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

Erudio rang me last week to tell me I was in arrears on a 1999 loan. I explained I had always deferred the loan as I had never earned over the threshold. A few days later they rang back to say "SLC are delaying confirmation of deferment" and that I need to provide it. Fine, I can do that but they sound like a dodgy bunch

Free123,

Is that true about the original loan docs needing counter signed? The only place on then is under the bit about the APR and two of my three loans are not signed! It would make my year if I could tell Erudio to go forth and multiply on this!

(Probably never happen mind :)

Even if SLC hasn't signed the agreement, they can still apply for a court order to enforce it, i.e. if they can prove to the court you owe the money (easy enough for them to do I'd have thought), then you have to pay. And your credit rating will be completely trashed in the process.

I now have a deferment letter sat on my knee dated 11th June 2014.

What did I supply? I did not sign their form. I'd already filled in the old SLC form which I sent off just prior to the change from SLC to Erudio.

My employer does not give wage slips. Instead I enclosed the correct signed and dated letter. They accepted this.

Yes it's been quite a struggle at times and I will be filing a complaint letter.

Points of interest from the deferment letter:
----------

1. The letter says deferment goes back to 20/5/14. So much for their recent letter saying I was two months in arrears!

1. The Direct Debit. The deferment letter still says that I am still required to keep any Direct Debits in place whilst there is still a balance owing on my account and that a failure to do this constitutes a breach of my agreement.

I was told verbally this month that my Direct Debit was cancelled on 6th June 2014 by Erudio and that they had cancelled a number of DD's as it was easier to cancel a huge swath of them than to deal with customers who had had money taken out incorrectly by DD.

To my mind, that means Erudio have cancelled the DD and breached the agreement.

I'll get my complaint filed next week.

Good news that they have defered someone who has not used their own form! Gives me a bit of hope. Well played!

Wow just found thread, a DD left my account this month that I didn't authorise I better go back n read to find out what to do. I've cancelled it with my bank online.

@pluthero.

I didn't fill out their form as my deferment ran out just before Erudio took over the loans. My form was with the SLC just before Erudio and then got lost in the pile for ages. We're talking since the start of March here.

Oh well, i hear they are refusing to defer without their form citing it has to be the same process for all, which is nonsense and not a great legal argument. I am in this for the long haul. They are not fit for purpose!

Erudio will stick to that one unless they are literally forced into admitting the lie. Their dodgy forms are the main weapon they have in bullying deferrers into payers.

@pluthero

I know I got through as I was right on the changeover period and next year I will have the fun of their form. I shall inevitably end up frustrated and be forced to write letters to them complaining.

The situation with Direct Debits is ludicrous. We're seeing people on this thread saying that they have been told they do not need one and yet my deferment letter clearly states this is untrue. There seems to be either witless confusion on the part of Erudio or this is all organised confusion designed to baffle the customer.

Minimoosh - If the agreement was not completed or executed properly, that is their problem. They could try to argue that there is still a contract in place. Then step B comes in, as they have breached the original contract by giving information to CRA's even in you are deferring.

If they were to go to court, they have to show that the agreement was completed / executed, which it was not. Unless the legal person who wrote the agreements just wrote "see agreement COMPLETION instructions on reverse of Direct Debit Instructions" for fun. Yeah, the legal department just put the box there for a laugh. lol

If they have breached the contract, they cannot trash your credit rating. If they tried to, they would have to compensate me.

It's more than just breaching the contract too, it is breaking the law, as an Act of Parliament is statutory law.

A CCA agreement may be improperly executed if not signed (stamp or other auto sig is OK) by a creditor.

But the Consumer Credit Act allows such an agreement or be enforced by the court at their discretion. It does not make it irredeemably unenforceable in any way.

Not just that, but the McGuffick case in the High Court ruled that reporting a loan under it's T&Cs to the credit reference agencies did not constitute 'enforcement' of the agreement anyway, so the lack of a creditors signature could not prevent that. Not just that, but the High court accepted the argument from the ICO that reporting an improperly executed or unenforceable agreement fell within the legitimate interest conditions on sharing data, so could be reported on those grounds as well.

This is all very well known in the credit/collecting industry, and the Hight Court decisions are legally binding, so I'm afraid if you try the argument that SLC did not sign the agreements in some cases then Arrow/Erudio, are going to just laugh at and then dismiss those arguments.

Heres a story on the BBC about a guy from the US who recorded his conversation with an aggressive customer service rep working for an internet giant and then released it online.
www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-28335713

I remember we briefly had a discussion about whether we should do that for Erudio, just to highlight their strategy of lying. Anyway, this story it seems to have done good!

Post-98 loans finally deferred and it wasn’t easy. Deferment end date according to NOA May.

Kept everything in writing never communicated with Erudio by phone. Refused to sign the FPN that came with NOA and their craptastic deferment form. March through to May spent my time quarrelling with Erudio.

This didn’t stop me from doing other things. First in April I sorted out the deferment of my other loans sold to another company. SLC still do the deferment for these loans. Took less than 2 weeks to be approved. Then in May I used the same information and the template letter provided in the first thread to apply for deferment with Erudio, which was quickly rejected.

After more arguing and complaining Erudio tell me that they need 1 page of their deferment form (section 9) filled in before they are able to process a letter with supporting evidence?

Not to be deterred by these shady-blackmailing tactics I keep busy. First I file a complaint with the FOS against SLC. Why? Because I keep on hearing the rumour about split loans. Erudio might as well be speaking in tongues every time I raise the issue with them, and I want to get answers from SLC, but SLC want nothing more to do with me now the loans have been sold.

I also make a complaint directly to SLC but don’t expect them to respond. That’s why I complained to the FOS first. I then make a complaint to the BIS telling them about my personal experience dealing with Erudio. I explained how Erudio dragged the deferment process into the gutter with their disgusting behaviour of lies, threats, more lies and deliberately creating as much confusion as possible.

Because I won’t sign the deferment form Erudio start claiming that my account is in arrears. I ask Erudio how that is possible when the only part of the deferment form I sent back was the DD mandate. Well before my deferment date expired which they managed to put onto my bank account before I had even submitted my letter asking for deferment……silence

….. A month goes by I hear nothing from Erudio and another direct debit is not taken. I refuse to get in contact with them, set up an alert on my bank account and get on with my life.

Then all the complaining finally pays off. Turns out I didn’t have to submit or use Erudio’ deferment form.

SLC inform me they are supposed to be processing my Erudio Loans. All deferment info is supposed to be processed by the repayments team in Glasgow with SLC updating Erudio on my deferment status.

BIS inform me I’ve been deferred since April. When SLC deferred my loans in April, that deferment covered the Erudio loans as well. There was a failure in the system somewhere and everybody forgot to mention that for borrowers like me who have loans sold to Honours/Thesis the process stays the same, except next year I think I fill out a single application form with the loans from both company’s listed.

At least SLC, BIS apologised for the confusion etc. Erudio are a company with no shame. Received a deferment letter from them - a line telling me I’m deferred with start and end date. That’s it. No threats about keeping a DD in place. No apologises for all the months of crap.

I managed to get out of Erudio’ system without signing anything except the direct debit mandate. As soon as I received the letter from the BIS I ran to my computer and pressed delete on the direct debit that had been set up.

Yes, if you have split loans between Erduio and Thesis or whoever, it should have been SLC who stayed in charge of the deferment for both lots from the beginning.

Unfortunately until the other month SLC staff were in complete denial over this and were telling ex students a load of rubbish that it had nothing to do with them any more.

Will be interesting to see what happens next time.

Will SLC continue to defer with their old forms as they always have, or will they have to adopt the Erudio style of phishing and borderline blackmail?

@ Ibreakwindinerudiosdirection Before Erudio told me the DD was no longer a requirement, I'm sure someone on the forums said Erudio had changed their 'policy' and the DD is no longer a requirement if your income is well below the threshold. As a SAHM, my income's way below, so there may be something to that? Which would be a completely ridiculous situation - saying it's a requirement for one set of borrowers and not another, when we're all legally entitled to defer (and not legally required to have a DD in place) when income's below the threshold.

Erudio apologised in their letter for insisting on the DD and know fine well there's no legal requirement for one, but I suppose that won't stop them trying their luck. And when they finally admit to us all that there is no requirement for a DD, they'll blame it on computer says no/human error/lack of training, anything but the fact it was just another DCA tactic to undermine their 'customers'.

Morning, I have had my
deferment forms this morning. All my loans have been sold to Erudio as I left uni 98. I earn under the deferment amount plus have been on mat leave.
I have been following this with great interest and I must say their letter is impressive!
I will sit and have a good read of previous posts but can I just confirm a couple of things?
I have checked with my bank and the dd has expired years ago. Do I have to supply the info?
Do I put covering letter and not sign the form?
Child benefit is in dh's name and gets paid into our joint bank account, do I have to include this?
thanks in advance

@minimoosh

Yes, I know others have stated that they were told by Erudio that the DD was no longer mandatory. As ever it's the clash between what they say verbally and what they say in writing. Keep racking up the evidence of lousy management...

A little good news for students:

www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jul/20/vince-cable-cabinet-tensions-scrap-student-loan-sell-off

@ Sarebear78, thanks again for sharing:)

What are the chances Vince was trying to beat the BIS select committee to it? Their report was released (to witnesses and press) today:

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

Good news indeed that they've seen sense, for now at least.

plenty I don't think anyone has been deferred without sending the actual form back... Although technically they should accept a letter they are refusing to do so.

Some people have been deferred by sending the form but only supplying limited information, ie. The same as they would have provided in the letter, and crossing through the'fair processing notice' at the end of the form.

I think the latest is that the dd form isn't needed if you are eligible to defer.

Not sure about the child benefit but I wouldn't mention it.

@minimoosh. Vincent Cable, a politician, would never do such a thing before the election, next year, surely? Lol

Yeah, this sense is bound not to last..... :(

@sarebear

The only thing Vince Cable has to do before the next election is to clear out his office..

The actual report with mention of Erudio starting on page 24:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmbis/558/558.pdf

I especially love the Minister's reply as to why the private sector could return greater loan repayment rates than the SLC:

"The companies that specialise in underperforming loans, already have an infrastructure in place and know how to handle them, they may be able to put in time, effort and expertise that the Student Loans Company does not possess and do a better job than the Student Loans Company could have done."

Laughable to say the least.

I also recommend that people read the section on the proposed sale of I-C loans. Decidedly terrifying reading.

Thank you msbug.
No they are still stating that no dd means no deferment!
I am going to fill it in, but black out the information which they have no right to. The form is just a huge fishing exercise. I will not state cb as it is paid to dh and goes into our joint family account, not my own.
I will put a cover letter on about not accepting new t&c.
Is there any point asking them about the dd?
I work pt so will earn under for many years to come and hopefully the dd will expire after 12 months?