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?

Just want to reiterate,

I personally signed the form (borrower's warranty) and I have no problem with that - because it's identical to what I signed for Student Loans Company.

I wrote in the box - my signature does not form consent to any changes to my original agreements.

I was deferred.

There's nothing more any of us can do until we see what Erudio do re: CRAs

great list above for complaints. weve got to keep peppering them to make as many outside people/agencies know as possible. It has done great thus far but we have to keep it up.
Certainly someone putting in an FOI for the BIS due diligence info and any other info they have on this sale/issue would make the biggest possible difference to let us know where we do stand on that front. Most other things are just speculation until we know what has been agreed and the details of those agreements, as well as the actual sale. I dont think any lawyer could challenge anything until we know what BIS has agreed and allowed Arrow to do.
Ive just twattered the journalist above, maybe as many as can should as well. Silence will only work against us all on this one. Nice find as always Mandakl!

@emptycoffers Dont forget we also signed over Erudio's right to pass on info to their partners, which we now know are 2 huge debt collection/finance companies, with many sub-companies. CRAs may just be one concern on this issue.

Cheers Mandakl

Does anyone know wigs writing the no2erudio blog?

Wigs - stupid phone! "Is"

I've done a bit of research and I'm prepared to submit an FOI request to BIS for all of us. Please PM me with any questions you think I should ask as part of a request.

It will be done thought the What Do They Know? website so the information will remain publicly viewable for future "customers".

@ erudioed

Unfortunately my loans are all pre-98 so my signing anything didn't give Erudio permission to do anything they weren't already claiming they had the right to do.

Whether they choose to exercise the 'right' is another matter and will only be revealed in due time and only after deferral is granted because that's the point at which they can choose whether to reveal my debt to CRAs.
If I'm in default, they can already reveal it anyway.
If I'm in deferral, Erudio have a choice (they claim) whether to choose to reveal the debt or not.
I can't act to stop them committing an act they haven't yet committed.
In other words, they have to do it first.

It may well be that the Information Commissioner would take the view that the agreements consented to years ago were not worded in such a way that borrowers could possibly infer that their debts might later be revealed to CRAs.

The Information Commissioner could take the view, in light of how the loans were sold, that it would be reasonable for a borrower to assume that the loans could never affect their future credit rating, therefore not be revealed to CRAs, as they are the organistions that control credit ratings.

The Information Commissioner might take a view that Erudio's 'interpretation' of the legal position is not one any reasonable borrower could expect them to make.

The Information Commissioner might take the view that the fact that the Student Loans Company never, in more than 20 years, chose to report the debts to CRAs, reasonably created the belief/assumption that in fact, that is not what the original document wording entitled them to do and that Erudio should be bound by the same practice.

These are all possibilities.

For those whose loans require their consent to share data - that consent is not given in the signing of the 'borrower's warranty' (unless they have different paperwork to me) - the borrower's warranty is the same as that used by SLC.

The consent to share data was - (I'm led to understand from other posters on this thread) - requested from those borrowers when they were asked to sign or register an objection on another form (loan assignation form perhaps?)

Either way, my assertion in writing on the form that my signature does not give consent to changes carries equal weight to any assertion to the contrary that Erudio might make - (and that applies to all of us) - until the matter is tested in court (if ever).

As I said before - none of this is law - none of this creates/forms law or any kind of legally binding precedent.

At present, this is just us and them, testing the boundaries and seeing who will give way on what.

I had another confusing letter today. I've got my deferrment, but if I cancel my direct debit I will be in violation of my agreement and liable to pay the lot and no longer allowed to defer. On Wednesday I was informed by them to cancel it as they may take payment on my due date, and it wasn't necessary.

I've left the direct debit cancelled. They were contacted again, not by me, and said that the only way they find out it's been cancelled is trying to take money, but then said that I may be contacted to find out why it is cancelled, note they can only confirm that by taking money! Also he let slip they work on commission only. They also said they have the right to keep my proof and evidence, even after I explained my situation, so much for my complaint.

I can't risk them having access to my account, my MP agreed and is contacting them today. I have handed the entire load of it to my MP to sort out. Hopefully as others have also contacted him he will actually sort something.

Yep, i concur with that, we are in the same boat.

I'm totally confused by Becca's post. That's a really odd thing to put on a deferment confirmation.

It might be that not having a DD set up could be in violation but to actually threaten a demand for full payment if not and future deferment not being possible is pretty shit.

Follow that with the "we work on commission" and it's starting to paint a pretty ugly picture.

Apologies if this is a daft question (and double apologies if you've already answered it!) @emptycoffers .. but

"my signing anything didn't give Erudio permission to do anything they weren't already claiming they had the right to do"

.. if that's so, why do you think are they so insistent that we sign the form? The borrowers warranty is the same, granted, but the lengthy blurb on the back of the page Erudio want me to sign wasn't part of my previous deferment application with the SLC.
It's got spelling mistakes in it n'all.
Maybe I can refuse to sign it on grammatical moral grounds.
OK I'm being flippant now. (Tumbleweed)

@halforicedebt

Becca is confused as well! It's a really weird letter. That's why in the end I decided the only sensible thing to do was to give copies to the MP office and get them to look into it for me. They agreed when put together with other letters and documents and information given about Eurido it is very dodgy.

So good luck to him.

I posted in case anyone else gets the same strange letter I did, especially as erudio are claiming you do not need a direct debit to defer and are then making threats if you don't keep it in place.

@becca. You said: I've left the direct debit cancelled. They were contacted again, not by me, and said that the only way they find out it's been cancelled is trying to take money, but then said that I may be contacted to find out why it is cancelled, note they can only confirm that by taking money! Also he let slip they work on commission only. They also said they have the right to keep my proof and evidence, even after I explained my situation, so much for my complaint.

I dont understand any of this, who is 'they'? Is it referring to more than one entity? And who said they get paid by commission? And when you say 'Becca' is confused as well, are you posting to help this person, or do you mean you. Clarification would be great, cause you make some claims that need to be a little clear, well to me anyway, so i understand better.

I think Becca has had help contacting erudio because I think she's needed support. I've got that right Becca?

@ Maccygee

Why do I think they're insisting people sign the Borrower's Warranty?

I suspect it's mainly administrative and applies equally to SLC or Erudio.

The warrant could be said to have the power of a legal statement/contract or undertaking - You, the borrower, are certifying, you are giving your word, that your income is/will be £XXX for this period.
You certify that you have told the truth.

If your statement is found to be false - you can't plead 'simple mistake guvnor' - you've signed the warrant.

They want everyone to sign the same form because if everyone makes up their own 'special' warrant - then they would have to employ legal staff to check the meaning of each warrant.

It's for the same reason all HSBC/Barclays/RBS credit agreements take essentially the same form - they can be certain (without checking) that you're agreeing to what they want you to agree to.

If you won't sign the warrant - there's good reason to suspect you'll be just as unlikely to feel any obligation to repay the loan.

When I worked in a processing centre, it helped us drones to have a uniform format of scanned documents - at least on the front page of a customer file.
Machines could search for and read an account number in a specific location on a document

On the Erudio form, bizarrely, the only place they pre-printed the customer number was page 1 of the form - I think top right of the page.

Their IT/processing folks must have figured that out for some reason - don't know why -

So, for all the people who chose not to return the form - there is no page where the customer account number is guaranteed to appear.

The Signature page has a summary of income and a signature and date - probably all the key elements a customer service person needs to see as soon as they enter the account and basic essential of account managemnt for any finance/credit/debt company.

You can sign the Warrant and state that the signature relates only to that statement Not to the FPN.

If you cross out the bottom and other side of the page, and write that you have done that under your signature, I personally, don't see that we have anything to be unduly wary of - in then signing the warranty.

Besides, unless you're one of the later borrowers, they claim they already have permission to do what it says in the FPN - however, that has yet to be tested.

But, not signing, won't stop them reporting your debt to a CRA - in fact - it gives them a very strong reason to report your debt (in their eyes).

Not signing the warrant doesn't remove any power from Erudio.

A lot of this stuff is just processes people will never have even given a second thought to - but now they are.

It's a matter of sorting the intentionally tricksy stuff from the run of the mill crap admin habits.

Thanks @emptycoffers :)

I didn't have an issue with the warrant, it was the same as the SLC and what you say makes perfect sense. I hope you're right.

@ Maccygee

I hope so too

I signed it - and I laboured a lot over the whole thing before doing that.

I've got about 3 years before they have to write me off so I don't want to get caught out - from any angle.

I think the publicity storm is something they won't have anticipated but they will come back from it.

There is also a fair argument to be made that they knew there was no mileage in the long-term deferrers hence they didn't exactly hire a big team to deal with us. Realistically, Erudio may have just expected it to go off in a fairly mundane process - deferring most people again and striking lucky with the odd person who repays even when they don't have to and also sifting out a few who shouldn't have been deferred but LC hadn't bothered with - but I don't think there'll be too many of those.

If there's any money to be made it'll be in tracking down the dodgers who are actually earning above the threshold (because you don't need to dodge if you're earning below the threshold).

It's not the sort of thing that would make you feel good about going to work but there we are - principles cost money and all that stuff.

SLC - I meant

Just in case anyone misreads that - I'm not saying I work for Erudio - I don't

of all people, i think you're one of the last on that list! i kind of suspect mandakl, but as a member of staff with a grudge, like Edward Snowden.

Well I got a response super quick from them - within a week! I had sent a modified version of the template letter, and very soon got a reply back saying that I have not signed and dated the form, and that my deferment won't be processed until I do. They also sent me another copy of the deferment form.

Is this time for an official complaint, or is there another route? Sounds like many of us are in this position now.

@ emptycoffers They've probably left the customer reference off the rest of the form so they can say oops the rest has gone amiss, unless they really are that incompetent, but I think it's deliberate? My application's finally ready to go and I've added their customer ref to every page and also killed a tree with the number of appendices for the supporting stuff.

Wanted to ask if others put anything at 8c of the deferment form about credit cards? The guidance said something about if you used CC's as a means of support, what that has to do with income I don't know, expenditure must = income when Erudio are doing the sums! I said in covering letter I'd paid off more on my CC than I'd spent (unusual for me ) so negative effect on gross income. But set alarm bells off, they might be trying to catch people out by saying you've omitted info?

Sorry for confusion. Yes I need help using phones and making calls.

They said referred to erudio in my post.

Sorry for not being clearer.

@ Becca FWIW, I call Erudio a lot worse than "they" when I talk about them!

thanks for the clarification becca, i was thinking it was bank you were referring to. You should have used the C word then i would have understood...Capita!