Good evening chaps

 

I would just like to say a massive thank you to everyone who offered their advice following my initial post,

particularly WindySock, dx and Ford, you guys have been great!

 

In case you haven't already guessed,

today I received a very swift and positive final resolution from Erudio's complaints division - in writing!

 

They agreed I had been treated very badly,

have upheld my complaint in full, are writing off the latest arrears

and have confirmed that my Age Related Cancellation will be completed within 30 days.

 

They also offered me a not too shabby amount of compensation for any distress caused!

 

Once again, a very big thank you for the advice to take them on.

 

To show my appreciation I have made a donation to the site.

 

THANK YOU! And keep up the good work!

 

shaft65.

 

 

P.S. Ford - Can you dig it???? ;-)

Fantastic.

Formal complaint against Erudio, making it very clear that unless they

* cancel any arrears they have falsely allocated against you account

* confirm that they have cancel the entire loans under the age write off conditions

that you will be taking a complaint to the FOS and seeking redress/compensation against Erudio.

And may consider legal action for a specific performance to enforce your right to have the loan cancelled.

So if there was an appeal, how did it go?

If the judge is saying that more is needed than simply limitation, then they must agree with the WS paragraph 26 that the DN or termination being within 6 years of the claim issue means it is not statute barred.

So you need to counter that in some way.

Thesis is run by Link, so in reality it's been passed exactly no-where

WindySock:

"If you clear the arrears, and at that point they have not called in the loan in full by defaulting/terminating the account"

 

Are you saying that after I pay my arrears they could still make me pay off the remainder of the loan by claiming I've defaulted??...

No. I'm saying that the only way they can stop you having it written off is if they should default/terminate the account before you get around to bringing the arrears up to date.

Technically they would have a right to do that right now due to the arrears, but I don't think even Erudio are pushing their luck quite that far and evilly yet.

If you get the arrears paid off without them having done that, then IMHO you are home and dry.

WILL

Not can, or may, or anything else

They WILL.

12. The lender will cancel the borrower’s liability to repay the loan if the borrower—

(a) dies,

(b) is not behind on any repayments under any agreement for a student loan and—

(i) was under the age of 40 when his last agreement for a student loan was made and he reaches the age of 50

or when the last agreement for a student loan has been outstanding for not less than 25 years, whichever is the sooner, or

(ii) was aged 40 or older when his last agreement for a student loan was made and he reaches the age of 60, or

© if the borrower can show the lender that he gets a disability related benefit and because of his disability is permanently unfit for work.

If you clear the arrears,

and at that point they have not called in the loan in full by defaulting/terminating the account,

then they are obliged in law to cancel the loans.

They do not have a choice.

Do that. They will mess you around for ever unless you keep pushing the complaint.

Complain about the arrears and fees that are due to arrears that should not have existed or been applied?

Complain that as the arrears and fees are not valid, then Erudio should have already cancelled the loan.

Tell them you will be going to the FOS and reporting to the FCA if they dont sort it.

Have we some other case law where the SB defence being lost, due to contract termination being much later than the last payment.)

Some judges will decide the clock starts from default/termination.

An example

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?447033-PRA-Group-claimform-old-MBNA-card-debt&p=4776427&viewfull=1#post4776427

There is likely some fault on both sides here. 1st Crud for not recognising that their trace search had thrown up the wrong person with that name, and Callcredit for accepting and making the match or link when something such as the initials are wrong and refusing your dispute.

Need to complain to 1st Crud that it is their search that has caused the false link to be created, so you require them to contact Callcredit to tell them this. Make sure it's very clear to them that you have never lived where this person did, and that you cannot be the same person, and that unless they help you will be taking them to the FOS and reporting them to the ICO.

Need to complaint to Callcredit that they have allowed a clearly false link to be made, and you dispute their claim that it is a 'proven' link. Require them to remove it or you will be taking them to the FOS or ICO.

Giving both a kick up the bside from different directions should give the best change of someone somewhere pulling a finger out to sort it.

Unless you can afford to pay of the arrears, nothing much you can do. Ball in their court. They may issue court proceedings. They may not. Roll of dice.

Keep an eye on credit files as well to see if they go ahead on registering the default as the DPA NOT says. As said, have seen some before from these, so saying they can't or won't go ahead and do that is not always true.

Not really, as there are only one of the 2 documents there now. The one above is still missing from that post.

Both are below.

Would my claim to have my loan written off have to be completed before my 50th birthday? Or would I just have to continue paying the instalments whilst I am trying to get this resolved - bearing in mind that according to the wording in the SAR draft, they would have up to 40 days to respond. 40 days would take me past my birthday.

 

shaft65.

AS long as it wasn't terminated and called in in full due to the arrears in the meantime, you could bring it up to date and get it cancelled even after the age you turn 50 date.

now ive merged all your old threads

Christ. What a mess.

Yes I see, no problem. I wish I'd just ignored the lot of them back then, then I'd be SB clear.

 

Otherwise, no worries. Ignore shall be my continuing approach to Thesis.

While you were deferring the parts of the loans that were not arrears, seems they were happy with that, or at least tolerated it. Now you stopped doing even that for 1-2 years seems they have called them in in full, as they can do.

May be a pre-cursor to court papers. May not. Seen them issue some, but not too many considering.

Not sure why the DN got deleted.

Here it is. Some may have comments on that, and it not on here at present.

So they've broken the rules by saying WILL instead of MAY?

No, they haven't.

The regulations only mandate the phrasing of the part in capitals.

The part that follows where the creditor sets out what action they intend to take can be worded however they want.

It sort of does say 'court action will be' in part 4. of the first letter?

Yes, see above.

Dunno what dx100uk did to that 1st attatchment, but I still have it here and can see it clearly says the WILL go to court.

The part that says MAY is wording required under the The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations, so they have to use the MAY in that part to make the notice valid, even if they mean WILL.

WS read the attachment now

std default notice

 

 

says nowt about court

sorry for the error

 

 

dx[/quote

Right so I'm looking at a maybe get taken here to court here, but pretty unlikely?

Possible in theory. Unless you can pay the whole 20 months arrears off now, then not much you can do about it either way.

So why have I been deferring with the SLC for the past few years then?

Where some of the loans were still either held by SLC, or by another company such as Erudio or Honours, the SLC continued to administer the deferments for them on behalf of the private companies.

Was done like that so deferment outcomes were kept consistent.

Are you saying then they might own this debt with the SLC now, because I failed to defer they sold it on?

No. They were sold on years ago in one of the previous sales of large sections of the student loans book to the private sector.

There were two letters. Hope the upload works and it's in the right format.

They is what you would expect. They can terminate the agreements and demand the whole balance back if you don't make up the arrears.

They do say "WILL" on the the court action, but whether they do or not is anyone's guess. Link Financial sometimes do go to court though, so you should not rule it out..

Thesis own a portion on the old style loan book now, so they can send out a s87 default notice in their name and register a default with the CRAs just the same as SLC could. I've seen defaults from them on the CRAs, so I know this is not necessarily a 'bluff'.