) as my deferment runs out on the 19th, but they denied receiving it. They backed down when I gave the Royal Mail signed for reference proving otherwise. Their mail department was then ordered to look for it a couple of days ago, but so far no joy.

I cc'd my MP's constituency office last month into the cover letter too, after they agreed that would be helpful, so they are seeing first hand how incompetent they are.

I also wish they would stop referring to me as a 'customer' as it implies I have some kind of choice whether I interact with them, but I suppose that is the least of my worries just now.

@StAndrewsbythesea

A lot have, yes. These are long threads but if you can manage to read back you will find quite a few examples.

Most when pointed out like you that it was signed for recorded have then miraculously been able to immediately find it. (Not suss at all!).

Thanks, @Mandakl. I tend to agree with most of your analysis on these threads!

I think I'll telephone my MP's constituency office tomorrow to see if I can get an update. I sent in last week for their reference a copy of Erudio's deferment form, a copy of SLC's deferment form (for comparison), and printed copy of Martin Lewis' blog, "The Government has sold people out over Erudio Student Loans". I got the received with thanks acknowledgement card through the door a few days ago.

Hi, I've been following for a while. It really helped me get my head around things and was invaluable when putting together my application. I phoned Erudio today to check on progress of my deferment application as last years expires today. The guy I spoke to confirmed by deferment was accepted on the 8th May and was pending on their system. I have not received an email/letter/call to say my deferment has been accepted. Had my application NOT been accepted my first payment date would be 15th May (tomorrow). The guy on the phone asked if I wanted to cancel my DD to ensure payment did not come out. I questioned the legality of them taking payment when I was not legally bound to pay.... they have accepted my deferment but not FULLY processed it yet so indeed payment MAY come out of my account. He offered to cancel my DD from his end then still asked me to call back tomorrow to see what the state of play is. I have made a formal complaint in writing (again!). Of course, I am please I have been accepted although I knew I would be... but I do want to see it in writing and have requested this asap. I went round the houses with this guys about how they can take money that I have never been liable to pay due to meeting deferment criteria..... basically he said they would give me the money back but surely that's not the point!!!! For info, I completed to Erudio Form minus extraneous info like homeowner status etc... giving them the same info I have always provided to SLC. I did not include the FPN. As a stay at home Mum, my husband wrote a letter confirming he supports the family and I sent in bank details showing CTC/CB with all other financial info blanked out.

Thanks

I was told the same thing, they may in error still take money.

They are not allowed to do that. You must cancel the DD with your bank, first thing that they open, and hope it wasn't taken last thing today. They clearly told me, CAB and my bank they 'have no control over DD being taken in error' that's theft. No company by error takes money they aren't entitled to, or has 'no control' over DD requests. When my bank heard that they said it was to be cancelled straight away.

Personally I think they are relying on a percentage of people not noticing this 'error' occurring and not claiming it back.

I got the forms done and sent back with relevant evidence and put my reference number on all of it along with page numbers - I've had experience of the 'lost paperwork syndrome' before and the only way to avoid is special delivery and put your reference number on every piece of paper and photocopy it and tell them in a letter you have done so.

Surely the key thing to remember is these forms are not the same as SLC.

I certainly gave the same info I would have given SLC - the fundamental difference is I didn't sign erudio's form to do this.

If they want to argue about that then it's tough tits. They say the process hasn't changed and I've adhered to that mantra without accepting their form. It's clear that signing that gives them permission to register my loans with a CRA and I didn't sign the original FPN they sent out with the notice of sale letter because I didn't agree with it. Imagine my surprise when they then included it in their forms in a more threatening manner.

The absolutely key thing to remember is you sign something if you agree. None of us agreed the sale and we certainly don't have to accept Erudio's way if doing things just because they say so. We never took a loan out with them so shouldn't agree to any terms they fancy creating. The whole process should be the SLC process verbatim - not a variation on a theme.

We were promised nothing would change. It has and I for one am not going to agree to something I'm not comfortable with and that is my right as a customer.

The customer is always right after all.

@ halfpricedebt

But you've signed SLC's form in the past, haven't you?

For me, that meant that I was certifying the truth of what I'd said - it didn't give consent to anything else because, SLC apparently already had the freedom to register my loans with CRAs but they chose not to.

For me, and others with pre-98 loans, signing the form changes nothing as far as I can tell.

If your loans need your consent to change the CRA terms, then signing the 'borrower's warranty' will not chage your t&cs as long as you write that on the form too - if Erudio have an issue with that then they would not accept your altered form.

If Erudio choose to report your loans regardless, we'll all be stuck in the same boat of having to take them on in court.

@emptycoffers

Ok but from what I could gather on here, the main issues were surrounding signing a form that included that "fair" processing notice.

I did always sign the SLC agreement but that's because it was a straightforward - send us three payslips or a statement or earnings, ta! sort of a deal. This Erudio form ended up being quite different.

In any case, I've signed and agreed to the legislation that governs these loans. That is what it said in my letter and my marker pen went through Erudio's forms like it was on crack crossing everything out and "DO NOT CONSENT" on everything I didn't have to give SLC. I didn't sign it and apparently they are now sending out a letter to me telling me I've been deferred. I've spoken to three different people this week at Erudio, the second told me he would update my records and set it as deferred - the guy today confirmed that this has been done. So all this stuff about having to sign the form doesn't make sense especially as Erudio have admitted that they are going to work on revising the form following pressure from Martin Lewis.

Does anyone on here know who's doing this site: no2erudio.wordpress.com/ - I'm liking this approach so if it's anyone on here - well done and I'm happy to contribute.