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?

You make your complaint.

They then have 8 weeks to make a response.

That is all you have to do to be eligible.

BS from Erudio.

Complete BS from Erudio yet again!!

Not sure they have any other mode.

BS is all they are.

yes, making it up as they are going along. Lets hope someone decides to investigate the channel islands connections of The Wilmington Trust and Arrow Guernsey, shining some light on another of this consortium's slight of hand and dodgy set up. Just an assumption of course but would anyone else bet against any collected money just disappearing straight out of the country at very low levels of tax, if any. Lets hope they are as clear in their accounts as they are asking us to be with their pound of flesh approach and shaking the shit out of people.

i had made an official complaint about having to use their form in early april. i subsequently sent a cover letter with proof of income to them without using their form. however when it appeared that no one was going to get deferred without the form i submitted it via both email and recorded delivery around end of april.

then in early may i got a letter saying my account was on hold while they investigated my complaint. so far i haven't heard anything from them and they haven't taken any money.

however since i sent in their form signed and dated by me - they have twice sent me letters saying that i haven't signed their form etc and to send it in asap.

i've also noticed on my noddle account that erudio performed 2 searches on my address at end of april. not quite sure what to make of that.

i have no idea where i stand with them and am very loathe to ring them due to previous bad experiences of dealing with them over the phone.

the whole thing is an effing farce!!!

Talk to the FOS tomorrow and ask the to write to Erudio with a further formal complaint regards their recent mishandling of your deferment.

Erudio have taken £101 out of my account today via DD - they are stating they haven't received my deferment pack (I have sent them evidence that they received and signed for it on the 28th April!).

Despite them clearly having received it - I feel I am going to have to resubmit another form and all my evidence to defer.

Should I claim the money back via the DD guarantee in the meantime?

I don't see why they should have my money sat in their account whilst this is being resolved...

I have finally received my deferment letter, the process took two months!!

I wasn't aware of this until last night, and can't find any mention of it further back in the thread, but the Commons Select Committee for BIS have a current inquiry into student loans - it's looking at both the sell of the pre-98 loans and the proposed sale of newer loans. Details here:

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/inquiries/parliament-2010/student-loans/

The status of the inquiry is showing the evidence sessions are closed, and the report's in preparation, but it does say that you can contact the Committee Clerk once the session's closed, his name's James Davies, the committee's email address is [email protected]

If everyone took 5 minutes to email the committee with your concerns/complaints about Erudio, there's a chance we can make the committee aware of the reality of student loans being sold to the private sector, and maybe even influence the committee's recommendations on the future sell offs. There's quite compelling evidence to the committee already that the business model for selling off the student loan book is unsustainable in the longer term, so this might just be our best chance to have a say and influence the decision makers... got to be worth a try!

The list of committee members is here, with individual contact details - might be an idea to bombard them via Twitter too?

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/membership/

Certainly would claim it back. It's their up

Heres a link to the video meeting for minimoosh's superb transcribed text of the student loan committees. The first 5 mins has David Willetts reasoning for why we were sold down the road.
According to Willetts, we contribute to society in this by assisting in being "a reduction in public sector net debt". I bet you never thought you would come down to that when signing for your student loan.
Anyway, that is just one of quite a few issues those links open up and illuminate on, and i would strongly recommend having a look.

Where's a link?

Link here:
www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14616

If the link doesn't work, it's at the top of the oral evidence document dated 14 Jan.

@ erudiod There are some real corkers in there, I particularly liked Mr Willetts' assurances on repayment of the debt (p. 5):

"It is very important that students going to university realise that this is not like credit card debt, which will hit them regardless of their circumstances. Now, under our new system, it is only if their income is over £21,000 that they will start to repay. You are absolutely right. I will always try to make a virtue of this and say to people at sixth-form college, or whatever, “Don’t worry. If for whatever reason your income is low, it is not like a mortgage or credit card; you will not have to repay.” That is a deliberate and progressive part of the system".

Lying weasel.

Hi all. Could do with a bit of moral support and advice at this point. Stuck to my guns and didn't return form, but submitted all the required info in a letter plus evidence, having been told by phone that they would accept my deferment in this format. Have now passed deferment date. They now say they won't process my deferment the form.

Erudio don't have my bank details as I've changed banks over the years since I took loans out and never updated this info. The person I spoke to at Erudio today noted they don't have my bank details but said this "didn't matter", they wouldn't be chasing me up for them at this point since "it's embarrassing for everyone" (?) if they take money out when they shouldn't. But then, as others have experienced, each time I speak to them I get totally conflicting advice, saying variously that there's no need to return form, then that they will not accept deferment without it, then that its ok to only complete bits of form (doesn't the form ask you to sign to say no omissions??)... I was told, last week, that my evidence (letter from DH, I'm currently SAHM) is fine and if I just sign and return form it will all go smoothly, now today when I called to chase up response to last week's complaint the person I spoke to suggested the evidence "might not" be enough as it doesn't "quantify amounts" ?? All seems to be rather arbitrary.

To sum up, I have provided them with all the information and evidence they need to process and approve my deferment, as per SLC in previous years, and yet they refuse to do so because I haven't used their form. I can only think this is nonsense, especially since they themselves told me the form is under review and will soon be reissued with some questions removed.

My question is, can I now complain to FOS or do I have to give Erudio 8 weeks to respond to my complaint first? So my complaint is 'eligible'?

And, has anyone managed to defer without using the sodding form? I thought I read here someone had, which gave me a real boost, but can't see it now.

sorry, end of first para should read "They now say they won't process my deferment without the form."

i must admit, i did use the form. Even though they have admitted the forms are inaccurate/misleading and that we will be in on the process of helping them get the form better (yeah, right), i couldnt see another way of doing it and getting deferred in time. I know others say different, and it may not be law, but my fights were elsewhere. Maybe it will come back and bite me on the bajoingers but they seem pretty definitive on filling out the forms.

mandakl...oops, just seen i forgot to put the link.
minimoosh...indeed, there are many rather worrying elements to the whole thing, especially the implicit acceptance of debt collectors. Interestingly, in the other text, the person from the NUS hit the nail on the head by discussing who the ex-student will be dealing with after the debt is sold, highlighting the ideological difference. Yes, the ideological difference...remember when that word didnt mean you were tantamount to be what they slowly established as the basis for their version of communist or some other negative meaning. But these lot certainly are very ideological, fitting nicely into the neo-liberal tendrils.

They insist on the forms because if they admitted the truth that it wasn't needed, it would be the final straw to collapse their cluster fluck of a deferment process.

From speaking to people I now know that SLC would defer without the form if pushed.

That Erudio will not is them being too pig headed or too much cowards or too stupid to adjust their procedures.

Saying all that, you need to pick your fight.

What reasons do you have for not using the form, given that now they don't seem to insist on the information they were never entitled to in the first place?

People originally did not want to use the form as it asked for information they were not entitled to, and asked you to agree to things you did not need to agree to. Above and beyond what SLC ever required. Above and beyond what you legally had to give.

Erudio have been forced to back down on 90% of those now.

But if you have good reasons then hold your corner.

If you are just doing it on principle without any more to it than that, then maybe it isn't worth the hassle?

@ifandwhen

Same exact boat I was in... and there is no way out that I could see unfortunately.

I made an official complaint via telephone a couple of weeks back and was told that the complaints department would get back to me by the end of the day and would also confirm my complaint in writing. Needless to say they did neither and I found out last week that my complaint had been dismissed without them bothering to investigate or contact me. I made another complaint and this time received the standard letter informing me that Erudio will look into it and blah blah blah.

Mean while I went ahead and contacted the FOS anyway and got an email from them this morning saying they would look into it and get back to me... I think because my complaint was dismissed they are maybe being a bit flexible with me.

Also I got my letter confirming deferment yesterday.

Interestingly it contains a section about Direct Debits stating the following...

"Please be aware that any Direct Debits you have in place will not be collected during this deferment period. However you should note that you are still required to keep any Direct Debits in place while there is a balance owing on your account. Failure to do so will constitute a breach of your agreement."

So to recap for those keeping score: Erudio swore blind that our information would not be shared with CRAs and that I could have that in writing... and then once the forms were signed I received the exact opposite in writing and had it confirmed on the phone that my information WOULD be shared with CRAs and there was nothing I could do about it now.

Erudio also swore blind that we didn't need to give them Direct Debit details any more as they had changed this policy and I could have that in writing... and then once the forms were signed I received the exact opposite in writing.

So far Erudio have either gone back on every supposed revision/concession they have made or lied to our faces and had no intention of swaying from their original intentions in the first place.

What they put in a standard letter and what they actually do have proved to be 2 different things. They obviously have a load of old templates that they whack out without reading them properly, or even adding bits that contradict each other.

Proof of pudding is in the eating as they say. Not what the twonks write.

Right... but I have also had it confirmed on the phone... so it's not just some outdated paperwork telling me these things.

I think we can all agree that this company is at best a total shambles and unfit for purpose and at worst a bunch of liars and bullies with a flagrant disregard for the law.

Yes, but you know they have permission to share the pre 98 ones. In letter or on the phone they clearly don't comprehend the difference, or get told a new load of bollux to repeat several times a week.

In the end no matter what they write, and no matter what they say, they do not have consent to share your 98 onwards loans.

If they do, you take them to the Information Commissioner for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, and to the FOS.

In other words don't panic too much on what they say on the phone or write. It's actions that are important.

If they break the law, 'have em' as the phrase goes.

It's hard not to stress dealing with these incompetent and lying idiots, but they will get theirs....

Just a suggestion. Maybe those with twitter accounts can raise issues with the FOS through that. Its a very public and perhaps they are more likely to do something. I dont know. Just a thought. It cant do any harm.

I think this is their twatter handle:
@financialombuds

Re passing our info to CRA's - the loan agreement clearly states that any disclosure of information is subject to the provisions of the DPA, which means Erudio needs our explicit consent. Unless Erudio can show that they're exempt from the DPA provisions, we have to challenge their assumption that they can pass on our details without consent.

Just because the SLC decided to start reporting defaulted loans to CRA's in 2009 (which probably still fell foul of the DPA requirements) does not mean Erudio has the right to report deferred loans. On Erudio's website, they are very careful in their wording on this, it doesn't actually say that they're entitled to report loans in deferment:

"Is this a change in my agreement, I didn’t think the Student Loans Company did this previously?

No, your agreement is not changing. The owner of the loans has always been permitted to use credit reference agencies (CRAs) for the purposes of data validation. The Student Loans Company has registered defaults with CRAs and the terms and conditions have always permitted the Student Loans Company to share data in the way detailed above. Erudio Student Loans will be processing and managing student loans on a system which will use and register the data in a manner which facilitates data validation and supports responsible lending and borrowing".

The only justification given here for reporting the loans (rather than doing a search on a credit file for the purposes of data validation) is because Erudio is such an ethical business, they want to promote responsible lending and borrowing. Nothing to do with trashing your credit file when they insist repayments are due on the loans (even though they're not).

Erudio has only bought the old mortgage style loans, so why bother trying to sneak DPA consent into the application form if they're entitled to report deferred loans anyway?

I don't believe Erudio is allowed to disclose my data without my say so, but it's not for me or Erudio to decide who's right and who's wrong, that's one for the FOS or ICO - so please don't just accept it, challenge Erudio in your formal complaint, then take it to the FOS and/or the ICO for an independent ruling.