Student Loans Company

[Falkirk1298]

I know we've spoken about these idiots before but I've recently set up a forum to discuss their ineptitude in more detail. Hopefully it will come to provide the same measure of information and support as CAG does, but in this much more specific area. There's nothing there at the moment, but the publicity drive is about sto start!

 

http://studentloanshell.myfastforum.org/index.php

[dave]

If you would prefer, we can set up a sub-section for student loans here if you want.

[Falkirk1298]

You know, that would be a brilliant idea!

[maybelline]

a subsection would be great! Just started getting harrassed by SLC again despite replying to them, I have always been deferred because of low income and then disability, they are asking for £2351.00!!!

[noobrider]

I would be very interested in the Student loans fiasco. They have been chasing me for over 10 years...I thought the 6 year thing may have some effect.

[maybelline]

mine is also over 10 years old, I remember laughing at the time when I learnt that if the earnings threshold had not been reached by the time former student became 50 it became void? Of course we would all have wonderful careers and be rich, no problem, however, for some of us, other stuff happened - does anyone remember this clause or is that a myth??

[maybelline]

threat of legal action now?!

 

okay I know I dont owe them anything as I have always been under the earnings limit and disabled for several years also, despite informing them they are threatening legal action, I dont want them putting a ccj on my file for their mistake so do I a) ring them b) write again c) dont know??

 

any advice

[dolly]

Have you done a CCA request for proof of debt? I have...and they haven't sent one as yet (mine was taken out in 1991) so at this time it is unenforceable......

[maybelline]

Took my first top-up loan out in 1992 then one each year for the three years study but I have replied during the last 12 months to their statements and letters asking for payment stating my situation, they have not sent a deferrment form or acknowledged my communication other than pursuing the sum of over 2K in what they call missed payments. I could send a DPA request and evidence of my benefits again. I assumed they are in touch because I have responded but why wouldnt I when I dont owe them the money. thanks for your response. sorry, is it uneforceable because more than six years or because they did not answer the CCA proof thingy?

[dolly]

is it uneforceable because more than six years or because they did not answer the CCA proof thingy?

 

Have a good read through this thread....it should help you more than me!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/10900-loan-company-cannot-supply.html

[maybelline]

thanks dolly, really usefull:)

[kavinandi]

Has anyone actually managed to claim back charges from the SLC???

[Falkirk1298]

I set this forum up a a while back but haven't done much with it.

 

studentloanshell.myfastforum.org :: Index

 

However with a new crop of "victims" having to deal with this shower now, in advance of going to college or university for the first time, it would seem appropriate to take it forward. I've also included a section for the Student Awards Agency for Scotland and will add another for funding bodies from elsewhere in the UK.

 

I'm planning a mailshot and postering the various student bodies around the country; I used to be a Communications Manager in the chemicals industry so I know how to run a campaign!

 

I'm still open to suggestions though, is this worth taking forward?

 

J

[Giveitback]

CCA - unfortunately, I've just found out that they aren't bound by the Consumer Credit Act, so having an unenforceable debt goes out of the window. I'm sick opf them too, as they always lose documentation, and use that excuse to charge you and come after you.

 

At one point I actualy agreed to pay the 'arrears' that didn't exist, if they'd send me a DD form. They never managed that though.

 

Still, they must be bound by some regulation somewhere, so the trck is going to be to find the legislation that binds them.

 

If anyone finds anything, post it here, I'll be working on it too.

[livity]

Giveitback, when did you take out your student loan? I read elsewhere on this site that the CCA applies to the SLC on loans taken out prior to 1998 so you might be in luck... don't quote me, though...

 

Livity

[Giveitback]

hey

 

Yeah pre-1998 are bound by CCA. And for the first time ever, they managed to do what I asked - ie send the copy of the agreement. Still. Was fun while it lasted. Now I'm just after the penalty charges.

[daisy_bumbleroot]

Sorry to be a ignoramus, but can someone please briefly explain what this CCA business is and how it relates to getting charges back from SLC or student debts... i took my loan out in 1998...

[kokomar]

OK really briefly under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) you have a right to ask the creditor to prove the debt by sending you a true (that means signed by you) copy of the original agreement along with any other document mentioned therein (I think) ie terms and conditions. If they can't provide this within the time limit specified in the Act in theory they can't enforce the debt (this bit really complicated, ask a professional) BUT from the 1998 Education Act (sorry can't remember full name) onwards student loans are not governed by the CCA. The process is meant to be a failsafe to ensure the wrong people aren't chased for money they don't owe, not an easy-out to avoid paying debts we do know we owe but would rather forget about.

 

Question of my own: Has anyone actually gone through the whole reclaiming unfair charges process on their student loan(s) and won? All the threads I've found just seem to mysteriously stop .....

[nikkiandmidgets]

I am interested in this too cos my mum is currently paying £30 a month to Student loans after being chased by them and a company called JB Debt Recovery. Her current salary is £17000 and this is the highest she has ever been on. Her account number on her student loan starts with 96FD so I am guessing that means the loan was taken out in 96. She never received any deferment forms from then and said she was not aware she had to request them and fill them in annually. The leter from SLC mentions the following ' We are advised that a Notice of Default under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has been sent to you and has now expired'. and 'PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR ENTITLEMENT TO DEFERMENT OF LOAN REPAYMENTS HAS CEASED AS A RESULT OF THE NECESSITY TO ISSUE THIS LETTER'. She had not heard anything from the SLC since leaving college until they suddenly started chasing her for the whole loan. She wrote to them saying she did not earn enough but they just told her she hadnt deferred so she was liable to pay the whole loan now, plus any costs\charges. She even tried getting CAB involved but was basically told she had to pay it. Any ideas if she can claim this money back and get the payments stopped till she does reach the minimum income? She is 54 so probably wont ever earn enough to pay it off. Any advice appreciated.

[Giveitback]

nikki. try a CCA request. They'll probably get their act together in time. But then look at regulations regarding defaults and do a DPA on them. Seems likely to me that they just never sent the original letters - they have a habit of just making stuff up and losing important documents. I'll try to post back more later to help.

 

My story is above, I'm sure. I hit them for a CCA and it took them about 35 days to get it back to me.

But they actually did, which is a first. looks like they know these rules and risks.

[nikkiandmidgets]

Thanks Giveitback. I have typed up a combined CCA and DPA request so will be posting it off for her tomorrow once I get the post office so will update once I know more. I've got my own thread that I am updating on this so I dont hijack this one!

[livity]

Question of my own: Has anyone actually gone through the whole reclaiming unfair charges process on their student loan(s) and won? All the threads I've found just seem to mysteriously stop .....

Yeah, I have - more through luck than skill. As far as I can recall, the Company has waithdrawn or refunded every charge they've ever applied against me, about one charge every two years for ten years, with an increase this year. Maybe 6 - 9 charges?

 

At first I contested the charges because I felt they'd been "engineered", eg. the Company claimed not to have received a letter from me, I'd tell them the letter was sent recorded delivery and was signed for by Jock Tamson at 09:17 last Tuesday, they'd drop the charge.

 

By last year I'd had enough of this nonsense - I had a well paid job, more important things to do than write a never ending stream of letters to the Company. When the Company manufactured its next charge I paid it. The Company's response was to increase the charge! I was so outraged, I did what I should have done a long time ago...

 

...I got mesel' a little legal education. Online, at the library, chatting to lawyers (you can imagine how surprised I was when I was told that the charges were "almost certainly unlawful, and possibly criminal")...

 

And in the process of learning about the law, I stumbled across this website.

 

Anyway, on topic, I reckon the safest thing to do with charges from the Company is: pay them. You give yourself valuable peace of mind knowing that you may end up suing them, rather than worrying that they may sue you. For added fun, enclose a "letter before action" with your cheque... ;-) Expect them to repay you just before your intended date to start court proceedings (they do tend to cut it very fine). I recommend setting time limits in your letters (after all, they do it too) - first ten days to refund you, then seven days to refund you or you will start court proceedings. Don't be too surprised if you don't receive a response to your first letter, keep at it.

 

Good luck!

[kokomar]

Thanks Livity you've given me a big confidence boost. I sent the SAR this morning although I'm only missing 2 statements so really it was delaying action on my part, it's a lot easier on the nerves to follow in other's footsteps than to blaze a trail yourself. Will start a new thread and stop hijacking this one!

 

On a more general subject I'm a neurotic hoarder and have kept not only the original agreements but also some of the changes to terms and conditions, and sale of student loans notification letters. Would the text of these be useful to anyone else looking into the legalities of their student loans? If there's a demand I'll type it all up and post a "letters from the SLC" thread. Won't bother if nobody asks though (I do have a life - at least I did I'm not sure where I put it since finding this site!).

[Kidson]

Anyway, on topic, I reckon the safest thing to do with charges from the Company is: pay them. You give yourself valuable peace of mind knowing that you may end up suing them, rather than worrying that they may sue you. For added fun, enclose a "letter before action" with your cheque... ;-) Expect them to repay you just before your intended date to start court proceedings (they do tend to cut it very fine). I recommend setting time limits in your letters (after all, they do it too) - first ten days to refund you, then seven days to refund you or you will start court proceedings. Don't be too surprised if you don't receive a response to your first letter, keep at it.

 

Good luck!

It has been suggested elsewhere on this board, if they sue you the onus is on them to prove their charges are not excessive etc ~ whilst if you pay and then sue, the onus is on you to prove they are wrong.

 

Food for thought?

[livity]

It has been suggested elsewhere on this board, if they sue you the onus is on them to prove their charges are not excessive etc ~ whilst if you pay and then sue, the onus is on you to prove they are wrong.

 

Food for thought?

Wow, definitely. Though I suspect they might be sneaky, and try and add the charge to the amount owed... best follow up with a data protection request (subject access request? been all of a year since I last did it...), just to confirm they're behaving.