Erudio using state benefits, refuse deferement, i want to go to court over this

[WarrenBuffet]

Eurido are bound by the original contract, they bought your debt for a pitance and will try every trick in the book to extract money from you. If you are below income threshhold then you are legally entitled to defer. Be firm with them and let them know your rights under the orig contract.

 

They will try to get you to make monthly payments of £xx amount, just be aware that this is a standard tactic. Just tell them to jog on.

[dx100uk]

this is arrow global we are talking about here

 

as bad as link.

 

dx

[WarrenBuffet]

If thats the case dx, ......Sabby do NOT believe a word they tell you and be as firm and hard with them as you possibly can be. Stick to your guns and do not budge.

[sabby1978]

Im not convinced by some of the advice given.

 

The debt was sold to a dca who have no powers I get that.

 

A deferral form still needs to be completed with all my details and sent back so they will take what they want

and on one of the links provided DD could be continued to be collected under the sale.

 

I am going to contact national debt advice line tonight after work and see what they say and report back here.

 

I still appreciate any advice other than ignore then because im not sure that will actually work

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

Your not happy you have Been given the correct advice hmmmm.

You oobviously are not getting what you are being told.

What would u like to be told?. It's obviously you think you know better. So why come here ?

[sabby1978]

I have come on here before and received marvellous advice based on evidence and law,

the fact of the matter the debt has been sold I know to a debt collection agency,

 

I acknowledge this debt and am not trying to get out of it.

I would like to defer as I was previously (which is also advised on here)

 

however now under the new terms of deferment state benefits are being used in their calculation of gross income,

personally I don't see how this is right.

 

And under the sale from SLC direct debits remained in tact and they could continue to take them plus they will not accept my deferment with a DD form.

 

So in answer to your question Kirby

 

I have come on here because I Don't know better and am looking for support and advice about this quite stressful matter.

 

I would like to know what my legal position is with regards to this and

I have been looking through the other threads on Eurido and it seems like their is a lot of confusion.

 

For me this is not about debt avoidance I took that money out to fund university and I acknowledge that

however under the new rules I cannot afford to pay it!

 

Perhaps if you do not like what I'm asking then don't respond,

this Is a community where we are supposed to support and help each other

not be curt or short when something is unclear to the person asking,

 

Your advice was not to bother doing anything,

this does not work for me as I acknowledge my debt

and I want to defer however this becomes problematic for the reasons already outlined.

 

So again I do appreciate any advice that is being offered other than ignore them!

[WarrenBuffet]

Saaby, the advice given is good advice given by people who have become hardened through dealing with DCA for many years on their student loans.

 

You must be aware that Debt Collection Agencies have a very bad reputation and often operate outside the law.

They are often dishonest, imoral and their only objective is to extract as much money as possible from people.

Just be aware that they will probably have paid the Gov a penny in the pound for your debt.

 

Now the legal position,

you are as i have said legally obliged by your original student loans T&C's.

You would be well advised to set up a DD at your end rather than letting them set one up on your behalf.

 

Further, if you have been defering and are in the position to continue doing so then you have no reason to be giving them your bank details.

 

From a legal standpoint they are not the original creditor and you have no signed agreement between you and them .

.. They will attempt to extort money from you no matter what income you produce

it will probably be £5 a month at min but they will start much higher.

 

When they caught me i was unemployed and they demanded full payment,

i was like you shocked and bullied into making a monthly payment of £5 and £10.

I later discovered that this should not have occured because i was below income threshhold.

 

The advice given by others is good advice, they are organisations that often work just outside the law and cause misery to millions.

[oldstudent]

I'm in a similar position to Saaby, not on benefits but have always acknowledged debt and always deferred due to low income.

 

SLC and consequently Erudio already have direct debit information through data migration.

 

Providing a direct debit mandate (which obviously includes your bank details) was an original condition of getting a loan from SLC.

 

If you do not complete a DD mandate for Erudio I think they will say you have breached an original condition of the loan and demand repayment/place you in default. You will then be sabotaging your own ability to defer repayment.

 

I am not a debt expert but I am puzzled how anyone can advocate just not paying/doing nothing.

 

Erudio have addresses and bank details and the loans are acknowledged.

If Saaby doesn't apply to defer they will just debit payment from her bank account.

 

On what basis are people asserting that debt collection agencies have NO powers?

I don't understand this point.

In relation to what exactly - do they have no powers? They own the debt?

 

With regard to Erudio and the new more detailed Deferment forms,

I have a question on what the extra information is for and whether the borrower is legally obliged to provide the extra information.

 

They ask if you are a tenant or homeowner

- if you are a homeowner (which does not affect deferral income threshold)

- and you do not get deferred

- and Erudio cannot get your direct debit details

- can they attach a legal charge against your property.

 

Would they have to go to court to get a judgement against you for the amount of your loan?

 

I can't see how they'll get value out of the debt without doing this sort of thing.

[dx100uk]

you are under no legal obl to put anything on the deferment form that you don't want too.

 

as for the DD, cancel it so they cant decide to just take money.

 

benefits are for people to live on

not to pay fleecing DCA that have no legal powers whatsoever

to decide you must pay this debt

they are not bailiffs.

 

I would not be giving them any poss way or details of taking payments.

 

as banks always say

 

if there is a DD no being used cancel it!

 

dx

[sabby1978]

I think old student makes a valid point, thank you as you made my point far better than I. The DD mandate was part of the condition of being awarded.

 

If i argue that they are not sticking to the original terms and conditions i.e. gross income to come from earnings only not awarded state benefits, am i not doing the same and could they then not use this against me. I am not going to submit the DD form on the grounds that i have raised a complaint on this matter and that if necessary i will arrange at my end.

 

But to be clear are you certain they could not access my credit file and leave default notices on there, this is my primary concern....taking me to court i do not care about as i could argue my case. I just do not want to mess up my credit file! It also still doesnt answer my question about whether means tested benefits which are used to pay rent and childcare can be classed as gross income and be used in working out repayments for debts.

[WarrenBuffet]

Sabby they will say that your benefits + income is how they come to their monthly DD. If you have previously been defering with SLC on the same income then that must continue with DCA. Remind them that your income net per month is £900 and therefore below threshhold. As you have already stated, State Benefit are not chargable against debt. But do not be surprised when they say they are as this is common practice, know your rights and fight your corner!

 

The credit record blemish is their only trick that they can do, but if you should be defering and they mark your record then you can report them and have the malicious mark removed.

[oldstudent]

Sabby, I'm reading this thread at the same time as one on Mumsnet - useful info there.

 

I can see nothing in any online info or any documents I have that would mean benefits were not counted as gross income - and it is definitely gross income (not net) that repayment is based on.

 

The only benfit that is excluded form the total - is any 'disability related benefit' - if your benefit doesn't fit this description then I suspect you will be liable to repay.

 

Again, I'm no lawyer but I'm sure any error SLC made in failing to include your benefits would not bind Erudio to do the same thing.

 

Please don't get caught out on the cancelling direct debit mandate issue - I think that will be what Erudio are hoping loads of people will do and they'll go straight to court if necessary and demand full repayment.

 

They can mark your credit record. Whether this actually affects you or not is debatable. If you're in deferment, a prospective lender may see you have outstanding debt but if they see you don't have to repay it they may not be unduly worried.

 

However, if you go into default, or don't pay by direct debit this will definitely adversely affect your ability to get credit. Someone posted this link on Mumsnet detailing the changes the Govt allowed to let SLC mark peoples credit records:

Telegraph - Government toughens stance over non payment of student loans (can't post links here yet)

[sabby1978]

Thanks old student, this is really worrying. I think that i will write and say that i am disputing that housing benefit and child tax credits should be included in that income and that while the account is in dispute that they cannot recover money until the matter is resolved, i will escalate to the ombudsman if necessary.

 

It really is not worth me working me working and i think your right in what you are saying because they referred to JSA and ESA. I am going to contact Gingerbread and National debt line direct this evening.

[sabby1978]

when you get the chance old student, can you post the links

[oldstudent]

Afraid I can't post links yet as you have to have made more than 10 posts before you get link posting rights!

 

The Mumsnet Erudio thread has links posted to the original legislation which seems to indicate that only disabilty related benefits are excluded so although it's worth disputing, I suspect you're on a sticky wicket - even if SLC treated your application differently.

 

However, unless you want to risk a full repayment demand, I would seriously consider using the form they sent to reinstate the direct debit - regardless of the dispute element.

 

I'm only saying that because I think that the technical condition is that you must provide an active DD mandate (whether you are repaying or in deferment) or else you are in breach of the agreement.

 

Erudio won't be able to take a payment from your account without writing to you to tell you when they will take the first payment (that's a condition of the banks DD Guarantee scheme) - if they do, and you dispute it, your bank will refund the money to you ... and then Erudio would pursue you for payment etc...

 

Last year SLC said my loans would cost me £150 or so per month if I started repaying but I was able to defer and I know I haven't earnt enough to repay this year. But I'm suspicious of Erudio and they will look for any trick to get you to pay (unlike SLC, they have no moral or ethical restraint). I know I'm below the threshold, but if I had to repay, I'd rather do it at £150 per month than be brought to court for all the cash in one go. Don't know what would happen then - not been down that road...

[renegadeimp]

They can demand full payment all they want. If you cant afford it, theres nothing they can do. If they took it to court, you could show their actions are vexatious and you cant afford the repayments. The judge would likely tell you to pay £1 for a set period of time then relook at your finances. Just because a DCA is threatening you, doesnt mean they can do, or even have the legal right to do anything to you.

 

Can i ask if you have actually checked to see if the DCA holds the correct paperwork for the debt? If such a large amount of debt has been sold for a pittance and not simply contracted to a DCA to chase, then you need to be asking why.

[sabby1978]

I would want them to take me to court because as Rene says it wud be viewed vexatiously and I'm sure the courts too would not consider using welfare benefits to repay debt, they are supposed to ensure that u have a basic standard of living. My credit rating however I am concerned about. I received a NOA from the SLC a few weeks back

[oldstudent]

I take on board what you're saying Rene and Sabby - I don't think I would enjoy the stress of the 'journey' though.

 

The debts have been sold entirely by SLC to Erudio. Why? Because they're practically worthless to the SLC but a private DCA sees some potential for return by putting everyone through the mill - an option closed to the SLC.

 

What's a NOA Sabby?

[renegadeimp]

Oh there would be stress. No doubt about that, but the plus side is, IF a judgement is made, then the creditor cannot change it, but YOU can. I still think you need to check to see if this DCA even holds the correct paperwork.

[sabby1978]

Hi old student,

NOA is a notice of assigment which is what u get or should get when there is a change in ownership of the debt.

 

I think court may be a little stressful but perhaps worth it,

 

look at all of those successful claims for ppi.

 

Think how stressful paying out 150 will have on u and the impact on the quality of your life.

 

I'm like you not avoiding the debt,

I owe it but that is money I could spend on my child and I would give it to her not these ppl.

 

Nrly home so I'm going to contact some debt advice charities and see what they say and ill report back here

[oldstudent]

Cheers guys -

Ah! I've had a NOA too - lots of food for thought.

 

I think I would have to go through the process for deferral and if they rejected that application on the basis of some spurious omission on the form,

address status, or telephone number for example,

 

then I would let them go through the court process on the basis that no reasonable person/judge would consider an attempt to obtain a judgement

for full repayment because of an omitted phone number, to be anything other than vexatious.

 

If they play by the rules - I should get deferred - but they're only in it for the money - so let's see what happens - I'll post here with any updates too.

[dx100uk]

please don't forget the bottom line here

 

Erudio are a DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY. [Arrow Global in Sheeps clothing]

 

they will pull any stunt to get money out of you

or a method of securing that at a latter date.

 

the dates of your loans puzzle me

 

if you took them out in 1998 & 2001

they are the new style loan so wont effect your credit file?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/2785070/Government-toughens-stance-over-non-payment-of-student-loans.html

[dx100uk]

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_money_matters/a2028211-erudio-student-loans

 

and someone needs to post on that thread too

 

Erudio CANNOT change the T&C's so CANNOT produce a new defferement form

 

they must use the old one

covered by the T&C they inherited from the SLC.

 

dx

[oldstudent]

Sabby, I didn't realise your loans were from a different era to mine. Mine are mortgage style loans pre-1998 which were sold to Erudio in November last year - I think. Sounds as though you are getting similar paperwork to me - I'm fairly sure the same benefits as income rules apply though.

[renegadeimp]

oldstudent, since your loans are so old, have you checked the enforceability of them? chances are they are that old, Arrow wont have the paperwork that they need to enforce it.