student loans dont listen

[maybelline]

The Law Society - Find a solicitor

just rec'd a letter from above solicitor, it does not say who they are acting for so I am strictly guessing it is student loans, they say

'Please accept this letter as final reminder for payment. Unless you contact us IMMEIDATELY we will instruct a collector to call at your address to collect the outstanding payment.'

'be advised that no further warnings will be issued prior to our next action.'

from (no name)

to me that sounds like a threat, designed to intimidate 'cal at your address' no date or time of intention to call AND SINCE I OWE THEM NOTHING its more than irregular.

by the way, they expect to 'collect' over 3 thousands pounds!!????

I have already replied to persistent phonecalls with my evidence, but sadly without those 'missing' deferrment forms SLC do not listen.

[Thepower]

CCA right away (the student loan compant)!!!! that will put the "debt" in dispute

SLC are full of SH*T

[maybelline]

already done so months ago! I have copies of the agreements from them under Data Protection Act Subject Access Request and would expect to receive same from a CCA request.

they just do not accept that I deferred since for whatever reason it is not info available to them, they just keep bleating on about the rule, no form, no deferment!

[maybelline]

student loans, something really needs to be done about them, PLEASE HELP, mods, anyone who knows the law, is it right that they can have this additional term that states if they say they didnt get a deferment form, even though you fulfil the criteria under the signed agreement to not have to pay related to income and benefits - they can still treat you as not the case and accrue thousands of pounds in debt, fees etc??????

is this not unfair terms?

[maybelline]

Better Regulation Executive (BRE): Let us have your ideas:

[daveydavey]

another one

Better Regulation Executive (BRE): Let us have your ideas:

[maybelline]

so who is the Independent Assessor?

[maybelline]

this is taken from the Official Response -

Safeguards exist for disabled borrowers - for example they can apply for deferment for up to three years at a time if they can provide professional evidence that they will be unfit for work for the next three years Otherwise all borrowers who wish to defer repayments must apply for and be accepted for deferment annually. If borrowers have been ill and unable to action their deferment application, or if SLC has inadvertantly failed to process an application, SLC will treat the situation with as much discretion as they can.But to enable the exercise of discretion, it is essential the borrower maintains communication and engages with the system or has a nominated representative do so his behalf (if necessary).

I notice it does state that deferment can be for three years if you can provide professional evidence you will be unfit, I sent a letter explaining I would not be fit but no reply, all I get now, including today is an extremely rude woman talking to me like I am a murderer or something???!!!??

[maybelline]

so, the DIUS ministers
Ministerial Team - DIUS

from the response above

Undoubtedly the deferment process can be difficult all round, but SLC is obliged to comply with the government regulations for this provision. Given the large volume of forms dependent upon the postal system, it is unfortunately not surprising that some go astray and that some misunderstandings occur on both sides. DIUS is, however, working with the Student Loan Company to review procedures and gradually to implement process improvements, wherever possible.

[maybelline]

another one

Better Regulation Executive (BRE): Let us have your ideas:

[maybelline]

I have now made my complaint to SLC and to DIUS.

Close Credit still calling, being told politely to put their questions in writing and then ringing again immediately, continually, this is disgusting harrassement!

[LyncusBee]

Doubtless it's a computer system that just rotates a list and if the call is answered tries to connect to an available call centre operative; they themselves doubtless have no way to remove you from the queue so it just goes on and on. The most annoying thing is that no-one can be held responsible as they don't know who's going to be on the end of the phone or how many times you've been rung

A recent example was a car insurance company, my partner asked for a quote and having got one (which wasn't wanted) they rung our landline up to 8 times a day for two days to try and put the sales pitch across, I had to just keep telling them she wasn't in it seemed to me each caller had no idea if the system had rung previously.

The TPS doesn't seem to mean squat these days, the services industries are way out of order with telephony usage. Harrassment is just an attempt to force copitulation out of a court by causing undue stress.

If SLC and associated 3rd parties can use harrassment tactics then what does that say to the rest of the private sector services industries since they are supposed to be working directly on behalf of the Government

[maybelline]

sadly was the same person, I had to tell them to stop harrassing me!

[LyncusBee]

I would definately start logging the call times get their names and keep a record.

Send them a letter (recorded delivery signed etc) using ThePower's post here and adapt it, the first section Re: Telephone Harrassment then if it continues you can prove that you have made it absolutely clear to them you wish to deal with the matter in writing only...

See below thread for the template HTH

CCA request - is it 12 working days or 12 calendar days?

[maybelline]

thanks LnycusBee, I have rec'd copies but am disputing the detb, they say no deferment ever received, pity they didnt say that years ago??? but will send anyway as they are still calling despite my complaint to the email supplied by DIUS Public Communications Unit.

[maybelline]

Safeguards exist for disabled borrowers - for example they can apply for deferment for up to three years at a time if they can provide professional evidence that they will be unfit for work for the next three years Otherwise all borrowers who wish to defer repayments must apply for and be accepted for deferment annually. If borrowers have been ill and unable to action their deferment application, or if SLC has inadvertantly failed to process an application, SLC will treat the situation with as much discretion as they can.But to enable the exercise of discretion, it is essential the borrower maintains communication and engages with the system or has a nominated representative do so his behalf (if necessary).

this section admits they do fail to process and I have been arguing this to no avail for years!? now they are taking me to court ****

[daveydavey]

Maybelline, have you tried the formal complaints procedure ? you can email the complaints & this will suspend any collection action. If it's a pre-1998 loan, you can now take the complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman once the three internal stages of complaint have been exhausted. I was very pleasantly surprised, at the third stage of complaint (at executive level), the SLC backtracked & removed the charges & moved the 'arrears' created out of a non-processed deferment application to the amount outstanding on the loan, & instructed the debt collection agency to stop harassing me for 'arrears'. *case won! *

If you start the complaints process, until this has been exhausted they would be unlikely to win any Court case, you simply say the case is being dealt with by the formal complaints procedure & you cannot reasonably be expected to pay arrears while this is being processed. Were you on benefits ? you can also argue that if you are on IS / JSA / DLA that these benefits are inalienable under the Social Security Administration Act & cannot be legally claimed, a ludicrous situation as if you were on benefits for the non-deferred period your income was well below the repayment threshold.
PM me or post here for more info.

[maybelline]

yes, I'm pretty sure I did, using the complaints email address but they just say 'no deferment form traced so no deferment allowed' , thanks for your reply, this is really interesting, so I will have to take it to FOS then?!

great news re your case won - yes, on benefits and then pre 98 so expires after a certain age, but say only if no arrears but of course there should be no arrears as I met all the criteria

[maybelline]

checking my records it seems I complained both to SLC and to Dfes who merely reiterated the no deferment form argument. so I have had no reply whatsoever from SLC sent in Nov last year.