Erudio and slc debt

[oric]

Does anyone know from a legal or banking perspective the date I have made payment if I use a debit card over the phone?

 

Is it the date I give the card details or

 

Is it the date the payment shows on my statement?

 

The organisation I am dealing with is not authorised to go in my credit file due to the terms of the loan agreement unless I go into arrears. They are doing their best to make that happen.

 

Am I in arrears if the payment is still 'pending' on the day it is due even if I phoned the day before?

 

Thanks

Edited April 15, 2015 by oric

[dx100uk]

I would be telling us the full story please

 

this sounds more than just a CRA file issue

 

and name names too

 

dx

[oric]

Thanks for the quick reply.

 

I'm a bit scared of giving names incase I get in trouble.

However, I can tell you enough to know what is going on.

 

I took student loans between 97 and 00.

They were recently sold by the govt. to a company set up by one of the big DCAs.

There is a long thread on MSE about in the credit rating section.

 

The loan agreements do not give the lender the right to access CRA data unless the borrower breaches the agreement.

The company are seeking to obtain borrowers CRA records to increase their collection potential and possibly share the data with other DCAs.

The company failed to set up a written direct debit instruction I sent them,

so I have been paying each month by card over the phone,

a few days before the payment deadline.

 

This time I could not get through on monday because I was trying to call on skype so I can record the call but they have blocked skype. So, I called yesterday as soon as they opened via an alternative phone and made my payment.

 

It is showing as pending and has not deducted from my bank statement.

 

If they are not paid today, they will claim arrears and will be in my CRA file.

 

I can pay again by fasterpayments as I now have their bank details, I but I may never get the money back. My privacy is more important than money.

[dx100uk]

moved to the SLC forum

 

so you've got the powerless Erudio after you

what are you doing talking on the phone?

is that what you were doing.

 

so they have you card details?

you've been paying them

 

I see you've quite rightly removed your loan shark comment in your first post

 

there are hundreds of post here on rodeo

and their tactics.

 

so they are using the old CRA file marking dodge on you to force payment?

 

dx

[dx100uk]

the question comes..WHY are you paying them anything??

 

 

who says it owed??

 

 

dx

[oric]

If I do not pay, they will claim rights to my data.

It will not be possible to undo.

They cannot touch my CRA data as things stand.

I have a dispute with them and will claim back every penny, but until then, I have to protect my private data.

 

My question is, have I paid on time, by giving them my card details the day before they expect payment?

 

I have not discussed anything with them on the phone other than to make payment.

[dx100uk]

yes you have but this is arrows you are dealing with

a dca

they'll say anything to get your money.

 

I think elsewhere it has already been established they cannot mark your file anyway.

 

you are being had. sorry they have access to your file already

 

so when did you last defer?

[oric]

They are set up with the CRAs but have no legal right to access the data

unless there is a breach by the borrower.

Clause 12(d) of the loan agreements gives this right.

 

They refused deferment because I did not use their form because doing so would give them permission to access my CRA data.

 

Any money I pay can be recovered through the county court.

 

Yes I am being had. It's quite obvious.

They are using the CRA threat to pressure me into paying money that is not due.

 

Just so you know, I am not going to just pay them and let it go.

 

I will not stop until I get my money back and prove they have no rights to my data

 

I am willing to risk everything I have to bring them to justice.

 

Right now possession in 9/10ths and they do not have rights to my data but I do have the right to my money back.

[dx100uk]

urm.. I'm not sure on some of these assumptions you are coming here with.

 

they already have access to all your data , they are the creditor now.

 

they also can no longer 'insist' you use their form.

 

so they got you paying anyway, and I doubt you'll see that money again.

 

we need the full story with dates from day one

 

and a nice simple log of how you got yourself in their clutches.

 

dx

[oric]

They claim they have the right to access my data.

They claim they are the creditor.

They insist I use their form.

 

I dispute the above but until there is a judgement, the status quo applies.

There are no footprints from them on my file yet.

So, how do you know they have already downloaded it?

 

Some people choose not to pay and don't care about their personal data.

 

By the way, they have not said the payment is late.

I am just worried that they might.

So it might be better to change the headline.

 

Back to my original question, if I pay by card, is it the date I called to pay or the date the money is credited to their account?

 

Thanks for being on my side.

More details about the dispute are to follow but may be better in a new thread.

 

How I got myself into their clutches was because I went to uni and borrowed the loans thinking it was a no brainer and that the SLC could be trusted.

I beleived my private data was secure and that I would not have to repay unless I earned a lot of money.

 

I followed the rules and kept up to date and deferred each year until I got sold out by the govt. to a DCA.

I envy those who ran off and got their debts statute barred.

 

You seem to be of the opinion I would be better off not paying them and sticking to my guns.

They would have no right to get a penny.

They have simply got me paying by threatening my privacy.

They have invented a whole load of new t&c.

That was not what I signed up to originally and if you were to include the new t&cs, there is no such agreement.

 

Let's forget the payment and work on getting them off my back.

 

I had no idea there was so much info on this forum.

So thanks for a fantastic resource.

 

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2015

 

I can't link yet so google it.

 

The new SI has been put into effect on the last day of parliament (31st March) without any consultation or debate.

 

It has been slipped in without anyone noticing. The effect is that the FCA is now powerless to tackle the SLC.

 

The rules for secondary legislation are that there is a 40 day window for an MP or a peer to object. An objection could lead to it being scrapped (slim chance but even so).

 

This needs to be challenged. The Govt are wilfully blocking access to justice and regulation to protect their dodgy deals.

 

Please write to MPs and lords. Contact the press! The 40 days does not include time when parliament is dissolved.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

But doesn't it just REMOVE a level of red tape? The fca is a government organization.

The SLC is a government organization?

What's the point in having one look over the other?

 

 

Who then looks over the fca?

 

 

Who then looks over those that look over those who look over those

 

 

. It goes on and on and is not needed.

[dx100uk]

so the bottom line is you allowed them to spoof you into paying

because you thought they didn't have rights to your cra data

.

well sadly as said, as they have been assigned all rights they do.

 

 

they have you card details, if they wanted

they could take the payment under CPA rules.

 

 

so either you phone your bank and cancel their CPA

or you allow them free access.

 

 

now what you need to do is go read the threads here...

 

 

you'll see that if you download and sent off the old SLC deferment form

they cannot refuse that, and indeed have accepted many of them now

and refunded payment made since they spoofed you.

 

 

as for when the payment is credited by them

I think it makes no odds

you are dealing with a DCA here

 

 

they'll say anything to get you paying.

 

 

pers I would not be paying anymore

send off the slc form

and include a note stating you want all the recent payments back.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?441577-Erudio-have-taken-payment-without-my-authority&p=4697148#post4697148

[brassnecked]

But doesn't it just REMOVE a level of red tape? The fca is a government organization.

The SLC is a government organization?

What's the point in having one look over the other?

 

Who then looks over the fca?

 

 

Who then looks over those that look over those who look over those

 

 

. It goes on and on and is not needed.

 

Straight from Enemy of the State, who is watching, the watchers of the watchers?

 

However who would bring Escrudio to book if they tried to resurrect my pre 1997 loans paid when over the threshold, correctly deferred when off work from an industrial injury, no arrears to account written off correctly under the regulations by Thesis? in the current situation, no one, so the written off loan could be sold on for any bottom feeder DCA to chance their hand.

[oric]

I believe several have done

the SLC deferment form / process is written under their T&C's

which, ofcourse, Arrows have inherited, so I cant see they can refuse.

dx

They refused mine.

They insist that "in accordance with the original terms and conditons you must sign to agree our made up new terms and conditons or we will not let you defer."

[oric]

I am confused about something.

 

Have Erudio actually changed the terms and conditions or not?

 

What I mean to say is, have we identified any part of the small print issued in their FPNs, etc that is undisputably impossible to extrapolate as being an elaboration of the original terms and conditions?

 

As far as they are concerned, they keep repeating that their policies are all "in accordance with the original agreements."

 

I am trying to follow a line of reasoning here which will require several posts once I get some answers. Thanks

[dx100uk]

yes lots

 

 

you need to read the threads

 

 

the fos have even commented on it

 

 

dx

[oric]

Yes I agree, I can see several clauses in the fair processing notice that do not concur with the original contract. However, I am biased because I am desperate to be right.

I was looking for independent evidence or opinion that perticular terms have changed.

 

I am trying to test the argument by being devil's advocate. The fair processing notices contain new clauses that do not appear verbatim in the original contracts. However, they are insistant that the new clauses are merely a more detailed description of some of the existing rights under the original agreement.

 

One point of contention is that they want to collect data from 3rd parties to check deferment applications.

 

I say it's not mentioned in the agreement so they can't.

 

They say it goes without saying that they have the right to verify deferment applications. Deferment is part of the original agreement. In order for a deferment to take place, information must be provided by the borrower. That information must be processed in order to grant deferment. The new clauses describe in more detail the processing they believe they are entitled to do.

 

Who is right?

[dx100uk]

certainly never a fleecing dca.

 

 

dx