Erudio and final FOS decision - now drydens PAP Letter

[fkofilee]

I suspect you could send an SLC deferment form, but thats just a guess at this point. When it comes to deferment, I know Erudio can be a pain.

[renegadeimp]

Just sign the original deferrment form and not erudios. They cant force you to sign theres. And they must comply with the ombudsmans ruling.

[dx100uk]

numerous posts from someone elses hi-jacked thread moved to here for full history

 

 

dx

[plong979]

Just sign the original deferrment form and not erudios. They cant force you to sign theres. And they must comply with the ombudsmans ruling.

 

so are you saying, accept the decision and then send in a signed copy of the original SLC form? also, thanks dx for sorting out the old posts and sticking them into this thread, much appreciated.

[Pluthero]

Thought I'd start my own thread as the real Ombudsman got back with their final decision:

 

• remove Mr L's arrears, as if Mr L's new deferral period started on the 15 May 2014, immediately after the previous deferral period ended and amend its records to reflect this.
  

 

• remove any adverse information it may have registered on Mr L's credit file since 2014
  

 

• pay Mr L £50 for the distress caused.
  same as before. So what are my options now?
   
  Really don't want to sign their form or have anything to do with them as they are sharks and I don't believe crossing out bits of the form well do anything as they'll just cry ignorance if they do anything underhand.
   
  Also as this has now entered 2015 deferment period won't they just stick arrears on my again and I'll have to do it all again? I did send another letter and payslips again this year just in case, they haven't responded, probably due to the FOS complaint in progress.

 
So are the FOS saying you have use the Erudio DAF as part of their ruling or not? I am in same boat and expecting the same response from them. They really are useless

[dx100uk]

and in the same vane, the FOS have said in the past that the old SLC form is ok to use.

 

 

dx

[Pluthero]

Have you got evidence that the FOS have ruled on the USE of DAF over use of original loan forms? I see none in their recent decisions??

 

The FOS are not ruling on the need/legality to use Erudio's DAF. In fact they are tripping over themselves with bizzare rulings over it. There are a number of FOS decisions recently that state it they see no reason why people are reluctant to sign the Erudio DAF. Here is an extract from an FOS decision:

 

'Firstly I can understand that Miss Z didn’t want to allow Erudio to carry out credit checks but Erudio has agreed that she can delete that portion. They have accepted that this was not part of the terms and conditions of her original loans. Like our adjudicator I believe that Erudio can share information that they hold on Miss Z. That said, our adjudicator confirmed that Erudio should remove any adverse data that has been recorded on Miss Z’s credit record. I believe this is a fair outcome.

 

However I can see no reason why Miss Z remains unwilling to sign and date the form.

She may well think this is bureaucratic and I accept that she has given Erudio the information needed to assess her application. But I don’t believe that asking her to sign and date a form is an unreasonable request, and helps Erudio to manage the deferral requests it receives.'

Now this is a perverse decision as Erudio have basically admitted to the FOS that the DAF's credit check section is outside the original loan terms and you can delete that SECTION! (Caught with their pants down AGAIN!) AND that Miss Z has supplied ENOUGH evidence for deferment. Yet in the same breath the FOS see no reason for someone to to sign and complete the DAF. A stunning conclusion!

 

The FOS are inept.

[silverfox1961]

I remember a while back that the new Erudio deferment forms had two parts to sign. One was for the deferment and the other was a DPA notice which erudio 'required' the student to sign. At the time, the recommendation was to not sign the form at all but after doing some more checks, I thought that the signing of the first part deferring the loan would do and not signing the DPA part.

 

I haven't seen any of the latest forms so they may have included the DPA part within the deferment process but I am just guessing here.

 

All that needs to be remembered is that when the pre 98 loans were transferred to erudio, the original T's & C's should have been followed and Erudio tried to move the goalposts.

[plong979]

So are the FOS saying you have use the Erudio DAF as part of their ruling or not? I am in same boat and expecting the same response from them. They really are useless

 

sorry been away for the weekend. i'll type out what they said...

 

should the DAF be completed?

 

Mr L says that there is no requirement for him to complete the DAF. He told us that he has already evidenced his income and that this would be enough for the previous owner of the student loans to process his deferment.

 

erudio says the its policy is that borrowers must complete its DAD so that is has all the necessary information to help it confirm that a borrower meets the deferment criteria. Whilst i accept that euridos commercial approach is different from the previous owners i do not think it has to follow the previous owners approach nor do i think it is unreasonable for eurdio to ask borrowers to complete the DAF.

 

I can't comment on individual cases where erudio may have processed deferments without a DAF being completed, this would be a commercial decision for the business. This service is unable to ask erudio to change it's policy or to instruct it to process Mr L's deferment without the DAF being completed. It follow that I don't uphold this part of the complaint.

the last paragraph seems to be a response to may comment about people being deferred without the form as well as a court case on the 6th March about it.

[plong979]

Anyone know what would happen if i accept the FOS decision but send in the original SLC DAF?

[dx100uk]

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

[plong979]

anybody got a link to the 97/98 SLC DAF? need to print it off and send it to Erudio

[dx100uk]

sri been out all day.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/assessment_of_deferment_applicat#incoming-562041

[plong979]

cheers dx.

[plong979]

Right I've sent off the acceptance response. Just need to wait for the FOS to tell the erudio i've accepted and they'll be in touch asking me to sign the DAF. So once that happens I'll send off the SLC DAF and then see what happens.

[plong979]

Update:

 

Well it's been over 4 weeks since I got a letter of the FOS telling me they got my acceptance. As a result I have emailed the FOS informing them erudio still haven't been in touch as the FOS wished to be informed if they failed to make contact in 4 weeks.

 

Just wish I never bothered to defer back in the day so it would be barred now.

[plong979]

Well finally got Erudio letter on Friday.

 

 

The handbook guide to fill out the DAF is 2 pages per page, in portrait so extra small text.

just printed off and stapled together. Very professional.

 

now the threshold is out,

going to print off the SLC daf

editing the monthly amount

and then I'll sign that and send it off.

 

 

Not happy about signing anything with these clowns to be honest,

 

 

even if it is the SLC daf.

[dx100uk]

simply do a slight change

 

 

dx

[plong979]

i take it you mean the sig?

[dx100uk]

:rockon:

[plong979]

Well they've got back in touch...with another form and letter kindly asking me to fill out and sign.

 

No reference to my SLC or even telling me I never signed thelr form.

 

Next steps?

 

1 - Write back saying I signed the SLC DAF and sent my P45 proving I have no income at the moment, including a cover letter saying I am travelling.

 

2 - Complaint back to the FOS saying I sent them proof along with the SLC DAF so I've agreed to the T&C I am bound by. Plus a few extra bits about the BIS sale.

3 - Ignore.

[dx100uk]

What form and from who?

 

Dx

[plong979]

Sorry, Erudio and their DAF.

[dx100uk]

Ask the fos

 

Seems like it might simply be autogenerated because the system thinks its yet to be done?

 

To they make ref to your dispute

 

Dx

[plong979]

Sound. I'll sort out another FOS form when I get moment. Cheers dx