Erudio Student Loans Continued part 3

[erudioed]

I dont know if this is the right way to do it and i apologise if it isn't but this is the continuation of www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_money_matters/a2057131-Erudio-Student-Loans-Continued

@HowamIgoingtocope

Right, so you were rejected. For what reason?

-Call them and ask them why they deleted your details.
-When did you set up the direct debit?
-If there were previous months arrears, then a failure to send out a letter for those previous months.

It sounds similar to my case in which they are claiming to have deleted the DD in June, that I have three months worth of arrears despite telling me in April I was temporarily deferred for three months, and that many people had their DD erased in order to stop erroneous payments been taken from people's accounts.

In other words, their DD fuckup which was publicised by Martin Lewis and others wasn't properly sorted. Instead, they simply deleted a fuckload of direct debit details and decided to tell nobody about it, thus causing more hassle for people later.

@Ibreakwindinerudiosdirection
I suspect the rationale for choosing the Arrow consortium and all things around it will be in a due diligence report. As the same bunch (the wilmington trust) responsible for organising/operating erudio and previously Honours Student Loans, i am curious to know how that group with such a bad reputation for pestering people (Honours) were assessed for this deal. With things that have transpired since the sale, it is very important to understand what was considered when selling to these bunch of unprepared muppets. Until we know what BIS assessed we dont have much other than speculation. It is also something BIS will have that is tangible and ripe for a freedom of information request. As we know, before the sale, David Cameron announced his war on shell companies, so with the Due Dil report we can see why they chose this one.
Between you and I, we found so much info about what is going on, the shell company, the subcontracting etc, which BIS never revealed in any communications. I am sure such info would have to be in this due diligence report. With all that has happened, we would be able to compare BISs rationale with what has actually happened. That would be more meat to get stuck into so to speak, and would provide more information from an official source that we currently have from any other source. I am sure it must also contain info about the consortium bid which would also be of interest. The government website said they would release it at some point...but are yet to do so. Does it contain something embarrassing, would it offer journalists something tangible to get their teeth stuck into, i dont know. But can you think of any other document (which does definitely exist) that would contain such information. With the clear embarrassment and firefighting that has occurred thus far by BIS, i feel it paramount to have this info whilst the fires are still being stoked by a number of concerned parties, i.e us.
It would be better to have it than not dont you think? It is basically the report that gave the deal the go ahead, and with what we know know about the actual reality, would only provide us with more info that we currently have.

@erudioed

"I am sure it must also contain info about the consortium bid which would also be of interest. The government website said they would release it at some point...but are yet to do so. Does it contain something embarrassing, would it offer journalists something tangible to get their teeth stuck into, i dont know. But can you think of any other document (which does definitely exist) that would contain such information."

Yes I can think of several documents that would contain such information, and the only way you would get your hands on them is through the help of a whistleblower/insider. There won't be anything embarrassing in there at all. BIS wouldn't write a report that openly mocked itself and the report on the sale of the loans released to the public wouldn't be anything like as detailed as the report on the bidders that would have been circulated internally only.

Why am I so sure? Because I've worked in this sort of environment within the field of local government. Things like contracts, outsourcing, preferred bidders, tenders etc. I've had to field FOI requests from members of the public, sat there for hours on end whilst people go through the Register of Interests for elected members, collated all the questions sent in by members of the local electorate in readiness for answering at council sessions etc. The general public really doesn't have a huge amount of power when it comes to FOI requests because there are so many ways to wriggle out of it.

Why does outsourcing affect FOI more? Try this for an example:

Erudioshire County Council operates its own waste disposal service. As it is a public sector operation, it's relatively easy to gain information on budget and expenditure through FOI requests.

Erudioshire County Council then decides to outsource. It asks for bids to run the service. Three companies (A, B, and C) put in their bid and application. Details of the bids are not made public because this information could prejudice any future bids or applications to run services. Company A will not want its details poured out into the public domain and, as a privately run company, has that right to a certain degree of privacy. Company C doesn't want its two rivals to learn about its bid. That information ends up being redacted in any public reports released and the general public don't get to know about it.

Now in the case of BIS and Erudio, it is quite clear that the current Government wish to sell off loans in the future. Because there is that chance/certainty, then under the FOI regulations BIS could argue that any release of sensitive commercial material relating to the winning bidder and other bidders could prejudice future sales of loans. At times it is tenuous to claim so but they have that right in law and they will use it until they are challenged in the courts. Is anyone going to challenge BIS with a move to the courts? Unlikely.

The reality of the situation is that BIS sold the loans off to this consortium, with the end result being that us ex-students who earn sod all have to deal with a faceless company called Erudio whose administrative capacity is in the hands of Capita, a company whose soubriquet Crapita has been well earned. It is those companies we should focus on, their admin procedures, their mistakes. It's really been too early for the FOS to get involved on a huge level. It may well take a lot of complaining by us to the FOS for things to really get out there and come to the open. As we are seeing though both with Wonga and the frankly horrific Home Office dossier scandal, these things can't stay hidden forever.

What could we focus on? Really it's the way our individual accounts have been handled. With enough complaints to the FOS and the FSA, perhaps we can get some kind of fine applied to Erudio in the future. Ultimately I see the campaign now as trying to make things better for those ex-students who have their loans sold off in the future so they don't have to deal with this pisspoor level of service.

And really you'd think the next three months are the key ones as I'd imagine the bulk of loan deferments would be in the September to October time. Now we'll see how well Erudio have sorted out their systems.

@Ibreakwindinerudiosdirection
Point taken, what has been done has been done so lets focus on making all legitimate for future years from these clowns. I dont share your sense of pointlessness though in regards to asking for such documents. What are the other ones you mention that you can think of...maybe you should tell us so we could file a FOI request if it may shed light on many of the minor details we are making assumptions about. Wars are fought on many fronts, with battles taking place across many different fields at the same time sometimes. Requesting the info would only provide a more rounded picture of what has transpired behind close doors, and at worst the reply would come back, we cant release that information because...
I cant see the harm in trying myself (if you didnt have to put your real name on the FOI form i would do it myself but i am not sure it is best for me to do so right now) and i really dont fully understand your attitude towards the pointlessness of requesting the due diligence report. You may indeed be right on most of your points, how can i doubt it knowing your key findings and fantastic input helping me understand what happened and who we are actually dealing with, but much of it is assumption about why they wouldnt release this doc. Is trying such a waste of time.
Concerning your point about embarrassing info...at the time it may not have been anything to be embarrassed about but in hindsight of how Erudio has been handled, their could be many embarrassing assumptions or a clear lack of diligence having been performed. Isnt that logical about why it could be important to see this report on some levels? I will stop hammering on about this due diligence report anyway, everytime i mention it i hit a wall commentwise (the same as when i mentioned the Experian Collections Network set up by Arrow a few times last month), so maybe you are right and it is pointless. It is definitely best to fight on many fronts through at the same time because every piece of officially released information is something that could have an effect because it illuminates the issue by providing more details to refer to, thus giving us a more nuanced picture!

@erudioed.

There are some documents you as a member of the public won't get to see. If you want to try something out for fun, send a FOI request to your local county council and ask them to get information from the pension funds committee (or equivalent) listing every single company that fund invested in during the 2013-14 tax year. Some might give out the info, others will not.

I think the Wonga and SLC scenarios with the false companies issuing out threat letters is one we should all keep an eye on. Those tactics are outrageous and it beggars belief that Wonga have gotten off thus far with a paltry fine. Helps when you have a major Tory donor as one of your financial backers... but that precedent has been set for underhand tactics. I anticipate that Mumsnet threads on Erudio will be going on for some time, years not months, and perhaps something written now will help others in the future.

As it is, really I think we're kind of stuck until the FOS really get deluged with complaints. We as individuals should keep records of all our dealings with Erudio. I've got a permanent Word document going on with everything listed for my situation.

Due diligence isn't going to be the 'smoking gun'. The consortium had cash behind it, a track record of managing student loans through Honours, and I suspect Honours managed to bring in more repayments than the SLC did. Any investigation into the consortium would show them to be a fairly reputable organisation to take over. Erudio's failures can easily be passed off by the consortium as being Capita's fault. That's why you outsource. Any due diligence done at the time of sale can't consider any potential admin screwups done after the sale date when Erudio started handling loans.

What I would be interested in is this (apologies, this is going to be long):

www.arrowglobal.net/aboutus/howwework.aspx

===================================================
"We have developed a customised supplier management framework to manage performance, compliance and interaction with third parties, focusing on the following key elements:

Due diligence: All new organisations are required to complete a structured due diligence process prior to their inclusion on our panel, which includes completion of a comprehensive questionnaire covering operations, financial profile, regulation and compliance.

On boarding: Following due diligence, third parties formally enter our panel via an established sequence of events, including a master services agreement and full sign off by us.

Placement: Accounts placed with third parties are accompanied by detailed briefings outlining our operational requirements.

Performance management: Each third party is closely managed, and is accountable to weekly analysis and monthly on site visits to review critical areas such as compliance, customer interactions, operations and performance.

Audit: Each agency must complete an in-depth annual audit which covers 11 key areas, including how customers are contacted, support strategies for people who are vulnerable or in financial difficulty, and data protection measures. This provides a detailed report outlining the audit score, findings, impacts and any recommended next steps/actions."

From what I'm reading of that, Arrow themselves conduct due diligence processes with third parties who are vying to manage specific accounts. In our case, Capita should have gone through a due diligence process when being selected as Erudio's outsourcing partner.

When Capita came on board with Erudio, you then have the placement. The performance management aspect and the audit aspect are what interest me. DO we as customers of Erudio have the right to see reports on Capita's performance management at the minute? Will we have the right to see a report of the annual audit when it occurs?

Those performance indicators would be very very interesting to read.

Now I apologise in advance for banging on about FOI requests but this link examples it brilliantly. Barnet council outsourced some stuff to Capita. A chap made an FOI request and some of the response given by the council points out perfectly why any FOI request to BIS about the sale of the loans is likely to dredge up very little new info.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/council_foi_duties_in_capita_con

From the "Response all information to be supplied.rtf" text file:

"The council as a public authority is covered by and has an obligation under the FOI Act. Capita is a private company and has no obligations under FOI. The council takes its obligations under FOIA very seriously and this has been addressed in the contract. Capita is by contract required to assist the council in meeting its FOI obligations by providing information it holds on the council’s behalf in a timely manner."

So if an FOI request to a council about a private company to whom services has been outsourced to doesn't throw up much, then the total sale of a public asset (ie.the loans) to a private consortium is not going to throw up much extra at all.

Erudioed, I am not trying to dampen your desire for the truth, far from it. I think it's just the case that we are stuck with Erudio/Arrow/Capita. Nothing is going to change that. All we can do now is to make sure they look after the accounts fairly, that people are not harassed and hassled, and that any shitty administration/bad management/plain old dirty tricks are reported and the right people are notified, be it the FOS or Martin Lewis (well let's do both for good measure).

Like I said earlier, the Wonga and SLC false companies scandal shows the sort of things we should be wary of in the future.

I agree with most of the things you say, and your assumptions, backed by instances make sense, but again i think you are fundamentally missing the point of why i think it is important. I dont know how better to explain it than i already have about 6 times. You want to focus on controlling the beast, as i have been doing as well, but now i want to see how the beast got to be in control, with that report being the reasoning why. It may not be the smoking gun, i'm not even thinking in that way to be honest, but it is something concrete that exists...other than mere speculation and assumption.

@ErudioED

The vast bulk of deferments are around April to May, as the original loan terms were that you started paying them back from the April after you finished your course.

It was moronic of the government to sell these off just before everyone was due to defer. It was bound to be a complete disaster.

@ erudiod

Because according to them my gross earnings came to more than the Threshold. I aid to them that's funny my P60 states 17k. she stated to me they had also taken ctc and wtc into account. I went on to say but that wasn't a taxed income therefore can not be used in the gross calculation. Plus I was awared this "means tested" benefit so I can work and pay my childcare NOT them. I was also told my child maintainance was a taxable income, which I informed her it wasn't , plus it was exactly what it said on the tin , for my children.

Yes they informed me my DD was deleted in April then in June send me an arrears letter for two months.

I got two DD mandate letters stating 0 and my payment amount on the same day.

I informed her I had given them my details therefore abided my my side of the terms and conditions.

All she kept saying was sorry.

I got o fed up , she has sent me out a statement of earnings form and it states I still need to continuepaying the payments, meaning I am now stressed as the payment date is tomorrow and I have my childcare to pay first and foremost . Ive done my sums and I cant afford their payments with all my outgoings.

im xhausted and fuming

K

@HowamIgoingtocope
Firstly, you are not alone, as you can tell from the above. This bunch of vultures will do anything to try and turn people into payers. I have to admit not being that familiar with your specific problems in this instance but i am sure others who i know have encountered similar problems will have better advice. All i can think of is to make a formal complaint to Capita (Erudio) about the criteria they are using, which will give you upto 8 weeks when you wouldnt have to pay whilst they assess your complaint...i would do this through the ombudsman. If Capita are overstepping the mark, the ombudsman should be able to give them the jolt they need to sort your situation out according to the vague guidelines these clowns are operating under. Then contact Simon Read at the independent, Paul Lewis at the BBC, your MP if possible and anyone else you can think of. A key problem that has arisen in this loan sale is that they have forced many of us to spend time we would sooner spend on life trying to sort their bullshit operation out so that they treat us "fairly", as their literature states. Please dont invest too much stress into this though, which although is easier said than done, is appropriate when dealing with these vultures, as they are just another faceless bunch of chancers given what they see as carte-blanche to invade and control our financial existence. The only way we can stop this from happening year on year is to keep up with our megaphone activities and spread this issue as wide as we can. I dont know what to suggest about the DD due today though, maybe someone with a similar case can give you more concrete advice within the confines of what they have discovered are your rights in this circumstance.

@mandakl
Couldnt agree more. They should have had their operation vetted, practiced beforehand and assessed by SLC to make sure basic problems didnt occur before it was rolled out to the hundreds of thousands of us poor barstewards who's lives have been invaded by a faceless company, empowered by our very own government! Isnt privatisation and this endless drive towards soft fascism a real boon!

@erudioed.

I'd like to control the beast and give it a good kicking too when it makes mistakes as it has done. The beast got it because it provided an offer BIS liked the most. The consortium had money, good backing, history in the field, Arrow Global is a rapidly expanding company... from the perspective of BIS, it's not hard to see why they made the deal.

@HowamIgoingtocope

Right, so you have the basic information. Issue them a complaint letter stating all of your grievances.

I have decided to fill in the form erudio have sent me.

Can anybody advise me whether i should fill in my earnings from march (when i sent the original letter and proof of earnings, so i can just send a photocopy of what i sent before), or do i need to send them the last three payslips i now have eg April, may and June?

@MSBug. Did you get a letter back as for more supporting evidence? To my mind that means asking for more supporting evidence to back your application at the time so I would go for earnings from March. Knowing Erudio though, I would also include a separate letter detailing your earnings for April, May, and June.

The letter just said 'please find attached another deferment form, as requested '. Except I didn't request one, i had sent a deferment request with a covering letter back in march, then when i didn't hear back sent a complaint to them and the fos. This is apparently their response.

i know i could query it but have resigned myself to just filling it in (albeit with the dodgy bits crossed out, and only giving them the info that is needed so ignoring boxes about being a homeowner etc). I just want to get deferred then pursue my complaint.

so i wondered which thy were more likely to accept, copies of the payslips i originally sent to them for january, february and march, or newer ones from April, may and June.

also have people been sending them p60s? I couldn't send mine with the original application as i hadn't received it yet, but i do have it now.

@msBug.

So you sent them a letter in March and it's taken this long for them to send something back? Abysmal performance on their side.

Send them everything. If you have a P60, send them that to. Give them as much as you want to give without the shitty bits they ask for. I can't see how they could reject payslips and a P60.

They had written back to me in between to address my formal complaint, saying they didn't uphold it. But their letter didn't mention whether I was deferred or not.

So you reckon send them all six payslips?

Resend the evidence and form.

Also take the complaint they refused to uphold to the FOS now.

If Erudio refuse or fail to uphold your complaints, then everyone needs to do step 2 and 3 here.

www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

People need to show Erudio that we won't be fobbed off.

Every complaint that goes to an adjudicator with the FOS, upheld in the end or not, hits Erudio where it hurts. ;)

Thanks mandakl I have sent a complaint to the fos already and today received acknowledgement from them. I have just decided to fill in Erudio's form under protest so I don't have to stress about it.

All I have filled is the information I have already supplied in my last letter.

I have ticked to confirm that my address is correct, filled in the direct debit form,filled in my gross income from employment, my employer's details (with their public,Googleable phone number), my income from state benefits (child benefit), my total monthly income, and ignored the rest. Does that sound OK?

I have crossed out the fair processing notice on the bottom of page 5 and written'I do not consent for my details to be passed on to any credit reference agencies'. Do I need to cross out the whole of the back page (where it says fair processing notice...continued') (not sure if my marker pen would last that long!).

Don't send P60s. They have acknowledged they have no right to see those.

Mandaki they rejected my complaint and completely misunderstood it. I will pursue it.

Msbug - Just wondering how long did it take for you to receive your FOS acknowledgement? Thanks :)

Done but through Erudio , I gave them 7 days to respond. then im taking everything I sent thm in april to FO.

The bloke on the phone said my account was on hold pending my complaint. I will check with the credit ref agencies this weekend.

The bloke kept telling me my benefits were two thirds of my wages , my comment of they were means tested and to pay my childcare NOT erudio so I could work and pay my taxes sort of stumped him.