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?

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

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."

I am concerned not to give too much detail on a public forum because they enemy may read what is on here. Of course I must weigh that against valuable advice people give here. It involves a CCA unfair relationship, poss claim against one company due to a breach by another and data protection issues. I am owed I was told that small claims are only for simple money claims, i.e I paid X and did not get Y. Or Z promised me £50 but has not paid, etc. Hope that helps

No I have not issued it yet because I am worried it will not be allocated to small claims. If I lose, I won't afford multi-track costs which can be £30,000+. What proportion of a trial costs are for the stages up to allocation? Would it cost more than a couple of grand?

I know the claim is well below the small claims limit, so I would be expecting it to be a small claim. However, the case is complex and the Judge can allocate it to the multitrack if he sees fit. Once you start claim, you cannot be sure it will be a small claim unless it is a very simple and straightforward issue. Once you start, you cannot pull out without costs. I have no clue how much costs up to allocation could actually be. If it is more than a couple of thousand, I would be in real trouble.

I am trying to consider the risks before I start anything I cannot afford to continue. The claim is complex involving s.140 Unfair relationship and data protection issues. Money owed by the lender is Anyway, I cannot be sure it will stay as a small claim, so what is the worst that can happen costs wise up to allocation? Withdrawl is seen as unreasonable so will they get all their costs? Could it be more than £2000?

If a claim is started for small sum against a financial corporation and for some reason it gets allocated to the multitrack then huge cost are payable for losing.. If it gets to allocation and you pull out then you must pay costs up to that point, but how much is it likely to be for a self litigant? I know it can vary but does anyone know of a case where this happened? Corporate lawyers costs hundreds per hour so I guess it could be thousands by the time they have filed a defence and allocation hearing?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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