LyncusBee Vs SLC

[LyncusBee]

Hi all,

Well after wranglings with both the Co-Op and Halifax banks since claiming charges and them stopping my facilities, which I am currently in complaint about; I have another unexpected shock on the phone today.

A representative from the SLC collections dep't contacted me with regard arrears totalling a year of support, claiming never to have received deferments. After some confusion it transpires the conversation was with regard a loan dating back to 1993!

I am a student currently and have been in receipt of full support for the last 3 years , being in my 4th and final year now. During this time and previous periods they have had valid and current contact details for me.

In an effort to keep this concise and with some brevaty, I shall laydown the facts I have gleaned from them so far and my proposed defence for your more learned than my examinations.

I received the loan in '93, since which time it has never been defferred nor payments made to the account.

No communications were sent to me at the addresses supplied during my residences regard the '93 account, though I had another loan in '96 and now since '04 for both of which the contacts, paperwork, deferments etc. have been kept up to date.

I have been told that I cannot defer the '93 loan since 'It has reached maturity' and is therefore in arrears requiring my payment. I am unsure what they mean exactly by 'matured'.

I have also been told that the '93 account was held seperately from my other accounts and this is why the addresses I have supplied have not been appended to the '93 account! They rung me on my mobile number which is held on my current '04 account?

The last communication from SLC regard the '93 account was sent Jan' 2001; over 6 years ago as elapsed Jan' 2007.

Originally it was intimated to me that non-payment of the '93 account could effect further funding until I firmly asked for clarification when I was informed that since I was in my last year it would not since it had already been agreed; I only have this verbally though.

MY DEFENCE PROPOSAL

To claim the '93 loan as stutute limited utilising a standard response template from this excellent source. Being pre '98 and therefore subject to Consumer Credit Act. Also no deferments, payments or otherwise admissions to this debt have been made in 14 years.

To POSSIBLY make a CCA request, but am unsure hopw it would affect the former or other content in such a letter?

To further point out that if the account had been seperated and the adresses not updated they have had ample opportunity to contact me until now and that this is not reasonably a circumstance that could have been known to me; I have fulfilled my consumer responsibilities in keeping them up to date with contact details. The maladministration of the '93 account is entirely their hands and I was never notified about any such circumstance.

So I appreciate any help, a CCA would be useful as I simply have no record of the original contract and thus whether a statute limitation would be successful, however, I am not knowledgable enough to know whether it would affect anything else or be taken as an admission of debt?

I feel I have a strong case here, in fact the only reasonable explanation is that the SLC just never bothered to corelate the accounts; I don't see that as my resoponsibility.

TIA

[maybelline]

well your right, it seems a right old mess! looks like the main issue is the chasing up of the old loan 93. I am not very far into the legalities side of this as I have another very big case ongoing and also need to weed out the exact law in relation to what they are doing, they seem to think they are in some way exempt, if I find anything I will come back.

[maybelline]

http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/medi...heet%20182.pdf

found this, I am going to try the complaint advice.

[maybelline]

http://www.slc.co.uk/pdf/complaintsleafletmay05.pdf

[LyncusBee]

Yes I have been intimated to, by my University's support services, that the NUS (If you are a current student) is your due representation upon such matters but like any reasonable person I try to take the course of reasonable complaint first: Though I am led to beleive, considering the posts I am reading here, that the SLC has devolved to a similar state with which one expects procrastination and penalties akin to the high street banks, utilities etc. companies.

Firstly I have to purport that if a government funded scheme such as the SLC, being the only finacial support option into further education is being allowed currently to enforce `penalty charges' in the form of reminder letters, then this adds evidence to the contest that the OFT's current challenges to the high street banks through the High Court case of 'specifics of law' is tokenry: Given that if a government funded and regulated credit scheme, such as that of the SLC Ltd is now being allowed to impose such charges, surely this can be taken to mean that if such a company is allowed by the state to adopt similar schema of charges then such a challenge to like charges becomes meaningless?!

Oh politcal rant over then.

I do thank you, sincerely, for the informations; the former I haven't read, so thanks for that, the latter I have read but hold little confidence to it being adhered to but at least one can quote it in a defence if their customer target claims are not adhered to; every little helps!

I shall read and absorb, being the best we normal folk can do. Not being a legal expert, yet becoming more learned through this forum, I rely of course on the responses of the more learned on this forum.

[LyncusBee]

Unbeleive, to day I receive a letter dated 31st Oct, that has the you owe us etc. but with the addition of £80 of charges un catagorised just `Charges: £80.00'

Needless to say I'm going to be on the phone wanting explanations but I am getting the feeling that telephone conversations are getting ignored and I don't trust that notepads will get dutifully added either so I am going to tell them and record all conversations; I have done this with the banks before and I strongly recommend it, just ensure you state so at the very start of the conversation....

Watch this space

[LyncusBee]

OK am going to send this in the post recorded delivery tomorrow so if anyone can advise me if I'm doing the wrong thing at all tonight would be most aprreciated

I am writing in response to your letter dated 31st October 2007 regard loan account number ***********

Having spoken to two representatives of SLC on the 1st November firstly to one `****’ at 13:00hrs, and secondly to one `****’ at 14:00hrs; I have been informed of the following facts regard this account:

The last communiqué sent by SLC regard this account was in January of 2001.

The last address updated to this account was in 2002 by traced first contact.

No addresses as given by me and held by yourselves regard accounts **********, and ********, the latter being my current undergraduate studies support of over three years, were associated with the aforementioned 1993 account. This was due to the account being held separately for some reason unbeknown to me, thus leading to no correspondence being sent to the correct addresses for over six years and with my having fulfilled my obligations to inform SLC of address changes.

The 1993 account appears to be the only account which has not been kept up to date since both my other accounts have deferments applied dutifully by myself. It is my opinion that the 1993 account has been mis-administered and in a manner which is outside of my informed knowledge and reasonable obligations under applicable consumer credit legislation. Further that the SLC has been in receipt of contact details for, at least, over three years and possibly as long as ten years, within which time this matter could have been discussed by any standard model of business practices.

In order that I may make an informed decision and consult the appropriate legislation and representation in this matter, I am hereby making a Subject Access Request under of the Data Protection Act 1998, alsoa request fordetailed copies of any Default notices issued, also a request for an original contract signed by myself and executed by SLC under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s77. I enclose a postal order for the sum of £10.00 in respect of the former. I expect this information to be received by myself at the address given at the head of this letter in the applicable legislated time frames for such responses.


Lastly I note that a sum of £80.38 of `charges’ has been applied to the 1993 account without details regard the reason for, or time of, their application. I am not aware of any time that I have been sent any information regards the SLC's right to make such charges or the structure thereof and would therefore like to be sent such.

I trust that further actions regard this matter will be sisted until I have all the information and appropriate time has elapsed with which to exercise my consumer rights to consultation and advice as due process.

Yours Faithfully,


So hopefully they'll be off my back for upto 40 days for starters.....?

[LyncusBee]

Ok I have decided it would be more prudent to send the Subject Access Request and CCA requests by strict templates and seperately by recorded delivery; apart from the SLC's magnificent capacity to lose mail recorded or otherwise, I don't want anything to be held as improper due to the semantics... I will still be sending my letter minus the requests, lets just hope the recipients can tie it all together..

By the way I don't seem able to find SLC listed in Financial Institutions in the auto Subject Access Request generator?... Do I have to find the SLC's data controller or can I post it to the Collections manager who wrote to me?.... wow this takes up time

[maybelline]

have a read of the education (student loans) act, I think, correct me if needs be that slc are the loans administrator and the lender of the money is the government, the slc can appoint a third party if they desire it and they can apply charges for the cost of administering the loan, also the interest charges, how they are applied is all written in the act and regulations.

that is why challenging them is so difficult, however, that does not mean there is no room to challenge their mistakes!

[LyncusBee]

Duly noted with thanks; I'll re-think that part... Yes it is very much a difficult animal to deal with as much of it is wrapped up in legislation and so isn't really directly communicated to the individual as would be required of a high street bank.

I think my best approach is to keep things as succinct and templated as possible; it's natural for one to want to embelish with their feelings of ill-done-by, which I wholly support complaining that is, but I think the more one thinks like a lawyer the better and so keeping it to the minimum responses required to get what is needed is probably the more prudent approach.

[LyncusBee]

Just found this guide from the NUS everything helps

http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/medi...heet%20182.pdf

[LyncusBee]

I sent two requests, one for a CCA request to SLC and one S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request to their data controller including a £1 and £10 PO Cheque for each. Both were from templates and detailed to the points of legislation and requirements thereof.

Unbelievably I got a letter today telling me they need more specifics about what I require from an S.A.R / CAR Request and that they note:

`that you have requested copies of the credit agreements. If you require any further information please specify this in as much detail as possible to enable us to identify the information requested.'

The letter was Re: the wrong account number. There was no pre-paid envolope included (it's going recorded anyway), they want a cheque for £10 they already have had £11!

Now is it me or does that paragraph quoted make any sense; any further information about the specifics, I have askled for a true copy of my Credit Agreement for the 93 loan they are chasing me for... what is non-specific about that?!

I am going to write back and detail in terms that a mollusk could understand , also can anyone point me to the actual sections of legislation CCA (s77-79) maybe the old ODPM website? So I can quote this to them. As far as I am concerned I am holding them to the original date they received the request as there is nothing amiguous about it.

As far as I am concerned they are just digging themselves a poor defense when I take this to a laywer.

[maybelline]

I would ask for any and all information they hold on you, specify this and the cheque or po details having already paid. if you go to Information Commissioners Office website they should have the particular section under which they must provide this, but I suspect you have this. good luck.

[LyncusBee]

Oh they have had both Subject Access Request and CCA request specifically asking for all informations interactions etc as in the template.

Interestingly they claim in their letter the information they hold is:

Name
Birth Details
Current Address
Loan Account Number/Student Support Number
Current Bank Details

Anything else I must specifically ask for, which lets face it is being pedantic. The CCA they are seeming to try to claim is part of the S.A.R and not a seperate request.

[rory32]

If they wish clarification (although they are just playing sillY b*ggers and the 40 days still applies for the Subject Access Request) you could send them the following:

Re clarification of information required as a result of my Subject Access Request.

Please supply me with all information you may have registered about my accounts with your company. In particular I request information which includes, but is not limited to, a true legible copy of the original application forms and a true legible copy of the actual executed agreements as well as statements of the accounts from the opening date of these accounts to the present date.

I also request to see full details of the deed of assignment which you have allegedly supplied to any Debt Collection Agencies dealing with these accounts (ONLY INCLUDE IF RELEVANT).

I require disclosure of any indication or notes which you hold and notes of all telephone calls made to me by your call centre staff both in the UK and any offshore operations either within Europe or elsewhere in the world. This data is to include all written, audio and electronic correspondence and data.

I have previously enclosed the statutory maximum fee of £10 when my original Subject Access Request was made under The Data Protection Act.

I don’t think I need to remind you that you had just 40 days to supply this information under the Data Protection Act from receipt of my original request. You know have just x number of days in which to supply this information.

I trust this clarifies the matter.