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?

Got my 'amended' form (incomplete/ blacked out where I did not agree) letter and evidence of income in the post (recorded) on Monday so will wait to hear what happens.

for the latest of you who are being so messed around by Erudio (@ simon, Becca , Power and halfprice) There was talk of getting the media involved as much as possible to put the spotlight on this company don't remember anyone mentioning complaining to Radio 4's Moneybox which might be good for those experiencing problems already and wanting to be 'more heard'

@ halfpricedebt

Signing the borrower's warranty is of itself (in isolation) exactly the same as we did for SLC.

The difficulty was that Erudio seemed to want to link many other changes to the same form.

Most of those issues have or will be retracted - and Erudio have deferred people who have altered the contract/form and blaccked out, not answered et etc - thereby accepting the 'terms' suggested by the borrower.

Signing, is of itself, small beer and something we always did before - if it gets you deferred - then you can argue the ins and outs whe you're not being chased for monthly payments

The next stage is to see if they do report the debts of the deferred to CRAs - are they going to follow through on the threats?

The only way we find out is to get deferred in the first place

Hello, just wanted to report that I have had a letter back from Erudio in response to the complaint from the financial ombudsman. They said that they will investigate the complaint, which may take up to eight weeks, and no collection activity will take place while they are investigating.

I still haven't heard back about my deferment. Or been sent a copy of the loan agreement.

@ emptycoffers

Sorry, am getting a bit lost on this thread as there are so many posts..
Did you sign and return the forms as normal? Or add your own amendments/crossed out info etc..
I signed my merrily signed my form and sent it off with my info mid april as i thought i had no choice. And as you say my understanding was that all loans for 1997 courses and before were going to be registered anyway, they were only asking for consent for post 1998.
I haven't slept properly for a bout 3 days over this as i am now kicking myself as you have all done things so differently and been accepted. I didn't know this convo existed back in april, i really wish i had. I just don't know what to do,l and am panicing.
How can they accept form from some because its 'mandatory' but then shift the goal posts for others? How is that treating everyone fairly?? I don't know if I have grounds for complaint.. But i feel i have been penalised by (stupidly or not) doing what i was requested.
Also, would the form just last for one year of deferment? Ie i have cocked up this year, but if I submit it different next year, would this years form override me withholding consent next year..??
I just dont understand it all, and am getting very very stressed

@Insanityme

Assume you the older loans? If you accept that the loans agreements for the 1990-97 agreements allow for reporting of loans to the CRAs when the are being paid back or deferred, then honestly it's not going to make any difference, because as the legally assigned creditor they have every right to report that information whether you signed the form or not.

If you have the newer loans and have given consent via one of the routes, then afraid that is not just for one year AFAIK. It's permanently from then onwards.

In the end what is done is done. At least for this year.

Keep an eye on this and other threads and see what develops over the next 10 months or so. There are a lot of things in the system in terms of regulatory, media, political, complaints so you never know how things might shift either in ways of legal interpretation or due to other pressure.

@joymaker

BBC MoneyBox have already done a piece. Not sure if there is still a live iplayer link or a transcript, but although Paul Lewis did deal with the wrongly taken direct debit issue, he sadly more or less ducked all the other issues.

Very disappointed with him on this, but suppose he can't fight every battle as although he has BBC backing on the moneybox side he is mostly a one man band. Martin Lewis on the other hand has quite a large team of researchers behind the scene at MSE.

@mandakl

But is it correct that you are umbrella'ed in terms of when your loan was opened.. If i started my course in 1997, but my loans started in early 1998, am i old style or newer style? I think i have misunderstood the whole situation and have agreed to something i should not have.
I read somewhere that it was the year that you started your course.
I am so confused.

@ bobsyouruncle that's not customer service, that's stalling tactics - contact FOS and complain "Erudio" are being obstructive in processing your deferment application by not telling you why your application's incomplete or how to rectify it. "Stage 2".... what does that mean?!

@Insanityme Right. No. The loan system you are on depends on the start date of your course. In that I mean the old mortgage style loans vs the new one that come out of your wages.

Now if you are on the old type, what they did is change the loan agreements in 1998 to an updated terms that didn't allow reporting to the CRAs except in case of default.

Each years loan stands on it's own in that regard. If you took one on 1997 it would be on the old terms. If you took one in 1998 and after it would be on those newer T&Cs.

It is possible to have your loans split so some have the newer CRA reporting terms, and some have the older ones.

In other words if your loan was from 1998 - no matter when your course started - they can't report deferment status.

EXCEPT if you agreed to that by signing the fair processing notice on the forms or that was sent separately.

The original provision on data protection from the 1990 Loans Act was amended in the DPA Act 1998 here:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/15/paragraph/10

I'm not sure, but I took this to mean that they have to comply with the more extensive requirements of the DPA Act 1998, including the data subject giving explicit consent to the sharing of sensitive personal data?

@ Insanityme

My loans are all pre-98.

I left blank any questions that were not already on the previous SLC forms.

I crossed out the FPN.

I wrote in Big Letters that I did not accept that signing the form allowed Erudio to change any T&Cs of my original loans.

I wrote a cover letter explaining all this.

I was deferred a month later.

Of course, we later found out that there seems (at present) to be a blanket form of permission to pass info to CRAs in pre98 loans - for the moment - this is a battle to come I suspect.

Unless your loans are 98 onwards - it doesn't sound like you've done anything to worry about.
If you had a mixture if pre and post 98 loans then at least one 'could' be reported by Erudio anyway (it seems).

Don't lose sleep - get deferred - and then let battle commence!!!

Most people are completing the deferment applications 'under duress' anyway. Fear of what Erudio could do is prompting people to sign and return documents they don't fully understand and about which Erudio could be held to be deliberately/carelessly/maliciously spreading misinformation with a view to unfairly pressuring borrowers to repay loans they have no legal obligation to repay.

This issue will come to a head yet BUT get deferred first.

Sleep well for tomorrow we fight!

@minimoosh

Sort of.

It''s not actually that amendment I've been told that makes the difference, as that one only affects the sharing of data "for soliciting custom for goods or services" not regarded sharing for other purposes.

But basically yes, then updated the agreements to have tighter data sharing clauses and a result (direct or indirect) of the DPA 1998.

Doesn't really matter how it occurred, the change was made in the agreeents.

@emptycoffers

Sounds like Insanityme's loans were 1998 onwards, as they asked what would be the situation if they started their course in 1997 but didn't take out a loan until the 1998 academic year.

If that is the case, then their loan agreements would have been the type where deferment cannot be reported, and they may have signed away that protection with the forms/FPN.

Hopefully Insanityme can confirm.

@halfpricedebt

So if i'm reading you right you are saying that you DIDN'T sign Erudio's forms but three separate people from Erudio have confirmed that your deferment has been granted?

Because I was told today by an agent that anyone who claims they have been successfully deferred without signing the forms is a straight up liar. This forum was mentioned by the agent and I was told that people are coming on here and lying about being deferred to stir things up and cause trouble.

Did you get names for any of the people who processed/confirmed your deferment? If so could you PM them to me so I can ask to speak to them myself? Maybe I will have more luck with them?

I don't think you are lying BTW i'm just saying what Erudio are now claiming.

The agent also confirmed that several people from Erudio read this forum and find some of the things we are posting upsetting.

For what it is worth I think the agent I spoke to was a nice person and seemed genuine and was as frustrated by the whole thing as myself... it's the people in charge of making the policies that are the assholes.

I just called 'Erudio' and the agent I spoke to was also friendly and reassuring. I'm told that my deferment won't get processed before the end of my current deferment period and that the account will show as being in arrears. However, the account can have up to 3 months of arrears without "affecting you adversely at all" so when my deferment does get processed which it should "providing you are under the threshold" then the account gets reset to the state it should be had I been deferred in time. They advised me to call back in a week.
This is all very reassuring. I've put the conversation verbatim in a letter to Erudio, for their records and mine. We'll see.
Meantime my MP has received my letter. I'm holding off writing to the FOS for a few days to give Erudio a fair chance.
I do still have concerns over signing their form. Maybe I'm irrationally wary but something about their insistence to sign it without any grounds or plausible explanation offered just 'feels' wrong. They can successfully process my deferment without it so why wouldn't they?

Considering how many lies Erudio/Capita staff have been caught out telling, they are the biggest "POT" to say or claim that.

Hi all, just joined to pass this info on. It has been written on earlier pages that the SLC will defer ALL loans on one application if SLC or Thesis hold one or more of them. This doesn't seem to be the case always.

I have just had my deferment confirmation letter back from the SLC. I had applied to defer three loans, two of which (for '96/'97) had been sold to Thesis in the first offload a few years ago. As far as I am or was concerned, the third (for '98) is still with the SLC. However, there is no mention of this loan on my deferment confirmation letter, so I suspect they may have sold it to Erudio. I've had no information in the post to inform me of this. Therefore I've yet to have any dealings with Erudio.

This is the first year that SLC hasn't confirmed all three at the same time, so I am anticipating a bit of hassle coming up. But the main point being the SLC are not averse to only part processing received applications. I need to get on to SLC to see what is going on, but won't be able to until next week. Haven't got time to sit on hold for hours on end this week.....

@SonicArtist

You should have received something from Erudio, no matter what was going to happen with your loan. The fact that you haven't suggests there may have been a up somewhere in the hand off/transfer on that one.

Quite! I'll believe it when I see it

I dont give a shit of people from Erudio are getting upset by reading this thread!!! Boo hoo to them!!!
They're not the ones being worried sick by this mess that the company they work for have created.
If they are upset dont work then for a debt collection agency. Simple!!

Erudio have been totally underprepared to take over theses loans and they thought that we would just bend over and take blatant changes from how SLC handled the deferments. Im sure in an earlier correspondence I was assured I wouldn't notice a difference. . Hardly,nearly 7 weeks after applying to defer im still waiting on them getting off their backsides to do anything about it. SLC took maximum of 3 weeks. Now that is not the same to me.

If that sounds harsh I really do not give two hoots. I am sick of Erudio, sick of their complete incompetence, sick of their complete lack of customer service and finally sick of the call centre agents who quite cleary don't have a clue what they are doing, they probably weren't even born when I took out my 1st loan ffs!!. if that upsets anyone then tough. I make no apology for my contempt towards Erudio. They havent exactly been playing fair either!.

Rant over!!

Well I'll see what SLC say next week. I'm not really bothered, I'm clearly deferred on my two large loans, but can't understand why the confirmation letter made no mention of the third one. I can foresee a situation where I'll be deferred as far as SLC and Thesis are concerned, and in default in Erudio's eyes.

That was in reply to Mandaki....

@ mandakl

I can understand how the SLC, or Erudio, might get away with reporting to CRA's if a borrower's in arrears and they've issued a default notice under the Consumer Credit Act. But how can they can do the same for deferred loans without getting consent to disclose the data?

The old loan agreement says that any disclosure of information is subject to the prohibitions and protections of the DP Act. If the clause was updated in the new agreements to reflect what those protections are, that doesn't mean the provisions of the DP Act don't apply to the old agreements, just because the wording in the old clause is more general, surely?