Erudio woes

[Amethyst]

Re: Erudio woes

Do you want to pm it to me first ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Erudio woes

This is the summary Pluthero was asking to post earlier.

Summary of the case

I act for a borrower who took out a student loan in November 1997. He applied for
a deferment in September 2014. He provided evidence of his income in the form
of his HMRC tax return. Erudio replied by saying that he had not completed their
deferment application form (DAF) and would not consider his application. My
client has refused to complete their DAF as the Education (Student Loans)
Regulations 1998 do not state the application must be in a prescribed form. The
Regulations state that a borrower can defer making repayments if the lender has
not already asked him to repay the loan in full and his gross income is not more
than the deferment level.

Erudio responded by saying that if our client could delete the following words from
the Fair Process Notice at the end of the form:

“Accordingly therefore submitting this application you confirm that you consent for Erudio
to perform relevant checks at credit reference and fraud prevention agencies”.
We would not agree to complete the form on that basis because the DAF does
need to be completed and also the form requests other unnecessary personal
information and wrongly suggests that a Direct Debit mandate needs to be in
place before deferment is considered. On this point, they have confirmed to
another borrower back in July 2014 that a Direct Debit mandate does need to be
in place.

Our application to the court seeks a declaration that the agreement and the way
Erudio is exercising its rights under the agreement amounts to an unfair
relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended.

Further and in the alternative, we seek an order for specific performance of the
contract, ie. that they should consider the deferment. The basis of the unfair
relationship includes:

1. Requiring the borrower to complete unnecessary personal information on the
DAF that is not required to determine the application

2. Requiring the borrower to sign a form that gives permission to search the
borrower’s credit file

3. Any unfair attempt to make changes to the terms of agreement despite
assurances at the time of assignment that would not alter.

4. Stating that a direct debit mandate is required to be set to enable
consideration of the application. Inconsistent treat in this respect in relation to
another borrower who has the same loan terms.

5. Chasing for arrears that only exist because of a wrongful refusal to consider
the deferment application.

So we have made an application to the Court with the first hearing at
Middlesbrough County Court on 6 March 2015.

[flossybeth5]

Re: Erudio woes

Thank you for the responses - it makes me feel a little better knowing that I'm not in the wrong and that I can just keep telling them so.

[Nibbler]

Re: Erudio woes

This is the summary Pluthero was asking to post earlier.

I note that the person taking that forward has also said this elsewhere:

They have granted deferment in the case where there is a court hearing set for 6 March 2015. They have invited my client to discontinue but we will not do so. The reasons:

1. They need to present their proposed new DAF so that we can be sure it will not continue the unfair relationship, otherwise we could be in the same position next time.
2. They need to pay my client's costs

There has been mention on their website of presenting a new DAF which supposedly will not require consent to the passing of information to CRA's and will not require the completion of DD details. I will invite them to produce the the new form ahead of the hearing on 6 March. If that form goes beyond what is required under the Regulations, then I will ask for a declaration from the court that there is still an unfair relationship.

Hopefully, this provides us with an opportunity to view the form and if they have not made the necessary changes then we can ask the court to rule.

[Yantob]

Re: Erudio woes

Quick update - I sent off a (begrudgingly) signed and dated form (recorded delivery) and a week later I received yet another letter saying that they needed a form signed and dated. I emailed them back stating that they had received this (along with more copies of relevant payslips). I also stated the date and time it was signed for and by whom.
Ten days later they reply (email) saying they need my 'customer' number, full name and date of birth, all of which they'd already received. I reply (email) with all this information, keeping the tone polite but firm. A few days later they email confirming my deferment and apologise for any inconvenience caused! I'm annoyed that I did sign the form but at least I have a year's breathing space. I'd recommend using recorded delivery/email as you always have a source to refer to.
The cynic in thinks that someone's had a quiet word with these weasels and told them not to make waves for the Tories in election year but we shall see in time...

[Loulouuk1]

Re: Erudio woes

I'm very late to this party but would like a little clarification on what to do with the DAF. I sent documentation and a covering letter requesting deferment on 19/01/2015 also informing Erudio of my change of address and explaining that I hadn't filled out their form but was complying with the terms and conditions of my loan by providing the information (ESA and DLA copies) for my two loans. I hadn't received a deferral pack for my first loan so could only estimate the deferral period ending around 19/01/2015, and received the deferral pack for the second loan on 16/01/2015, via mail redirection. I have received 2 letters this week from Erudio, the first being the delay of my deferral due to non-completion of their form, and one today to inform me I am in arrears with my first loan. Both letters were received my mail redirection, so they have failed to update their records with my new address as well as failing to inform me that they are not applying a deferral on my first account and moving straight to arrears letters. If I missed my due date, it was by a day or 2 at most, and I have been in dispute with the SLC for 6 years due to disgraceful administration errors. I don't want to return the DAF as I believe it represents a change in the terms and conditions so should I continue with my plan of lodging a complaint and resubmitting my original letter requesting deferral? I have pointed out that the evidence supplied demonstrates that I am disabled (and have been for 5 years) and that this stress causes significant damage to my health. Could you advised me of the best approach to fighting Erudio on this? I feel I'm being set up and that negative information is being placed on my credit file as a tool to blackmail me into either completing their forms or making payments I simply cannot afford and have demonstrated I cannot afford. Many thanks in advance. Louise

[Pluthero]

Re: Erudio woes

I'm very late to this party but would like a little clarification on what to do with the DAF. I sent documentation and a covering letter requesting deferment on 19/01/2015 also informing Erudio of my change of address and explaining that I hadn't filled out their form but was complying with the terms and conditions of my loan by providing the information (ESA and DLA copies) for my two loans. I hadn't received a deferral pack for my first loan so could only estimate the deferral period ending around 19/01/2015, and received the deferral pack for the second loan on 16/01/2015, via mail redirection. I have received 2 letters this week from Erudio, the first being the delay of my deferral due to non-completion of their form, and one today to inform me I am in arrears with my first loan. Both letters were received my mail redirection, so they have failed to update their records with my new address as well as failing to inform me that they are not applying a deferral on my first account and moving straight to arrears letters. If I missed my due date, it was by a day or 2 at most, and I have been in dispute with the SLC for 6 years due to disgraceful administration errors. I don't want to return the DAF as I believe it represents a change in the terms and conditions so should I continue with my plan of lodging a complaint and resubmitting my original letter requesting deferral? I have pointed out that the evidence supplied demonstrates that I am disabled (and have been for 5 years) and that this stress causes significant damage to my health. Could you advised me of the best approach to fighting Erudio on this? I feel I'm being set up and that negative information is being placed on my credit file as a tool to blackmail me into either completing their forms or making payments I simply cannot afford and have demonstrated I cannot afford. Many thanks in advance. Louise

I would get in touch with your MP over this. A disgrace!

[Pluthero]

Re: Erudio woes

Well my complaint is going to an Ombudsman. It will take 3-6 months MAYBE longer if he finds it complex!

Here is an edited part of my final reply to the FOS:

I find your conclusions perverse and incoherent, you (the FOS) say:

'As I have already explained, we are satisfied that the permitted level of reporting is not unreasonable provided the information is an accurate reflection of the account.'

It was never explicitly made clear (just like the recent PPI scandal) in the original loan agreement that taking out a government student loan would have an adverse effect on a student's future financial health. In fact the opposite view applied; These were safe loans with the govt student were informed, just as they are with today's student loans. How is a government loan taken out 15+ years ago with the provision that it would not affect my future financial health, ability to get a mortgage/phone contract etc reconcilable with being reported to a CRA as a bad debt/payment holiday/status 'u' ? That is just plain nonsense. The SLC never reported student loans in this way so the very least I could expect is that 'custom and practise' would continue as the GOVT/BIS have stated in the loan sell off and in subsequent Freedom of Information requests that 'loan conditions would not change.'

FOS went on to say that 'In addition, whilst this office does consider the legal implications, we also consider what is fair and reasonable – in respect of the completion of the DAF, we do not consider that it is unreasonable for the business to request this.'

The enforced DAF competition in order to be deferred argument is even more perverse. This DAF is a document that the business itself (Erudio Student Loans) has admitted is being REWRITTEN as there has been numerous complaints about it; and it asks for information not relevant or needed under the original loan agreement; and checking a person's credit rating does not confirm their income level. The original loan agreement does not specify a DAF to be completed in order to be deferred so why is it reasonable for me to complete this information phishing document in order to be deferred? There is absolutely NOTHING FAIR or REASONABLE in having to complete the ESL DAF in order to be deferred. Also if the FOS considers 'legal implications' then the fact that under threat of legal action ESL have accepted deferment without a DAF completion I fail to see how you reached the conclusion that it is a fair document/process?

I would like an Ombudsman to look at my complaints as I think they have not been properly considered given the weight of evidence against CRA reporting and DAF completion. I feel very let down and am frankly baffled by the FOS conclusions in this matter.

Keep fighting People!

[Nibbler]

Re: Erudio woes

This is the summary Pluthero was asking to post earlier.

Summary of the case

I act for a borrower who took out a student loan in November 1997. He applied for
a deferment in September 2014. He provided evidence of his income in the form
of his HMRC tax return. Erudio replied by saying that he had not completed their
deferment application form (DAF) and would not consider his application. My
client has refused to complete their DAF as the Education (Student Loans)
Regulations 1998 do not state the application must be in a prescribed form. The
Regulations state that a borrower can defer making repayments if the lender has
not already asked him to repay the loan in full and his gross income is not more
than the deferment level.

Erudio responded by saying that if our client could delete the following words from
the Fair Process Notice at the end of the form:

“Accordingly therefore submitting this application you confirm that you consent for Erudio
to perform relevant checks at credit reference and fraud prevention agencies”.
We would not agree to complete the form on that basis because the DAF does
need to be completed and also the form requests other unnecessary personal
information and wrongly suggests that a Direct Debit mandate needs to be in
place before deferment is considered. On this point, they have confirmed to
another borrower back in July 2014 that a Direct Debit mandate does need to be
in place.

Our application to the court seeks a declaration that the agreement and the way
Erudio is exercising its rights under the agreement amounts to an unfair
relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended.

Further and in the alternative, we seek an order for specific performance of the
contract, ie. that they should consider the deferment. The basis of the unfair
relationship includes:

1. Requiring the borrower to complete unnecessary personal information on the
DAF that is not required to determine the application

2. Requiring the borrower to sign a form that gives permission to search the
borrower’s credit file

3. Any unfair attempt to make changes to the terms of agreement despite
assurances at the time of assignment that would not alter.

4. Stating that a direct debit mandate is required to be set to enable
consideration of the application. Inconsistent treat in this respect in relation to
another borrower who has the same loan terms.

5. Chasing for arrears that only exist because of a wrongful refusal to consider
the deferment application.

So we have made an application to the Court with the first hearing at
Middlesbrough County Court on 6 March 2015.

Apart from a claim for costs, the above is not now going ahead at the hearing. Apparently.

[Amethyst]

Re: Erudio woes

Settled ?

[Nibbler]

Re: Erudio woes

Sort of.

Erudio have granted deferment to my client without having to complete the DAF, as they have now done for other clients. As to the hearing on 6 March, there only remains the issue of costs. Erudio said they would only pay costs if my client would agree to a confidentiality clause, but my client refuses to be gagged by them. We will seek costs on 6 March if they don't pay before.

As to the issue about an unfair relationship, with Erudio having granted the deferment without my client completing a DAF there was a danger in pursuing this point that the court might say the unfairness had been removed (at this point in time) and my client did not want to face a costs risk in this respect. However, I suspect the issue of an unfair relationship might rear its head again when the new DAF is published if it goes further than it should.

Anthony Reeves

[Amethyst]

Re: Erudio woes

Ahh wangled around.

[Nibbler]

Re: Erudio woes

Yes, Erudio and their parent Aroow are expert 'wanglers', or some similar sounding word.

[Nibbler]

Re: Erudio woes

Apart from a claim for costs, the above is not now going ahead at the hearing. Apparently.

And the 'laywer' in question now seems to have removed all his posts from some other sites, and gone silent.

[Amethyst]

Re: Erudio woes

Sigh.

Guess they upped the offer and got the confidentiality clause then.