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

Sarebear I think it's been about three weeks?

Thanks msbug - will await mine shortly then :)

Apologies for copying this over from MSE An update on my complaint, might help those with payments being taken under the DD, received Erudio's response to my complaint this morning:

"Please accept our apologies for the correspondence from Erudio which stated you would be in breach of your agreement if you did not have a direct debit set up on your account. We have reviewed our policies and we can confirm we no longer require a direct debit to be set up on an account when it is deferred. We can confirm we hold your direct debit details in our records; however we will not take any payments while your loan account is deferred".

Have since cancelled the DD with my bank :)

Probably a good idea for anyone who wants to cancel the DD in light of what they've told me, to email and get it confirmed in writing first, we know how they work, if you don't have it in black and white they'll surely twist it to their own advantage.

Re reporting to CRA's - it's been mentioned that Erudio is unlikely to do this unless 100% sure they're entitled to - I think that's spot on, it's far too risky for them. In my complaint, I asked them to give details of the specific exemption(s) which allowed them to report deferred loans without being subject to the DPA provisions (required by the loan agreement) - they haven't given me anything, only said that section 16 allows them to do it (which I'm adamant it doesn't).

In their response to my complaint that incorporating the consent to the FPN with the warranty/certification signature on the deferment form means we have no choice (which is a breach of the DPA), they said that because my loans were pre-98, I didn't have to agree to the FPN, it only applies to the later loans. Complete !!!!!!!! - never mind the fact that they're still forcing post-98 borrowers to consent to the FPN in order to get deferment - I'm convinced they still need pre-98 consent to throw our data about, which is why they've tried to get consent from all borrowers, not just the minority who fell into the changed agreement post-98.

They also mentioned that any disclosure will be classed as a 'payment holiday', it's been mentioned on the forums recently this is inaccurate and I completely agree - the fact that these loans are different in that they were issued by the Government, we're legally entitled to defer due to income level - that's completely different from a 'payment holiday' where you might be struggling to meet the loan obligations. This is another thing to hammer Erudio on - they're struggling to even come up with an appropriate classification for a student loan on the CRA system - please don't let them- complain and follow it through with the FOS - please do that, because if you don't, Erudio will keep going with their underhand tactics, not just with us oldies, but with the loans your children will probably have to take out in years to come. Arghh!!!, this !!!! is depressing!

This 'payment holiday' thing really stinks. The Money Advice Service (set up by government) advise that if a loan is listed as being on a temporary 'payment holiday,' then it WILL negatively affect your credit rating. After all, a 'payment holiday' is something an individual would request if struggling to make ends meet. IT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO DEFERRED STUDENT LOANS!

Absolutely nowhere on any of my paperwork regarding my student loans is there any reference to 'payment holidays.' I am wanting to apply for deferment as I earn less than the threshold required to make payments. Therefore, if Erudio insist on recording anything on my Credit File, it should clearly state 'DEFERRED STUDENT LOAN.' Anything else would be wholly inaccurate. However, as student loans were never meant to be referred to CRAs, there is no functionality to list them. So Erudio feel they can use any option with little care or regard for the damage this will do. I doubt people would be even able to get a mobile phone contract once Erudio have finished their wicked mission to destroy all deferrers credit ratings. So much for treating borrowers fairly.

Back when this how fiasco began, The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said that the sale should not affect borrowers in any way as the terms and conditions of the loans remain the same. Now we clealy see this was a bright, shining lie. Everyone who has had their loans sold to the chancers that are Erudio risk having their credit records seriously blighted with false and innacurate information. THIS IS NOT ON! This is not what we signed up for. Maybe we have ALL been mis sold these loans as these new conditions were never even partially explained by the University (and it was the university - not the SLC) when I was activly encouraged to take out these special government education loans.

What maddens me most is BIS are allowing Erudio to force people who wish to protect their credit records into payers UNDER DURESS. There can be no excuse for this. I am being told if I defer then Erudio have the right to record false 'payment holiday' information about me on my credit file. However, if I pay my monthly instalments and I am even less creditworthy, then they will not record anything about my loans with CRAs. THIS IS DURESS. IT IS PROBABLY EXTORTION! We have to fight this.

Ii is time BIS come clean and stop hiding in their plush offices at 1 Victoria Street. I have had enough and I am going in there tomorrow to get answers. Yes, BIS, I am coming to get you! This whole thing has been badly managed and completely lacking in transparency. We are being drip fed info and it has taken months to discover that Erudio want to record deferred student loans as payment holidays. The so called transparent civil servants know they have made a mess, and they are hiding info about seriously flawed tender processs. Not what we deserve!

So tomorrow I am going into BIS. If they mess me around, then I am giving them 2 weeks before I go for a judicial review. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!!!!!

Sorry for the rant, but really. ARE WE BEING TREATED FAIR?

Great Luckyeskimo, good luck. If you tell them exactly what you state above, it will be interesting to here the answer. Go to the student section because they are the ones communicating with Zach Lewy directly. Lewy also initially lied about the 500 DDs taken before to BIS and it was only BIS's willing that made them admit Capita's error. Be aware of how closely both BIS and Arrow are in managing this situation, so stick to your guns when BIS hit you with the kind of standard answers that are non-answers like T&Cs havent changed etc and that is the way Arrow are interpreting things.
We certainly arent being treated fairly, as many can testify! The reality of dealing with these clowns is something BIS need to clearly understand! Good luck anyway and let us know how it goes.

Yes good luck Eskimo!

Hi does anyone know what the cut off is for a deferment for a pre 1998 loan this year?

Cut off in terms of what? Date? Income?

David Willetts has gone in the cabinet reshuffle.

Na na na na... Na na na na... Hey hey... Goodbye!

dont worry, there are 100 virtually identical clones ready to take his place...

I despair

Background - post 98 loans. eligible to defer as acknowledged by Erudio but did not sign DAF (deferment application form). Account placed in arrears. No DD in place. Complained to Erudio, FOS and MP.

I've finally received replies from my MP, FOS and Erudio and am still no further along.

MP wrote to David Willets MP (bye bye) who replied with a cut and paste letter with same old same old. Only bit of interest is that Erudio are supposed to be working on a new form.

FOS just informed me they had forwarded my complaint to Erudio and to contact them again if still unhappy.

Erudio letter received today. Basically they refuse to process application without a signed DAF to confirm the information I have provided is correct. They believe this is "a reasonable request to ensure all customers are treated fairly by applying a consistent approach to our underwriting procedure"

Also, a slightly threatening section mentions that my account is now in arrears for 2 months and they are only able to remove up to a maximum of 3 months arrears.

Balls. I feel completely over a barrel now. Can't afford to let this affect my credit rating, and don't want to give them an excuse to say I breached T & Cs when it comes to being written off.

No idea what to do next! Anyone in same position?

Interesting that those of you who didn't supply direct debit details are being told you are in arrears. I did the exact same thing and sent a letter with proof of income instead of a form, but i did send them the direct debit form. However they haven't tried to take any money from my account, perhaps because they've realised they are in the wrong about this?

Yes I think they've backed down on insisting that the DD be in place for deferred loans. It's just the forms they are digging their heels in about :-/

Flossychops - now you have your reply from Erudio and are still not satisfied, you can again complain to the FOS.

I filled in the form in the end but crossed out the last bit and wrote 'I do not consent in changes to the original t & cs etc....'. I did this so I could get through deferral but I am still complaining and I got no reply from Erudio after 8 weeks. I have now, therefore, complained to the FOS to get them to get Erudio to confirm that next year I don't have to use their form - quoting the original t & cs and the forcing us to sign to agree to something being the only way we got to defer. We'll see what they say.

Maybe get deferral but carry on with the fight.....?

@Sarebear78

Unfortunately I think I'll have to do that. I really didn't want to sign their form but this 3 month of arrears threat has me rattled. I simply can't afford to have it affect my credit rating. They obviously realise that many deferrers are in the same position and I completely feel bullied and blackmailed into signing something which might negatively affect me in the future. Grrrrr.

Thanks, will get back to FOS too. Please post when you have your response, will be interesting.

Not only that, from my understanding of things, if you go 3 months they can nullify the contract somehow and make you liable for the whole amount in 1 go...is that correct or am i hallucinating with an overload of Erudio bullsheet?

Same boat for me. Don't want to fill in form, but need to get deferment. I have had the same cut and paste letters, which are just not fair.

I was so upset I went into the BIS bunker yesterday. Very nice man on reception (not directly employed by BIS) tried to help, but noone from BIS would come out to the reception to speak with me. The complaints team also refused to come out to reception to collect my letter of complaint. The civil servants are happy to wreck our credit ratings through their poorly managed and mistake ridden tender process, but will hide away like total cowards when confronted over their failings. They have, however, my final letter of complaint before requesting a judicial review.

Whilst I was cooling my heels in reception, Vince Cable wandered past me on his way out of the BIS offices. I wanted to say something to him and confront him, but was too scared. I just glowered at the back stabbing git.

I do not want to sign Erudio's form. I would claim that as Erudio know their form is not a fair form (BIS have confirmed this) and because they have been saying they are working on a new fairer form for nearly 3 months now, then it is reasonable NOT to use the existing unfair form and submit an application for deferment by letter instead. Also, Erudio have advised that in signing the form we agree to them recording innacurate info about 'payment holidays' with CRAs. It is completely unreasonable for them to request that we sign this form when they have admitted that it is needed for them to attempt to record innacurate and detrimental info in this way.

There are unfair terms in their form. I think there is legislation which protects us on this matter. If they force us to sign these unfair terms, then I would suggest that the contract could - with a challenge - be declared void.

Also, I feel the loan was mis sold anyway as this controversial Section 16 which is now being used against us was never even partially explained or pointed out by the SLC or the university who were promoting the loans.

We absolutely have to keep on fighting. This is how we have been treated when Erudio have been under the media spotlight. Imagine what they will try next year, or the year after. FIGHT BIS, FIGHT SLC, FIGHT ERUDIO. Protest and survive :)

@LuckyEskimo4 Forgive me if you've already mentioned earlier in the thread but where is your application up to? Have you been placed in arrears too?

Poor form from BIS not coming out to meet you :-( But well done for having the guts to go there and face them in the first place!

So is your only next step a final complaint to BIS or Erudio? Any other avenues we can try?

I complained to Erudio the day I got the deferment pack back in March. They have had their chance, and failed to respond satisfactorily and within 8 weeks, so I escalated my complaint with them to FOS. This relates to DD payments being taken without permission, CRAs, poor conduct, etc. I am still not successfully defered as Erudio have refused to process my application for deferment by letter and I refuse to use their threatening and unfair form. STALEMATE :(

I also seperately complained to my MP as the sale and transfer of the loans placed me in a detrimental position. My MP passed my complaint to BIS, and a David Pettit fron that department came back to me with his standard 'cut and paste' generic statements. I have suffered considerably in this fiasco and now I am giving BIS one last chance to take responsibility or face a claim for judicial review.

I will take this to court and I will keep fighting as I know what SLC, Erudio and BIS are doing is wrong. Tell this tale to anyone and they agree. We took out a loan and things were not even partially explained, then 20 years later we are told our terms and conditions are changing and we will be adversely affected. IS THAT FAIR?

I am not a 'moaning Minnie' and have never complained about anything else in my life. I can't believe what has happened, and yesterday standing there in a government department with my heart in my mouth and sticking to my guns just feels crazy - BUT TRUE and RIGHT.

I do want to say if it had not been for Mumsnet and people on here (plus Simon Read - my new hero) I would not have had the confidence to stand up against them. I might need witness statements soon, so lets all keep posting.

Nos da :)
Lucky

I have just glanced at this thread and it is making me scared.

I'm on a pre 1998 loan and have never earned enough to pay it. I defer every year. DP writes a letter saying he is financially supporting me. That's it.

A few months ago I got a letter saying erudio have taken it over. I usually get my deferment renewal letter in August.

An I to understand from this thread that I should be dreading this?

Is the deferment go

Going to be difficult?

Weatherall maybe. But hopefully there will be people on this thread who have been successfully deferred who can tell you how they went about it.

Hey Weatherall. Don't be loosing sleep and worrying. The big issue with Erudio is over them trying to put borrowers wishing to defer under pressure to sign unfair terms agreeing to have inaccurate info listed with CRAs. Some people are very upset by this and fighting it through proper channels. Others might not be as fussed about it and just accept Erudio's new conditions (and they ARE new conditions). It all depends I suppose on your viewpoint on the CRA issue.

At the end of the day, there are laws to protect us as borrowers, so I am optimistic that with time we will get the fair treatment we deserve.

Off to bed. Nos da x

Fossychops - Highly important:

By passing anything about you to CRA's they will be in breach of contract.

Quote from 1990 Act (see the link)

"Restriction on disclosure of information

“4(1)No person or body having by virtue of paragraph 3 above the function of making and recovering loans shall provide or make available to anyone else (whether for consideration or not) any information held for the purpose of discharging those functions if the information is to be used for soliciting custom for goods or services.” 1

1 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/6/schedule/2/enacted

CRA’s sell information to banks, credit companies, and even back to people, so that information is “any information held for the purpose of discharging those functions if the information is to be used for soliciting custom for goods or services”

The Student Loans Company are also carrying out fraud by deception, when it stated in our transfer pack:

"What You need to know

“The TERMS and CONDITIONS of your loan(s) and how the interest rates are currently calculated and applied to your account(s) WILL NOT be changing.” 2

2 SLC Letter that came in Erudio welcome / transfer pack

"WILL NOT BE CHANGING": In the same pack, Erudio tries to get you to change the terms and conditions. Tell them to F off. If they damage your credit rating, you may be entitled to compensation.

Just to add clarity to the above post. The Acts of Parliament signed as part of the original terms and conditions are fully binding (eg set in stone, irrevocable). I've had that confirmed by SLC.

Erudio has breached the original terms and conditions.

Also, I specifically asked "will this be able to effect my credit rating in the future?" when taking out the loan(s), and I was told categorically that it would not effect my credit rating.