Tweet
Hi all, I'd really appreciate some advice on this one because it's getting difficult to know what to do and I cannot afford legal representation. If any of you could help, I'd be incredibly grateful.
Received a claim? Yes
Issue Date: 09 Jan 2023
Have you Acknowledged the Claim?: Yes
Total Amount Claimed : £8500. (This includes additional fees/court costs of approx £600)
Claimant’s Name: Erudio
Solicitors Firm: Drydens
Original Creditor: Student Loans Company
Original Debt (eg. Credit card/Loan/Overdraft) : Student Loan
Particulars of Claim: 1. The Claimant claims £8500 (rounded) for monies due from the Defendant. 2. This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and the Student Loans Company Limited. Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: (removed as required ). 3. The Defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s) being terminated. Notice of such is served by a Default or Termination Notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s). 4. The debt was assigned to the Claimant on 22/11/2013, with a notice provided to the Defendant. A new master reference number (removed as required) was also applied upon assignment. 5. The claimant has complied with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims.
Is the debt Statute Barred (have you had any contact with the creditor or claimant over the last 6 years?): Successfully deferred for approximately 25 years until 2021 when communication broke down.
List any letters you have sent (eg: CCA/ CPR ): I have acknowledged and responded with N9B defence which I will include on this post.
Any Other Information or Background Details:
I initially got extra time to respond with an AoS and will start this by providing context and then a copy of the N9B defence I submitted when I first found out about this court case (by miraculous chance).
I have been deferring this debt due to not meeting the income threshold for repayments for almost 25 years. Since submitting my defence I raised official complaints with Erudio asking for my account to be reinstated in deferment which they refused to do in a Final Response. I then contacted the Financial Ombudsman Office and raised a complaint. The investigator agreed to look into it. Today, I found that the assigned Investigator has not upheld my complaint but advised I can raise it to the Ombudsman. I have asked it be raised to the Ombudsman given new information regarding agreement dates and possible misinformation/mistakes by the claimant regarding the dates of when the original agreements were first made (three separate loans 1996, 1998 - 1999) but am concerned that I cannot add this to my court defence since it has already been submitted. I will be contacting the CCBC tomorrow to confirm that the case is still 'stayed' as I contacted them last month and they told me it had been (They had already confirmed receipt of my defence). The following information is in the order I submitted it, firstly the N9B defence followed by the discovery of new information relating to the dates of the loan agreements when I submitted a SAR. However, the written responses were simple letters and do not include the original contracts. I believe the earliest loan agreement date (1 of 3 separate agreements forming the the total claimed) has been changed/mistaken.
As of today, I am led to believe, having checked advice from MoneySupermarket, that my particular loan type is written off after 25 years which makes the dates particularly important.
N9B Defence:
I filled in the relevant references and ticked the following boxes:
1. “How much of the claim do you dispute?” I ticked “I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form”
2. “Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?” I ticked “No"
3. Defence Statement: (Quite long, sorry!) :
Your honour, This claim relates to my student loans, borrowed 24-27 years ago during my attendance at University in the mid/late 90’s, The claimant is not the original lender. The original loan agreement does not require the borrower to pay back the loan(s) if their gross annual income falls below a threshold, as set by the UK Government. Annually, Erudio Student Loans open what they refer to as a “deferment window”, whereby they contact the borrower requesting they provide evidence of income to prove to them that you do not meet the income threshold that requires repayment.
The claimant states in the particulars of the claim: The defendant failed to make payments as per the terms of the agreements, among other claims. I contest: 1) Erudio failed to contact me in the preferred method both they and I were demonstrably accustomed to, failing to notify me of the opening of the ‘Deferment window’ and subsequent issues. 2) I did not and do not meet the income threshold, as per the terms of the original loan(s), to make me eligible for repayments now or at the point communication failed. 3) Referenced ruling that provides legal precedence from the Financial Ombudsman issued in similar circumstances for a case/claim vs Erudio that apply to this claim. 4) Erudio are acting unreasonably. 5) Erudio have unlawfully terminated my agreement. Please see further detail/explanation of points below: (page.1 of 4) For context:
I was made aware of the claimant writing to me on the 18th of January 2023 by the former owner of the property I previously rented. She had sold it in 2018 and we moved out. The couple that had bought it had advised they had been receiving some mail for me. The property owners had regularly been returning all post to sender advising I was “Not known at this address”/“No longer at this address” for a considerable amount of time. Thankfully, they decided to open the most recent correspondence regarding legal action and contacted the previous owner who then contacted myself. (They are willing to provide written testimony to this effect.) Unfortunately, I had not been in receipt of any documentation, legal notifications or reminders from Erudio Student Loans/Arrow Group or Drydens solicitors as they did not have my correct postal address.
Upon hearing about this claim, I immediately contacted Erudio via telephone to resolve this matter and raised a complaint regarding the handling of my account.
(continued on two separate sheets)
(page 2 of 4)
It is my contention that Erudio has failed to contact me in the preferred and expected manner given the many years we have chosen to use paperless, climate friendly means of communicating via email and their online portal. I have a demonstrable historic record of these emails, deferment requests and reminders to which I have responded to in a timely manner.
1) Erudio failed to email me in 2021 or 2022, as expected, in regards the opening of their deferment window. During those periods of time I was eligible for deferment as per the original terms of my SLC loan agreement.
Having spoken to Erudio (Customer service rep: (REDACTED)) on the 18th of January 2023, he confirmed, after checking his system records, that they had NOT emailed me as usual, but they had sent a text. I did not receive this text nor any other notification or reminder.
Furthermore, I had already successfully deferred twice via paperless means at my new address (which Erudio did not have) for the period of 2019 and 2020, meaning I had no reason or concern to prompt me to update my physical address and had never needed or expected any reason to require it.
Erudio had previously encouraged clients to sign up to their online portal as a means of submitting evidence of income and completing the process of deferment. I signed up to this portal and preferred paperless/carbon neutral method of managing communication with Erudio in 2016 and electronically submitted my evidence for deferment, upon request, successfully till 2021.
There are two clear failures of procedure demonstrated by Erudio:
Firstly, Erudio failed to communicate in the expected manner when the deferment window opened as they had demonstrably and historically done for years previously. .
Secondly, Erudio failed to respond to the returned mail over a period of several years and multiple attempts notifying them that my address was incorrect. At this point a phone-call or email to myself, using my alternative contact details, which they have and that have remained the same throughout, would have rectified the situation. I am also on the electoral roll.
Furthermore, in terms of mitigation for not proactively contacting Erudio regarding deferment, my reasons are as follows:
- I do not know when the deferment window opens, that is a matter for Erudio to notify clients to allow timely deferments, which previously they had done via email - they failed to do so.
- The paperless means of communication had long been established as the preferred means of communication between myself and the claimant (Erudio). To which I can provide evidence of both email requests, email receipts and email notices of successful deferment using the online portal and email.
- In early 2021 my partners father was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis which took our attention after he had a fall and was hospitalised. Sadly, his wife (my partners mother) was suddenly too taken ill and diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, dying shortly after diagnosis in October of that year. , Also, personally I am still getting over SARS-COV2 which I caught in late 2021 just after my mother-in-laws death to which some symptoms still persist.
- Lockdown was in effect during the first missed deferment ‘window’ if opened before the end of March 2021.
2) Throughout the aforementioned period (2021-present) I met and do still meet the criteria for deferment of my original Student Loans Agreement. I can provide proof of eligibility of deferment for the contested periods (period ending 2021 - present) as a matter of urgency or on request.
3) Legal Precedence Financial Ombudsman Decision: Mrs P. Vs Erudio Student Loans Limited Ref: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org....DRN4474962.pdf
Whilst this case refers to an age related write-off the principle(s) of procedure and eligibility bear tangible similarities to this claim. In particular, I draw attention to the Ombudsman’s comments regarding ‘process over people’ and the recognition of the defendants consistent eligibility despite a breakdown in communication. Furthermore, whilst I accept I should have remembered the annual deferment, I believe my previous statements provide strong justification as to why I did not.
(continued on separate sheet) (page 3 of 4)
Claim No. (REDACTED)
Defence (continued)
4/5) Given the timely raising of an official complaint within both Erudio and Drydensfairfax providing the aforementioned information, the claimants experience of previous claim(s) and their procedural failings in this case demonstrate Erudio have acted unreasonably and that this is an unlawful termination of my account. I also contest that continuing to use the court in this case is vexatious.
This action could also negatively and disproportionately affect my credit history, standing and position as a director of a small startup company I am an office holder in. It has already caused unnecessary stress and taken up many hours of my time.
I request my account be withdrawn from Drydensfairfax solicitors (Ref: (REDACTED)), the court claim be cancelled and my account be reinstated in deferment or adjudicated to be written off due to the age of the debt and the claimants mismanagement. I reserve the right to contact the FoS on receipt of the claimants response to my raised complaints.
Sincerely, (REDACTED)
(page 4 of 4)
***DEFENCE STATEMENT ENDS***
————————————————————————-
After receiving the Final Responses from Erudio to my complaint, I contacted the FoS, I provided my N9B and some context. I then found out that Erudio had a voice recording of a telephone conversation I had with one of their representatives in 2020, to which I updated the Investigator with the following information: “I would like to point out there is a recording of a phone call I made to Erudio to find out if my deferment was successful which their complaints department provided me with after submitting my N9B defence. I am heard telling the representative that I will notify them of my change of address when asked about my postal address. When I first heard this recording I briefly wondered why on earth did I not update my address there and then, but quickly remembered the context of the call and the mitigating circumstances that I believe make this a moot point for a number of reasons;
As stated in my defence, I had been using their online portal exclusively for a number years to submit evidence, fill in forms and successfully defer - I did not expect Erudio to change/stop their policy of contacting me via email notifying me when the 'deferment window' opened so I could use their online services to defer. However, as importantly, this phone-call was made during the height of Lockdown restrictions and fear regarding the pandemic. My family and I did not want to handle mail. We let all post fall into a bin bag we'd taped behind the letter box for a couple of days just incase it was contaminated. It seems rather crazy looking back at it, but we had young children, immune compromised relatives we had to visit to help and weren't taking any chances, especially since I hadn't needed any physical paperwork to defer since 2016 and had already deferred twice successfully at our new/current address. There was also a possibility we'd have to move again at the time.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point I realised I made a mistake in my N9B where I said the property had been sold in 2018. It hadn’t. It was sold in late 2020, but I moved out with my young family in 2018 and continued to collect mail including during lockdown as it was my grandmothers bungalow (I was her informal carer) till she died and relatives had to sell the property to divide the inheritance. The property was then sold in late 2020 during Lockdown and at that point mail was returned to sender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Investigator did not uphold my complaint regarding Erudio acting unreasonably. This is their response:
“Financial Ombudsman Service
Investigation Outcome – (REDACTED); v Erudio Student Loans Limited - 6 April 2023
The Complainant:
Mr (REDACTED) (C) is unhappy Erudio (B) are trying to take money from C’s account, despite that he isn’t earning enough. Despite C deferring repayment of the loan a number of times, B are still looking to take C to court.
The Outcome:
I’ve now received and read all of the information provided by B and C to investigate this complaint. Having considered the same, I don’t think B have acted unreasonably, so I am not upholding this complaint. I appreciate this will be disappointing, but I hope C understands the reasons for my view.
The Key Points:
B have told me the last deferment was accepted on 15 July 2020, which ended on 14 May 2021. I can see a letter was sent on 17 March 2021 enclosing the deferment application. A further letter was sent to the address held for C on 16 April 2021, which explained; ‘We are yet to receive your completed Deferment Application Form. As such repayment of your Erudio Student Loan(s) is due to start at the end of your current deferment period on 14/05/2021. Your next payment of £141.38 will shortly be due on 15/05/2021.’ On 18 May 2021, B sent another letter to advise your period of deferment has now ended. So I think B did enough to get in touch with C.
C said he had moved addresses and B said they weren’t informed of this. I have been provided with the terms of the agreement, which states 13. Change of Address – If your address changes then within fourteen days of that change you must notify us in writing giving us your new address. Therefore, I am unable to say B have done anything wrong here, as it is the C’s responsibility to ensure the address is up to date.
B said their main form of communication is letter, so I think B acted in line with their process, even if C has received emails previously.
This is the opinion of Investigator (REDACTED). Unless either party wants to take things further, there’s no need to do anything and this case will close on 20 April 2023. If either party disagrees and wants an Ombudsman to consider the case, they must inform us — and submit any further evidence or representations — by 20 April 2023. Requests for more time must also be made by that date. More details on how the Financial Ombudsman Service makes decisions can be found here. It may take a few months for a case to reach an Ombudsman.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonight I emailed back the v FoS Investigator asking for the case to be raised to the Ombudsman with the following two emails:
Email 1: Dear (REDACTED)
"Thank you for your letter and your consideration of my case. Given the incredibly unusual circumstances of the Pandemic and Lockdown, the fact that I have continually not earned enough to be eligible to make repayments throughout the disputed period, the consistent deferment using Erudio's online portal (which I was encouraged to do from 2016 onwards) and Erudios decision to not email me when they had done so consistently since 2016 means I have no choice but to seek a decision from the Ombudsman.
I have not run from this debt, as soon as I realised that I had not updated my postal details during the crazy time we all experienced I addressed the issue as a matter of urgency. Furthermore, I have read and can reference decisions by the Ombudsman in the favour of people in very similar positions to mine and feel strongly that this is putting process over people at a time when consideration should given to the way the world was in 2020.
Whilst I did have access to letters up until the property was sold in late 2020, I had successfully been notified and deferred at my new address without incident via email and their portal so had no reason to believe there would be any further issue.
I would like clarify that Erudio did not send a physical letter regarding my successful deferment in 2020, nor an email, so it was in fact Erudio who broke contact first which is demonstrated by a voice recording of the telephone call I made in 2020 to confirm my deferment. If you do not have this evidence I can provide it on request.
I would like this case to be reconsidered by the Ombudsman.
Will the Ombudsman receive the N9B defence as well as the emails I have sent you? Or do I need to compile them for his/her consideration? Please advise the next steps."
Sincerely, (REDACTED)
Email 2: Dear (REDACTED)
"Further to my previous email, I have only just been informed that some of these debts would be wiped as per the 25 year limit as to when I took them out. The first loan was taken out in 1996. They are attempting to take me to court for all of them. I believe this adds further weight to the reasoning as to why Erudio did not contact me regarding deferment in 2021 via the established emailing system, as well as failing to notify me of my successful deferment in 2020 - 2021.
I had, up till then (2021), successfully deferred for approximately 25 years from the date of the first loan agreement (1996) as rather than pursue my career in London I took the decision to care for a family member locally on Portland in Dorset whilst working and subsequently never had a job that paid above the income threshold set by the Government to make repayments.
I will find the exact dates of this from the Student Loans Company directly as Erudio (who purchased the debt in 2013) have stated in written correspondence I took out my loan first loan agreement at university in 1996 on the 22 April 1997 and I'm fairly sure I was in Canada on a gap year, in which case they are misinformed and have made a "mistake" with their original contract dates. Even if this date is not a mistake (which I'm 99% sure it is given the loan reference number has the year 96 in it) the first loan would be now be almost 26 years old now and subsequently wiped with the second one dated 1998 25 years old also (TBC exactly).
I am also waiting for copies of my original agreements as per a written Subject Access Request from Erudio which I have not received that I will also chase up today."
Kind regards, (REDACTED)
————————————————————————-
…and that’s where I am today. I intend to ring the CCBC tomorrow just to confirm the case is still stayed. Then I intend to contact the Student Loans Company and issue them with a SAR/find out the actual dates of the original loans and try and get a copy.
What a week! If you made it this far, God bless you and thanks for any advice or help you can provide.
Received a claim? Yes
Issue Date: 09 Jan 2023
Have you Acknowledged the Claim?: Yes
Total Amount Claimed : £8500. (This includes additional fees/court costs of approx £600)
Claimant’s Name: Erudio
Solicitors Firm: Drydens
Original Creditor: Student Loans Company
Original Debt (eg. Credit card/Loan/Overdraft) : Student Loan
Particulars of Claim: 1. The Claimant claims £8500 (rounded) for monies due from the Defendant. 2. This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and the Student Loans Company Limited. Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: (removed as required ). 3. The Defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s) being terminated. Notice of such is served by a Default or Termination Notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s). 4. The debt was assigned to the Claimant on 22/11/2013, with a notice provided to the Defendant. A new master reference number (removed as required) was also applied upon assignment. 5. The claimant has complied with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims.
Is the debt Statute Barred (have you had any contact with the creditor or claimant over the last 6 years?): Successfully deferred for approximately 25 years until 2021 when communication broke down.
List any letters you have sent (eg: CCA/ CPR ): I have acknowledged and responded with N9B defence which I will include on this post.
Any Other Information or Background Details:
I initially got extra time to respond with an AoS and will start this by providing context and then a copy of the N9B defence I submitted when I first found out about this court case (by miraculous chance).
I have been deferring this debt due to not meeting the income threshold for repayments for almost 25 years. Since submitting my defence I raised official complaints with Erudio asking for my account to be reinstated in deferment which they refused to do in a Final Response. I then contacted the Financial Ombudsman Office and raised a complaint. The investigator agreed to look into it. Today, I found that the assigned Investigator has not upheld my complaint but advised I can raise it to the Ombudsman. I have asked it be raised to the Ombudsman given new information regarding agreement dates and possible misinformation/mistakes by the claimant regarding the dates of when the original agreements were first made (three separate loans 1996, 1998 - 1999) but am concerned that I cannot add this to my court defence since it has already been submitted. I will be contacting the CCBC tomorrow to confirm that the case is still 'stayed' as I contacted them last month and they told me it had been (They had already confirmed receipt of my defence). The following information is in the order I submitted it, firstly the N9B defence followed by the discovery of new information relating to the dates of the loan agreements when I submitted a SAR. However, the written responses were simple letters and do not include the original contracts. I believe the earliest loan agreement date (1 of 3 separate agreements forming the the total claimed) has been changed/mistaken.
As of today, I am led to believe, having checked advice from MoneySupermarket, that my particular loan type is written off after 25 years which makes the dates particularly important.
N9B Defence:
I filled in the relevant references and ticked the following boxes:
1. “How much of the claim do you dispute?” I ticked “I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form”
2. “Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?” I ticked “No"
3. Defence Statement: (Quite long, sorry!) :
Your honour, This claim relates to my student loans, borrowed 24-27 years ago during my attendance at University in the mid/late 90’s, The claimant is not the original lender. The original loan agreement does not require the borrower to pay back the loan(s) if their gross annual income falls below a threshold, as set by the UK Government. Annually, Erudio Student Loans open what they refer to as a “deferment window”, whereby they contact the borrower requesting they provide evidence of income to prove to them that you do not meet the income threshold that requires repayment.
The claimant states in the particulars of the claim: The defendant failed to make payments as per the terms of the agreements, among other claims. I contest: 1) Erudio failed to contact me in the preferred method both they and I were demonstrably accustomed to, failing to notify me of the opening of the ‘Deferment window’ and subsequent issues. 2) I did not and do not meet the income threshold, as per the terms of the original loan(s), to make me eligible for repayments now or at the point communication failed. 3) Referenced ruling that provides legal precedence from the Financial Ombudsman issued in similar circumstances for a case/claim vs Erudio that apply to this claim. 4) Erudio are acting unreasonably. 5) Erudio have unlawfully terminated my agreement. Please see further detail/explanation of points below: (page.1 of 4) For context:
I was made aware of the claimant writing to me on the 18th of January 2023 by the former owner of the property I previously rented. She had sold it in 2018 and we moved out. The couple that had bought it had advised they had been receiving some mail for me. The property owners had regularly been returning all post to sender advising I was “Not known at this address”/“No longer at this address” for a considerable amount of time. Thankfully, they decided to open the most recent correspondence regarding legal action and contacted the previous owner who then contacted myself. (They are willing to provide written testimony to this effect.) Unfortunately, I had not been in receipt of any documentation, legal notifications or reminders from Erudio Student Loans/Arrow Group or Drydens solicitors as they did not have my correct postal address.
Upon hearing about this claim, I immediately contacted Erudio via telephone to resolve this matter and raised a complaint regarding the handling of my account.
(continued on two separate sheets)
(page 2 of 4)
It is my contention that Erudio has failed to contact me in the preferred and expected manner given the many years we have chosen to use paperless, climate friendly means of communicating via email and their online portal. I have a demonstrable historic record of these emails, deferment requests and reminders to which I have responded to in a timely manner.
1) Erudio failed to email me in 2021 or 2022, as expected, in regards the opening of their deferment window. During those periods of time I was eligible for deferment as per the original terms of my SLC loan agreement.
Having spoken to Erudio (Customer service rep: (REDACTED)) on the 18th of January 2023, he confirmed, after checking his system records, that they had NOT emailed me as usual, but they had sent a text. I did not receive this text nor any other notification or reminder.
Furthermore, I had already successfully deferred twice via paperless means at my new address (which Erudio did not have) for the period of 2019 and 2020, meaning I had no reason or concern to prompt me to update my physical address and had never needed or expected any reason to require it.
Erudio had previously encouraged clients to sign up to their online portal as a means of submitting evidence of income and completing the process of deferment. I signed up to this portal and preferred paperless/carbon neutral method of managing communication with Erudio in 2016 and electronically submitted my evidence for deferment, upon request, successfully till 2021.
There are two clear failures of procedure demonstrated by Erudio:
Firstly, Erudio failed to communicate in the expected manner when the deferment window opened as they had demonstrably and historically done for years previously. .
Secondly, Erudio failed to respond to the returned mail over a period of several years and multiple attempts notifying them that my address was incorrect. At this point a phone-call or email to myself, using my alternative contact details, which they have and that have remained the same throughout, would have rectified the situation. I am also on the electoral roll.
Furthermore, in terms of mitigation for not proactively contacting Erudio regarding deferment, my reasons are as follows:
- I do not know when the deferment window opens, that is a matter for Erudio to notify clients to allow timely deferments, which previously they had done via email - they failed to do so.
- The paperless means of communication had long been established as the preferred means of communication between myself and the claimant (Erudio). To which I can provide evidence of both email requests, email receipts and email notices of successful deferment using the online portal and email.
- In early 2021 my partners father was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis which took our attention after he had a fall and was hospitalised. Sadly, his wife (my partners mother) was suddenly too taken ill and diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, dying shortly after diagnosis in October of that year. , Also, personally I am still getting over SARS-COV2 which I caught in late 2021 just after my mother-in-laws death to which some symptoms still persist.
- Lockdown was in effect during the first missed deferment ‘window’ if opened before the end of March 2021.
2) Throughout the aforementioned period (2021-present) I met and do still meet the criteria for deferment of my original Student Loans Agreement. I can provide proof of eligibility of deferment for the contested periods (period ending 2021 - present) as a matter of urgency or on request.
3) Legal Precedence Financial Ombudsman Decision: Mrs P. Vs Erudio Student Loans Limited Ref: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org....DRN4474962.pdf
Whilst this case refers to an age related write-off the principle(s) of procedure and eligibility bear tangible similarities to this claim. In particular, I draw attention to the Ombudsman’s comments regarding ‘process over people’ and the recognition of the defendants consistent eligibility despite a breakdown in communication. Furthermore, whilst I accept I should have remembered the annual deferment, I believe my previous statements provide strong justification as to why I did not.
(continued on separate sheet) (page 3 of 4)
Claim No. (REDACTED)
Defence (continued)
4/5) Given the timely raising of an official complaint within both Erudio and Drydensfairfax providing the aforementioned information, the claimants experience of previous claim(s) and their procedural failings in this case demonstrate Erudio have acted unreasonably and that this is an unlawful termination of my account. I also contest that continuing to use the court in this case is vexatious.
This action could also negatively and disproportionately affect my credit history, standing and position as a director of a small startup company I am an office holder in. It has already caused unnecessary stress and taken up many hours of my time.
I request my account be withdrawn from Drydensfairfax solicitors (Ref: (REDACTED)), the court claim be cancelled and my account be reinstated in deferment or adjudicated to be written off due to the age of the debt and the claimants mismanagement. I reserve the right to contact the FoS on receipt of the claimants response to my raised complaints.
Sincerely, (REDACTED)
(page 4 of 4)
***DEFENCE STATEMENT ENDS***
————————————————————————-
After receiving the Final Responses from Erudio to my complaint, I contacted the FoS, I provided my N9B and some context. I then found out that Erudio had a voice recording of a telephone conversation I had with one of their representatives in 2020, to which I updated the Investigator with the following information: “I would like to point out there is a recording of a phone call I made to Erudio to find out if my deferment was successful which their complaints department provided me with after submitting my N9B defence. I am heard telling the representative that I will notify them of my change of address when asked about my postal address. When I first heard this recording I briefly wondered why on earth did I not update my address there and then, but quickly remembered the context of the call and the mitigating circumstances that I believe make this a moot point for a number of reasons;
As stated in my defence, I had been using their online portal exclusively for a number years to submit evidence, fill in forms and successfully defer - I did not expect Erudio to change/stop their policy of contacting me via email notifying me when the 'deferment window' opened so I could use their online services to defer. However, as importantly, this phone-call was made during the height of Lockdown restrictions and fear regarding the pandemic. My family and I did not want to handle mail. We let all post fall into a bin bag we'd taped behind the letter box for a couple of days just incase it was contaminated. It seems rather crazy looking back at it, but we had young children, immune compromised relatives we had to visit to help and weren't taking any chances, especially since I hadn't needed any physical paperwork to defer since 2016 and had already deferred twice successfully at our new/current address. There was also a possibility we'd have to move again at the time.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point I realised I made a mistake in my N9B where I said the property had been sold in 2018. It hadn’t. It was sold in late 2020, but I moved out with my young family in 2018 and continued to collect mail including during lockdown as it was my grandmothers bungalow (I was her informal carer) till she died and relatives had to sell the property to divide the inheritance. The property was then sold in late 2020 during Lockdown and at that point mail was returned to sender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Investigator did not uphold my complaint regarding Erudio acting unreasonably. This is their response:
“Financial Ombudsman Service
Investigation Outcome – (REDACTED); v Erudio Student Loans Limited - 6 April 2023
The Complainant:
Mr (REDACTED) (C) is unhappy Erudio (B) are trying to take money from C’s account, despite that he isn’t earning enough. Despite C deferring repayment of the loan a number of times, B are still looking to take C to court.
The Outcome:
I’ve now received and read all of the information provided by B and C to investigate this complaint. Having considered the same, I don’t think B have acted unreasonably, so I am not upholding this complaint. I appreciate this will be disappointing, but I hope C understands the reasons for my view.
The Key Points:
B have told me the last deferment was accepted on 15 July 2020, which ended on 14 May 2021. I can see a letter was sent on 17 March 2021 enclosing the deferment application. A further letter was sent to the address held for C on 16 April 2021, which explained; ‘We are yet to receive your completed Deferment Application Form. As such repayment of your Erudio Student Loan(s) is due to start at the end of your current deferment period on 14/05/2021. Your next payment of £141.38 will shortly be due on 15/05/2021.’ On 18 May 2021, B sent another letter to advise your period of deferment has now ended. So I think B did enough to get in touch with C.
C said he had moved addresses and B said they weren’t informed of this. I have been provided with the terms of the agreement, which states 13. Change of Address – If your address changes then within fourteen days of that change you must notify us in writing giving us your new address. Therefore, I am unable to say B have done anything wrong here, as it is the C’s responsibility to ensure the address is up to date.
B said their main form of communication is letter, so I think B acted in line with their process, even if C has received emails previously.
This is the opinion of Investigator (REDACTED). Unless either party wants to take things further, there’s no need to do anything and this case will close on 20 April 2023. If either party disagrees and wants an Ombudsman to consider the case, they must inform us — and submit any further evidence or representations — by 20 April 2023. Requests for more time must also be made by that date. More details on how the Financial Ombudsman Service makes decisions can be found here. It may take a few months for a case to reach an Ombudsman.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonight I emailed back the v FoS Investigator asking for the case to be raised to the Ombudsman with the following two emails:
Email 1: Dear (REDACTED)
"Thank you for your letter and your consideration of my case. Given the incredibly unusual circumstances of the Pandemic and Lockdown, the fact that I have continually not earned enough to be eligible to make repayments throughout the disputed period, the consistent deferment using Erudio's online portal (which I was encouraged to do from 2016 onwards) and Erudios decision to not email me when they had done so consistently since 2016 means I have no choice but to seek a decision from the Ombudsman.
I have not run from this debt, as soon as I realised that I had not updated my postal details during the crazy time we all experienced I addressed the issue as a matter of urgency. Furthermore, I have read and can reference decisions by the Ombudsman in the favour of people in very similar positions to mine and feel strongly that this is putting process over people at a time when consideration should given to the way the world was in 2020.
Whilst I did have access to letters up until the property was sold in late 2020, I had successfully been notified and deferred at my new address without incident via email and their portal so had no reason to believe there would be any further issue.
I would like clarify that Erudio did not send a physical letter regarding my successful deferment in 2020, nor an email, so it was in fact Erudio who broke contact first which is demonstrated by a voice recording of the telephone call I made in 2020 to confirm my deferment. If you do not have this evidence I can provide it on request.
I would like this case to be reconsidered by the Ombudsman.
Will the Ombudsman receive the N9B defence as well as the emails I have sent you? Or do I need to compile them for his/her consideration? Please advise the next steps."
Sincerely, (REDACTED)
Email 2: Dear (REDACTED)
"Further to my previous email, I have only just been informed that some of these debts would be wiped as per the 25 year limit as to when I took them out. The first loan was taken out in 1996. They are attempting to take me to court for all of them. I believe this adds further weight to the reasoning as to why Erudio did not contact me regarding deferment in 2021 via the established emailing system, as well as failing to notify me of my successful deferment in 2020 - 2021.
I had, up till then (2021), successfully deferred for approximately 25 years from the date of the first loan agreement (1996) as rather than pursue my career in London I took the decision to care for a family member locally on Portland in Dorset whilst working and subsequently never had a job that paid above the income threshold set by the Government to make repayments.
I will find the exact dates of this from the Student Loans Company directly as Erudio (who purchased the debt in 2013) have stated in written correspondence I took out my loan first loan agreement at university in 1996 on the 22 April 1997 and I'm fairly sure I was in Canada on a gap year, in which case they are misinformed and have made a "mistake" with their original contract dates. Even if this date is not a mistake (which I'm 99% sure it is given the loan reference number has the year 96 in it) the first loan would be now be almost 26 years old now and subsequently wiped with the second one dated 1998 25 years old also (TBC exactly).
I am also waiting for copies of my original agreements as per a written Subject Access Request from Erudio which I have not received that I will also chase up today."
Kind regards, (REDACTED)
————————————————————————-
…and that’s where I am today. I intend to ring the CCBC tomorrow just to confirm the case is still stayed. Then I intend to contact the Student Loans Company and issue them with a SAR/find out the actual dates of the original loans and try and get a copy.
What a week! If you made it this far, God bless you and thanks for any advice or help you can provide.
Comment