Hi JonCorzine Just read your post, don't know if anyone's mentioned to you yet, but Erudio are at it with the response they've given you. The quote in their letter is from the 1997 Regulations, which were replaced by the 1998 Regs. The important difference is that the 1997 regs required us to "satisfy the lender" that income's below the threshold (so Erudio could argue they require the DAF). But the 1998 regs only say we must "show" the lender, so proof of income's enough to do that, no DAF needed. HTH

plong979 If Erudio didn't say already, get them to confirm in writing that all collection activity on your account will be put on hold while they 'investigate' your complaint, otherwise there's a good chance they'll add more arrears over the 8 weeks!

But if deferment's not in place, then repayments are due, and they are entitled to put your account in arrears. Do you know for sure that a court would think it unreasonable for Erudio to insist that you sign a declaration to warrant your declared income? Or that they require the standard form for their own administrative purposes? IMO, neither of those amount to ignoring the law or regulations. I didn't give Erudio the opportunity to claim I had arrears on my account, and I'm still challenging them on the deferment form... I don't see anything wrong with that approach.

It's the implied changes to t&c's on Erudio's form that are the threat, not the arrears - they are putting people's accounts in arrears, which they'll claim they're entitled to do if deferment's not in place, regardless of any objections you have to signing the form. Erudio want deferrers to have arrears on their accounts, because then they will recall the whole loan, and say the debt can no longer be cancelled. What better way to turn a debt they can't legally touch (and one that's due to be cancelled off in a few years) into one they can hound the "defaulter" for? I think what zohar has done is infinitely more sensible than digging your heels in about signing the form, you're signing to certify your declared income, be clear it's nothing more. The implied changes to terms is something we will have to fight Erudio on, whether the form's signed or not. Why have the extra stress of arrears, and no doubt threats to recall the loan, if you can avoid it?

Thanks for this, although I was more looking for something concrete from Erudio that they've backed down. They've been telling people one thing and then another since this whole sorry affair started at the sell off. Now they've said once, in their reply to me, that a DD's not required, they can't reasonably say that another borrower on the same conditions has to supply DD details? Erudio seem to be inventing their own criteria, when all they're legally required/entitled to do is grant deferment.

@ Skhat, Yes, they are - 1990 to 1992.

Not sure if you meant mine, but I'll say thanks anyway!

That's good news about Erudio backing down on the DD - can I ask where you saw that, as I thought Erudio were still insisting on it (it's in my complaint to the FOS!). I worried whether scoring out would be ok legally, but the only part of the form I did it was the DD statement, and that's sorted now. The FPN I removed, so it's not part of my form. I did read some OFT guidance that mentioned scoring through parts of a contract, the way it read they considered it acceptable? No idea how the courts feel about it though.

Well, technically I don't think Martin's got that quite right. Section 16 on disclosure of data says: The Loan Act prohibits us from discussing information about you to anyone else for the use of soliciting custom for goods and services. The Data Protection Act 1984 also contains protections in relation to the disclosure of automatically processed information about you. Subject to these prohibitions and protections, and any other statutory provisions, we may however, if we judge appropriate, disclose to any person any information concerning or relating to this agreement. To be subject to the provisions, notice has to be given through a privacy notice/FPN (SLC never did, Erudio are trying to), stating the purpose for holding/using the data (not mentioned in the clause), who it'll be disclosed to ("any person" doesn't cut it), and consent has to be given by the data subject (which we haven't previously given). Erudio said in their response to my complaint that as I was on the pre-1998 agreement, I didn't have to consent to the FPN to be granted deferment. But Erudio only bought pre-1998 loans, the old mortgage style ones, so why would they need the FPN for the post-1998 loans when they didn't buy any? I also remember reading on the forums that anyone with a mix of the old and new loans were staying with the SLC, they'd continue to administer those loans. So why bother including the FPN if Erudio are so sure they don't need our consent?

zohar The main things you need to be concerned about on the form are the DD mandate on page 2 and the Fair Processing Notice (FPN), bottom of page 5 & page 6. The DD mandate has a statement at the top re: it being a requirement during deferment and failing to maintain a DD will be a breach of your agreement - this is Erudio trying to impose a new term, as the loan agreement and regs only require a DD for repayments, not during deferment. I got around it by blacking it out and writing next to it that I didn't agree to it as it was a change to my original loan agreement. Erudio have upheld this part of my complaint, apologised for it, but I'm still including it in my FOS complaint as they didn't explain why they thought it was reasonable to insist on it, or acknowledge the fact I was forced to set it up until they backed down. Not everyone agrees with setting up the DD, but Erudio couldn't claim I was in arrears while it was in place, no payments were taken and the DD's cancelled now deferment's in place. The FPN is the other issue, it states by signing the form (which is also your certificate and warranty on declared income), you are consenting to everything in the FPN (credit searches, disclosing your deferred loans to CRA's, etc). Erudio insist they already have the right to disclose our data because of section 16 in the loan agreement, IMO that's not enough and breaking a fair few Data Protection provisions if they go ahead and disclose my data. Sneaking the consent in with your warranty at section 9 of the form is also a breach of the DPA. Again, others think Erudio already have the right to disclose our data. I removed the FPN completely from my form by blanking out the bottom of p.5, photocopying it and leaving out all of p6. Wrote that I didn't consent to the FPN or the disclosure of deferred loan data and that my signature related only to the warranty at section 9. Erudio haven't backed down on the FPN/CRA issue, which is no surprise, so I've included it in my FOS complaint. So far, not even a search on my credit file (as far as I can see, Erudio need to get consent to that too, as it's not covered in the loan agreement or legislation, so it's important to remove all of the FPN, not just the part on disclosure of data). As for the rest of the form (if you decide to complete it!), most have only given the info supplied on the old SLC form, none of the extra Erudio are asking for. And yes, I signed the form, making it clear that the signature only related to my certificate and warranty. I read through the forums too before deciding how to go about it, decided to make deferment the priority as I was worried about going into arrears. My deferment went through in around 3 weeks. Hope some of this helps, it's not easy finding specific answers on the forums, or deciding what to do once you've found them!

shedder - I received the same letter today and have just posted on mse: (sorry can't post links yet) In case the link doesn't work: "I've also received a letter today, I think it's in response to my original letter received by T-Mobile on 9 April. Seems just a generic response, but what strikes me is that, unlike the written notice, it is specifically dated 10 April 2013, and states "The rise is in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI) which is currently at 3.3%". To me, this is definitive proof that they are simply quoting the incorrect rate, rather than the future one?" I think it certainly helps our case.

Is your letter from them dated April 2013? Then I believe you have a chance of winning, please look closely at the wording of clause 7.2.3.3, then don't budge... they've cocked up big time Re: credit file - I challenged Vodafone a few years back over a contractual issue (less clear cut than this one) and won - I hadn't paid for 2-3 months and wrote to the credit reference agency to have it deleted, which they did. But if the credit rating is an issue to you, or you're not sure about the outcome, I wouldn't recommend this route - put the call into CS (t&C's say you have to call) and leave it at that, or refer to CISAS, your credit rating won't be affected then. I'm hoping there will be a ton of complaints to the relevant people, it only takes one to be found in favour of the consumer and that will apply to anyone who put a valid request in to cancel.

That's a very interesting response from T-Mobile, in that if that's the best they can come up with in over a week of complaints and cancellation requests, they're in more trouble than I thought... I'm not sure if what they're saying in their reply is we can pick any RPI figure in the last 12 months, or if they're still blindly insisting that February is the month before April! Regardless, their interpretation of their own terms is inaccurate - it's not the RPI in "any 12 month period", but the 12 month period in the month before the written notice is sent, as you've rightly pointed out to them in your reply back. An additional thought - the written notice actually states they've increased due to inflation and at RPI, "currently" at 3.3% - this proves that they've used what they thought was the latest RPI rate, rather than cherry-picked any RPI rate from the previous 12 months. By their own admission to you (and by the Customer Advisor I spoke to when I first phoned to cancel), they've used the RPI figure released in February, which of course would be the current rate if their letter had gone out in March. Unfortunately for them, they waited until April and in doing so, they've opened up the cancellation clause. Have they replied again on Facebook?

I phoned Customer Services yesterday to give notice that I wished to cancel both of my contracts in accordance with clause 7.2.3.3 and, of course, they refused. So I am now at the stage of having written a letter of formal complaint, which I'll post tomorrow. I'm of the opinion that they are in breach of contract if they refuse my request to cancel without penalty, so intend to refer my complaint to CISAS if need be. I'm really not sure where we stand on keeping the phone... both of mine were purchased via third parties (e.g. mobiles.co.uk) and were 'free' with the contracts - not sure if the phones are classed as gifts, as they're free, and therefore yours to keep?

T-Mobile are increasing prices by 3.3%, stating they have used the Retail Price Index, currently at 3.3%. This rate is incorrect as it is the figure for January; the latest figure on the ONS website is 3.2%. The RPI data for March won't be released by the ONS until 16 April; besides T-Mobile's terms and conditions clearly state that it is the RPI percentage rate in the month before the written notice of the price increase is sent: so if your letter is dated and received in April, the current rate is the one released by ONS on 19 March - 3.2%. Clause 7.2.3 of T-Mobile’s terms and conditions allows the customer to terminate the agreement within the minimum term without having to pay a cancellation charge if: “The change that We gave you Written Notice of in point 7.1.4 is an increase in Your Price Plan Charge (as a percentage) higher than any increase in the Retail Price Index (also calculated as a percentage) for the 12 months before the month in which We send You Written Notice and You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement before the change takes effect. (7.2.3.3)”. As the price increase is higher than than the current RPI percentage rate, you are entitled to terminate the contract without penalty, provided the written notice received from T-Mobile is dated April 2013.