Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Drydens PAP letter of claim - old SLC Loan now with erudio


ken gunnel
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1749 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I like many others objected to Erudio's new terms and conditions that I had to accept if I wanted to defer my student loan.

 

before the deadline I used the template letter and sent in my proof of earnings, but they just ignored me.

 

I sent it in again with another letter, and a note to say I didn't like being ignored.

 

They just ignored me.

 

Then they sent a default notice, giving me X number of days to contact them, the start date of these days was about a week before they posted it.

 

I wrote them another letter disputing the default and objecting to their inability to post letters on time.

 

Now they have terminated the loan and demand full payment in 7 days, yet again sent late.

 

Any ideas of how to deal with what appears to be a best slack, at worst criminal company?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

They must have a game plan, why else refuse to defer people?

 

I sent everything recorded, so I can prove to a court that I've kept up with my obligations, but Erudio just ignored me.

 

Pretty slack, or obtaining money by deception?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Year before I used a solicitor to force them to defer my loan - my contractural right after all.

 

This time I decided to just send the letters myself - I don't see why I should have to pony up £700 solicitors fees every year just because some chancers working out of a tax haven want to earn easy money.

 

When solicitor was on the case plenty of response, but they've ignored me, which won't look good in court I'd have thought?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

But I can't be in arrears if i've been terminated??

 

I feel like the whole plan is to mess everyone around and then scare them in to paying.

 

I guess I should reply to their latest letters pointing out that I have twice sent them proof of earnings?

 

But when I do write they just ignore me.

 

We need proper financial regulation in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose sooner or later they'll try to take me to court, that's if the loans are actually enforceable?

 

We've all been missold over these,

the promise that having one would not effect your credit or access to other financial products,

and that they were a special sort of loan from the government,

not from a loan shark working out of a tax haven and that if you did not earn enough,

you'd not have to pay, all lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

From another forum:

 

"The saga over Erudio's (and the mysterious 'Erudio Customer Management Ltd') FCA authorisation continues. Their interim permission with the FCA has now lapsed, so they're no longer authorised and are acting illegally if they continue conducting regulated business (put Erudio in search box here):

 

http://fca-consumer-credit-interim.force.com/CS_RegisterSearchPageNew"

 

So if Erudio are no longer FCA authorised, can they continue to run the loans?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But on their website it says:

 

"Erudio Student Loans Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for certain credit-related regulated activities. It is registered on the Financial Services Register under registration number 659653"

 

Does having a shareholder with FCA authorisation allow Erudio not to bother?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Arrow Global Group PLC (the "Group"), one of Europe's leading purchasers and managers of debt, is pleased to announce that its wholly owned subsidiaries Arrow Global Limited, Arrow Global Legh Limited, Arrow Global Massey Limited, and Capquest Debt Recovery Limited have received their full Financial Conduct Authority (the "FCA") authorisation." (http://www.arrowglobalir.net/news/rns/id/657)

 

No mention of Erudio??

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Details of Project Ariel

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xir2wotrbc6n5s5/Consortium%20Project%20Ariel%20-%20redacted%20for%20FoI%20release%20v2.pdf?dl=0

 

"only qualifying customers who follow the relevant procedures, will successfully exercise their deferment rights under the loans"

 

"The Consortium expects to enable full credit bureau reporting of the loans"

 

"Seeking third party validation of key data"

 

etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I suppose they started out by trying to scare people into paying up by pretending that they were going to report the loans to the CRAs, then tried to get people to sign up to new T&Cs with the DAF.

 

Now the gloves are off and they are abusing (by using old addresses) the court system to cash in?

 

Given all the assurances and promises we were given when we signed up to these loans - we were all mis-sold?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these student loans any different to any other debt ?

 

They were sold to us as being special, and parliament, loans with specific terms that only needed to be repaid if a certain income level was reached, and loans from a special state backed organisation.

 

How many would have signed up if they knew down the line they'd be sold to loan sharks working out of a tax haven?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I tried to defer my loan under the conditions of it back in 2015, and despite sending a couple of follow up letters, didn't hear a thing back.

 

Next up Erudio cancelled it.

 

My solicitor tells me they are in breach of contract, so easy enough to defend if the decide to take me to court.

 

Then 4 years of statements, but nothing else.

 

Now I have Capquest hounding me (still Arrows).

 

If I reply to them does that reset the 6 year statute barred thing?

 

Given it's bound to end up in court I feel I should reply to their fairly tame but misleading letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...