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

Right, let me add this, that i also added on to the MSE forum:
Can i suggest anyone who has a problem with their statement, finds it unnecessarily confusing, has seeming errors on it, go to my twatter account and leave some kind of post on twitter.com/erudioed . I have a twaat i just posted that reads thus: "According to the forums,it looks like the annual statements currently being mailed out (3 wks after printing date) are another disaster zone". Can anyone who has an account on their go and leave comment on it, then when i have enough, i will mail the link off to some journalists. Weve got to try and get these pathetic amateur schoolboy business errors stopped somehow, so lets try a more direct approach if anyone is up for it!

It's all interesting reading.

I'm still waiting to hear back from FOS.

Nice to hear everyone else is still holding strong!

@ Teddy02 - No - I left the balance and all the amounts in/out visible but I blacked through the names attached to all debits and credits - there's no need for them to know that the £95 per month every 3rd Friday goes to Ladbrokes bookmakers (for example) ;-) or the size of my BT, gas and council tax etc

The only 'Names' I would leave visible are ones you are including in your deferment application - so - payment in from partner or child benefit etc etc salary etc

I think it's best to leave all numbers/amounts visible because they are allowed to ask you for proof of your income and if you black out the actual numbers you could give them a good reason to delay your application and query it with you.

Remember too, they are measuring INCOME not outgoings - so it's only the total INCOMING to your account every month that concerns them. Usually they will want three months statements and they will look at the total going IN to your account (regardless of outgoings) and take the average of 3 months and assess whether that is above the threshold - when added to any other income you have declared - Good Luck!

Further to my previous posts, I have some very interesting thoughts from Counsel. Below is a short summary of the argument.

The issue with Erudio is not really a Data Protection Act issue but one of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended. The opinion of Counsel is that the way through this problem with Erudio is to use section section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Section 140A of the Act enables the court to make an order (under section 140B) if it determines that the relationship between the lender and the borrower arising out of a credit agreement is unfair to the borrower. Note that the relationship is the important thing, not the agreement itself.

If an unfair relationship is alleged, the burden of proof falls on the lender to show that the relationship is not unfair, although the borrower must at least show some evidence of unfairness.

-The court can take account of any of the following:
-The terms of the agreement (or any related agreement)
-The way in which the lender has exercised or enforced any of his rights

Any other thing done or not done by or on behalf of the lender either before or after making the agreement

In short, Erudio are unfairly exercising their rights under the pre 1998 agreement. The range of remedies available under section 140B to the court, having found an unfair relationship, is extremely wide. The court can, among other options:

-Require the lender to repay a sum to the borrower
-Reduce the amount owed by the borrower
-Change the terms of the agreement

In fact, the court has a wide discretion to do what it feels is required to make the relationship fair. In the case of Erudio, the changing of the terms to make the relationship fair is especially relevant. The court could order Erudio to consider deferment applications without their particular forms where evidence of gross income is provided and state that they can't disclose information to CRA's.

I am awaiting Counsel' written advice but this is his Opinion he expressed to me in a long conversation this evening and is going to write up this advice. Counsel has said then he is prepared to present the case to court on a CFA basis. I am prepared to act on a CFA basis also. He therefore believes there is a good prospect. The only fees would be court fees. If enough affected persons come forward, then we could potentially do group litigation.

Look forward to hearing from anyone interested in pursuing the point.

Anthony Reeves

Thats a very good sign Anthony, thanks for the update!

Thanks for that A Reeves. One year after graduating I was in full time employment and repaid my loan as I should have. No issues with that. After that I had my kids and I decided it was best to look after them rather than having to get a childminder. I was a teacher at this time. Fast forward 16 years I am now a part time worker not employed in a professional career but my kids have benefitted from my decision to be there for them. Even if I was to return to my graduate employment I would probably not be earning enough as government wage is shocking. When I did earn more than the threshold I paid my loan. I could have continued in full time employment but luckily I didn't. Then I couldn't afford to but I decided it was best to have little money and cut my cloth accordingly. Thankfully I am in a position that it is not important whether I work or not as my husband has secured a very well paid job. Nonetheless it irks me that I am being made to feel a scrounger when I am raising a generation of children who will eventually contribute to society The value of motherhood or fatherhood is called into question here especially fro a government who tried to traditionally impose this on us. Sadly it no longer suits them so they are determined to make us all get work and outsource our kids. My kids are doing well academically because I am there. So what you lose from my loan they gai it back from my kids.

Is erudio and honors student loan the same company. Just noticed ref above my name on two letters starting with HON2DAF then different letters for the two letters they sent.

Not exactly, but The Wilmington Trust is whats called the investment trustee of Erudio. Or in plane language, what makes Erudio a shell company. The WT's name for Honours and original name for Erudio was very close, something like Honours Trustee Limited and Honours Trustee 2 Limited for the other. If you look up Erudio's listed owner, Mark (Howard) Filer, you will find he has his hands in over 200 companies, all with names slightly differing from each other. Basically, Arrow Global (Zach Lewy) controls this whole thing. He created the shell company with the WT, then they contracted Capita subsidiary Ventura to run the frontline operations...basically thats who we are dealing with. The money will all go through the shell company, i assume straight through their tax haven in Guernsey (or Jersey, i forget which), where everything will be divided up and hidden from plain site to their benefit. As both Arrow Global (look up Arrow Guernsey), Capita and CarVal have off shoot businesses also set up in the channel islands that will be quite easy i assume.
Well, I hope that clearer than mud because thats the way it all seems to add up to me until someone tells me otherwise!

Hi just tried to pm you on mse but didn't work.
Thought I would run this by u first.
On the back page of the daf is a reminder that they wrote to us or just me in jan. however in march slc confirmed that erudio was taking full responsibility from the march date when I got the notice of assignment. Wondering if this invalidates the daf if signed as no letter sent to me.
Regards

Oops thought I was pm erudioed.

I got my annual statement today.

Apparently they 'forgot' to charge me annual interest until 31st august so put a lump sum, so it is not an annual statement. They say they have given me some months interest free to make up for their error. That is a lie.

Having read through all the paperwork (all four pages of it) it states that they accept lower monthly payments to help people pay back the loan (that was on the back of my statement letter) but it 'may take longer and cost more'.

I also have a request for additional details which I didn't put on the form, specifically phone numbers (I don't have a phone) and home details.

The last page has in bold I must have a direct debit as no direct debit equals agreement breach and finally a list of all money not included as income which are the following:

PIP
DLA
Armed forces independence payment
ESA
severe disablement allowance
War pension
Disabled persons tax credit
Industrial injuries benefit
Severe disability premium*
Disability premium long term*
Incapacity benefit long term*
Incapacity benefit short term at higher rate*

The last four are no longer payable under the current benefit system!!

I posted before about being disabled, they are now including direct payments as income to the disabled person I'm really really worried about this. I've emailed my MPs office but have no idea what I can do. Need a carer but there's no way I can pay my loan from the other money I get.

@student1983 Im not sure about that actually. I doubt it would invalidate it but fermi on the MSE forum would be the one to ask.

@becca check out Erudio's website and its homepage to follow the links about this cock up. They admit to a cock up with the annual statements and try and answer questions. It just makes everything increasingly confusing if you ask me. No one knows what the hells going on, what to take as fact/lie etc.
As you can find on the MSE forum, in response to an official complaint, one deferer posted Erudio's response stating they have reviewed their paperwork and a DD is now not necessary....this was months back. Anything they mail out after admitting that in my opinion is a clear lie, or the left hand doesnt know what the right hands doing. Either way, it makes them look like a joke of a business and confuses us increasingly.
As long as they have a contact address (for direct mail) thats all they need as far as i am aware. Plus, its the safest way to communicate with them. If you have a problem with what they have sent you, you must lodge and official complaint with Erudio, then if you are dissatisfied mail the ombudsman.
It is tedious i know, but if we dont complain when we have a complaint, then this will be getting increasingly worse every year because there will be very few complaints registered...which equals, in the eyes of the authorities, that everything appears ok and that there are only a few unhappy people.

They "will accept lower payments" as then technically you will be behind with payments

That means that under the terms on the loan agreements they can refuse cancellation of the loans @ 25 years or age 50, or even call the whole loan in when they feel like it.

More underhand tactics trying to trick you out of your rights on the loans.

In fact becca, you should contact the ombudsman and ask them to reach out to Erudio for you and lodge the complaint!

Thats a very interesting point Mandakl! I bet they dont clarify what would happen if you were to pay less. This deliberate leaving off of information when the result ends up benefitting them and their usual deliberately confusing communications/messages for every area in which we have to deal with them needs to be righted by someone.

Thanks for the replies. I've emailed the MP officer about this. I'm already trying to deal with two other ombudsmen about other screw ups and am seriously stretched mentally with those.

I guess that's what you get when you expect people to do their jobs properly .

Anyway, the bit about accepting lower payments, included in my pack, I will copy and paste here.

if you pay less than your agreed payment in most cases it is likely to take you longer and may cost more to pay off the debt under the agreement. If you have difficulties making payments under your credit agreement, please contact us to discuss the terms for the rest of the agreement. You may also want to seek advice on what to do from an independent free advice agency such as the citizens advice bureau. If you would like independent assistance the following organisations are providers of free impartial debt advice: it then lists contacts for the following organisations national debt line, payplan and stepchange

Just in case anyone is wondering I have spoken to the organisations listed and was told clearly it was nothing to do with them as it was a student loan they couldn't help.

Combined with the front page stating it is a minimum payment term of 60 months, note the minimum (and my last statement doesn't say this), I very very seriously doubt anyone will have these loans written off, they will just reduce the amounts and increase the number of repayments allowed and the threshold will keep dropping.

A side note, I wondered what happens to other students, after us on benefits, how do they pay their loans if they aren't in work and various benefits add up to more than the deferment rates. The answer, annoyingly is, It would appear from the SLC website they don't have to repay, you only pay if working.

There are lots of issues about Erudio as this forum has shown. I think the simple solution is to take legal action (legal test case) on the issue that the there is an unfair relationship under section 140A of Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended. The court has power to rewrite the terms of the loan and that surely is what we want the court to do and this will resolve (one way or another) the Erudio issues. That is something which the Ombudsmen cannot do. I have Counsel's opinion which is positive and the barrister (who is very capable) is prepared to take the case on a "no win no fee basis". So in my view, lets get on with legal action. I have one person instructing me but it would be good to consolidate all claims and bring them together.

You should probably post on MSE, and perhaps even contact Martin Lewis then.

Becca look at the pre 1998 cca and in the bit about deferrment it says they can at their discretion make alternative arrangements if you receive certain types of disability benefits.
Unclear if this would mean a breach of the t&c but worth checking.

The post 1998 cca is different again so might be worth comparing.

student the reduced payments have nothing to do with being disabled anyone can have reduced payments and extend paying back their loan. It is to do with them 'helping' people in financial difficulty

The only difference between me and a someone not receiving those benefits listed is that those benefits aren't counted as income, whereas all others including direct payments are.

I did try and get an extended deferment but they wanted DWP letter confirming I would get out of work benefit (ESA) for at least 3 years (which isn't possible due to continual reassessment) or to be written off that I would get out of work benefit for the rest of my life (likewise not possible) as well as a doctor letter.

I'm assuming of course everyone has the same information on the back of their statement, it would be worth knowing if anyone's differs from mine in that respect.

Same here.

Same actually on the Thesis annual statement, so perhaps I was a bit quick to call foul.

I didn't have it on my statement from SLC. All the information I have from them states it's 60 repayments once I am over the threshold. There's nothing about being allowed reduced payments or longer to pay back (as far as I can see so far).

I've not got round to getting a copy of my original terms yet so something may be in there.

My understanding was it was to be paid back in 60 instalments not more. The organisations they have listed as helping people with repayments won't get involved as it is considered to still be a student loan even though obviously erudio are treating them as standard loans.

Our loan agreement says our loan should HAVE to be paid back in 60 instalments else you WILL breach the agreement and therefore won't have it cancelled by age 50 - which they know we are all starting to get near to, especially if we pay the loan back slowly.
I am currently paying my loan back to Erudio, but I AM NOT using a direct debit. They have told me they would like a direct debit, as that gives them the control. Strangely I don't want them to have the control so I pay by a standing order I've set up using internet banking. As long as I don't miss a payment they are 'happy' with that.
I am still awaiting an annual statement, but apparently as they messed so many up I shouldn't worry about not receiving it for another week or so.
However, as they still haven't confirmed in writing that my deferment has ended and how much I should be paying them back I don't hold out much hope of the statement arriving.

Thanks that was my understanding and they are trying to manipulate people to pay them anything before the 25 years of deferment or age 50 when it is meant to be written off.