Mr. H -v- SLC (now possibly Smith Lawson as well)

[Mr. H]

Great idea about the links daveydavey.

If anyone has any useful links my e-mail is from 'contact me' on the site. It might not be done straight away, as when I publish links I like to check them out first (make sure I'm not directing people to dodgey porn) and let the owner of the site I'm linking to know as well.

Does anyone think I ought to tell SLC and their 'friends' about my site?

[daveydavey]

a few links here (sure i've seen more, remember there are many more similar stories in the students section & other sections of the Consumer Action Group)

national press

Observer - under 'student hangover' Proving the SLC *can* use discretion & 'backdate' deferment for more than 3 months e.g. when threatened with bad publicity ! Margaret Dibben writes your money wrongs | Cash | The Observer

The long payback | Students | EducationGuardian.co.uk

A degree of uncertainty on student loan repayments - Telegraph

New allegations of corruption at loans company - The Independent - London - HighBeam Research

submission to better regulation executive :
Better Regulation Executive (BRE): Let us have your ideas:
...answer states room for SLC to use discretion ? so why don't they exercise it in cases of obvious non-deferment due to their maladministration ?

NUS guidance : (acrobat pdf)
http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/medi...heet%20182.pdf

student loan deferment conspiracy ? (here)
Student Loan Deferment Conspiracy ? (long)

blog / forum :
view from my pocket

dooyoo review (+ see comments):
Student Loans Co. - Review - the debts collectors

another blog :
kiteless's moblog

parliamentary publication (halfway down) : "Borrowers will retain their existing rights of deferment where their income is below 85 per cent. of average earnings"
Lords Hansard text for 5 Mar 1998 (180305w03)

just a sample ! Remember all of these pages would be handy in Court as part of a legitmate defence - why on earth should borrowers suffer the consequences of the Student Loans Company messing up the administration of their Student Loan ?!

[disgruntledofcornwall]

You may find the following letter I am about to send useful.

Keep in mind the fact that Smith Lawson ARE THE SLC!





WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Mrs. D. Hay.

I refer to your threatening letters dated 19th September 2007, ref. 97XXXXXX, 92XXXXXXXX, actually received 22nd September 2007.

The account is in dispute and therefore your demand for money is unlawful.

Further, I require a break down of the sums contained in your unlawful demand as it has no relation to the charges you maintain incorrectly that are due under the account.

I also note that £80 of "penalty charges" have been charged to my account.

I would remind you that your penalty charges are unenforceable at common law and therefore unlawful.

As your letter contains a demand for these unenforceable charges, I TOTALLY REJECT your claim as unlawful and ask you to prove your costs in this respect and provide proof of the agreement under which you claim monies owed.

I also draw your attention to the fact that the SLC have so far failed to defend any penalty charges presented as such when legal action through the small
claims courts has been initiated and have failed to defend in court these unlawful penalty charges when challenged to do so.

I note that you attempt to fraudulently represent yourself as a legal representative working at a firm separate from the SLC, indeed as a separate firm of solicitors by using the phrase "my client" and you state you were "instructed by The Student Loans Company".

The so called "Smith Lawson & Company" pretends to be acting as some form of solicitor for "your client" yet this is merely "a trading name of the Student Loans Company Limited". Smith Lawson and Company do not exist at all, in fact it is a trading name of the SLC.

It is fraudulent and therefore a criminal offence to falsely represent yourself as a separate company and claim you were instructed by a “client” when clearly you can not have received any instruction from any so called "client" as “your client” is one and the same company…

I note also that you further attempt to add credibility to your fraud and to hide your company identity by providing a PO box number only for the address, even unlawfully omitting the city of origin flouting of THE COMPANIES ACT 2006. I checked your PO box and it is in fact at the offices of The Student Loans Company.

I consider this to be an act of fraud by false representation as defined by Section 2 of THE FRAUD ACT 2006. Where a person makes "any representation as to fact or law ... express or implied" which they know to be untrue or misleading. This is a statutory criminal offence. I will be seeking further advice on this matter.

I would advise you that I consider your letter, in addition to being fraudulent and misleading, constitutes and an unlawful demand for money with menaces which is another statutory criminal offence under THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994.

You may be interested to know that on conviction you may be subject to indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or to
both. I will be seeking further advice on this matter.

Your letters constitute a course of conduct constituting harassment under the PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997. I would draw your personal attention to for the purposes of the act, conduct by one person shall also be taken to be conduct by another if that other has aided, abetted, counseled or procured the conduct. The knowledge and purpose of the person who aids, abets, counsels or procures conduct are what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring and not when the conduct occurs.

For your information, I am a disabled student and received my disability allowance from the student loan company, reference number here on 0X/0X/2007. As a student, all student loans are DEFERRED under the student loan regulations.

In addition, I sent deferment forms on 0X/04/2007, which you claimed to have lost. Proof of postage held.

I called the SLC on the 0X/X/2007 to enquire as to the continued lack of action on deferment and was told that no forms had been received.

On this date, I made a goodwill interim payment of £20, reference XXXX, which I was told would stop any recovery action while the new forms were processed and requested further forms be sent.

My helper returned these forms with proof of student status, (which you hold as you provided the loan) on the XX/0X/2007.

No other communication has been received until your letter today.

It is inconceivable that you could not know I am currently a student as the student loan company PROVIDED the loan this year for which proof of student status from the university was requested by yourselves.

This is clearly a case of criminal maladministration defined as such in law as

Delay
Incorrect action or failure to take any action
Failure to follow procedures or the law
Failure to provide information
Inadequate record-keeping
Failure to investigate
Failure to reply
Misleading or inaccurate statements
Inadequate liaison
Broken promises

of which I can prove the entire list above. I will be seeking further advice on this matter.

I would also point out that the statutory time for requesting payment is in fact 14 days not 7 as stated on your letter. I will be seeking further advice on
this matter also.

As I can not easily communicate with the SLC due to my disability and the SLC have ignored repeated requests to comply with my requests in this regard, then I also consider you to be in breach of THE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS DISCRIMINATION ACT 2001. I draw your attention to chapter 2, 28R, paragraphs 2, 11. I am seeking further advice on this matter.

I will also be seeking further advice on your personal conduct with regard to maladministration and seeking to initiate legal action as I think any court would agree that it would be unlawful for the SLC to assert that they can insist on commencing recovery action against a CURRENT student recorded as such by the same company while at the same time demanding proof which only the SLC actually possesses in the same offices it issues demands for payment from.

I draw your attention to THE MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1988 section 1, later amended by the CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICE ACT 2001 section 43.

The sending to another of any article with intent to cause distress or anxiety is a criminal offence. The offence covers letters and writing of all descriptions.

As the account is:

1. In dispute.
2. Not in default due to the fact I am a current student you hold proof of student status within your own company.
3. I have provided reasonable proof of income in the form of deferment form sent by recorded delivery
4. Contains demands for penalties unenforceable at common law;

Further;

You have fraudulently presented yourself as some sort of solicitor representing a company instructed by a fictitious "client", the "client" being the same company as the so called Smith Lawson & Company in the same offices with the sole intention of causing distress and anxiety, I consider your letter to constitute an article with the sole purpose of creating anxiety and distress under the aforementioned act. I will be seeking further advice on this matter.

Under section 78 of THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 you are ordered to supply me with the following:

1) A True copy of the executed agreement conforming to the prescribed format under the Act for the above numbered accounts.

2) Any deed of assignment

3) A statement of the current balance you claim is owed under the credit agreements above.

Further: I demand that these unlawful threats of recovery be suspended while you actually investigate the fact I am as I state a disabled student and that you could reasonably be expected to know this as I hold a current award, the holding of which satisfies the requirement for deferment in any case.

I require details of the Student Loans Company Complaints procedures including the contact details of the FSA and Financial Ombudsman. I wish to make a complaint about your personal conduct and that of the SLC.

I demand that any information relating to the unlawful demand for money recorded by credit reference agencies be disclosed to me under THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 and also immediately removed. This is a formal subject access request.

For the avoidance of doubt in this matter, if I find that any record has been made of this unlawful demand at any credit reference agency I will make good all losses so caused at common law against you.

I formally request a reasonable adjustment to your administration practices with reference to THE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS DISCRIMINATION ACT 2001.

I draw your attention to the fact that under chapter 2, 28R, paragraph, 11, the SLC is defined as an educational service provider under that act and I therefore request that in order to facilitate the deferment of the above loan accounts, that it can reasonably be expected for the SLC to check it’s own records that will confirm my student status thus negating the unreasonable requirement for me to confirm this via the deferment forms as this has put me at a disadvantage to an able student.

I look forward with great interest to your apology, granting of immediate deferment based on the records you hold proving I am a current student and your rapid reply.

In the first instance, you must comply with the law and state in writing that the recovery is suspended pending investigation into the above. This letter has been sent by fax, email and to your correspondence address with proof of postage retained.

Regards

Name






I really hope they enjoy that!

Will write more about my case and start another thread later.

[Thepower]

Nice letter,
rember you need to pay £10 for a Subject Access Request (requesting your data)
and £1 for the CCA request ( a true copy of your agreement)

if you don't they can rightfuly with hold this information.

I'd also add add that your going to complain to the Trading standars, the OFT and the department of trade and industry (their boss)

[Mr. H]

I'm back!

Since my last vist I haven't heard anything from SLC (apart from a letter from Smith Lawson about Christmas time, which I ignored as it said nothing tht they hadn't said before. However I received a scary letter today...

...From Cap Quest Debt Recovery. Most of the letter says pretty much what all the rest said

Arrears: £400.62
Balance: £2807.68

However the 3rd paragraph is the one that worries me:

"Your arrears will be increased on the 15th day of each month by £51.57 until all the arrears have been setteled. Once this happens your account will be returned to our client for further monitoring purposes".

WTF!?!?! does anyone know how this figure could possibly be arrived at? I guess that they're scaring me into calling them (I don't think I will).

Also bear in mind that SLC have agreed deferrment again, and I have my confirmation letter stateing that this is valid until Dec 2009, however Cap Quest say.

I feel that my next course of action is to write to them explaining the dispute and to confirm that they are in fact lawfully acting on SLC's behalf. I have repeated encouraged SLC to take me to the County Court in order to resolve this matter, but Cap Quest seem to know how to hurt me (in the pocket).

Any advise about wording my letter would be gratefully received remeber that I've already Subject Access Request'd previous DCA's (and eventually received a copy of an agreement) - can I request this again as it's a new company after me?

New readers may want to have a look at my website for the full story.

[master woody]

"Your arrears will be increased on the 15th day of each month by £51.57 until all the arrears have been setteled. Once this happens your account will be returned to our client for further monitoring purposes".

They are talking about your "arrears" not your total owed blance, basicaly moving it from your defered pot to the give all this now pot, so no real problem as such...

I think the actions you have set out is the best course of action, you need to write to SLC too and tell them your reporting them to Trading standards unless they take the "debt" back

[daveydavey]

...what happened to your formal complaint(s) to the SLC ??

A number of us have had success with complaints being successfully resolved, i.e. all non-deferred 'arrears' moved to amounts outstanding & charges removed, at the latter stages of the complaints procedure, i.e. stage 2 / stage 3 etc. - see the 'student loan deferment conspiracy' thread. Also you can now complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service if still dissatisfied after stage 3 , for pre-1998 loans. You can still complain to the SLC even if the file has been passed onto a debt collector. Didn't you have acknowledgement of your deferment on your website which was then not processed, which then led to an arrears figure ? If that is the case keep complaining using the formal complaints procedure, move to stage 2 / stage 3 etc. state you 'remain dissatisfied' etc.

[daveydavey]

also see the official gov't response to a suggestion to the BRE link here :

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

point out this response in the next stage of your letter of complaint. SLC / capquest's actions are incompatible & inconsistent with the Gov't's own official response.

[BillyTheFish]

Yeah i've very similar fun with Smith Lawson and now CapQuest...

I CCA'd them on the 11th last month and they put my accounts on hold while they 'looked into my request'. They're now well over the 28 day limit set out in the CCA request.

All my loans are from 95/96 and given CapQuests lack of reply its starting to look like they don't have any copies of my paperwork.

[Mr. H]

I wrote to CapQuest in April giving them 14 days to supply me with a copy of their authorisation from SLC to act on their behalf, as well as demanding a breakdown of their fee/charges structure in order that I could see how they arrived at there figures.

In July (3 months later) I received another letter from CapQuest saying that they were referring my case back to SLC.

I've revamped my website,Beware of the Student Loans Company Ltd
.

Oh I did submit a complaint to SLC, however they felt they have acted correctly!?!?!?! Shame they haven't got the confidence of their convictions to take me to court in respect of the 'outstanding arrears'

[emmaf01]

You could still claim for unlawful charges!

[daveydavey]

Have you thought about moving on to the next stage of the complaints procedure ? In my case (Student Loan Deferment Conspiracy? thread) , had to go to stage 3 before all £20 charges were removed & the arrears falsely created by the SLC's to process deferment forms were moved to the amount outstanding. All harassment & constant phone calls then stopped. The SLC's continued threats to take me to Court never materialised either. For pre-1998 loans / arrears, you can now complain to the FOS once the three complaint stages have been exhausted, so at stage 3 (executive level) they may take your complaint more seriously & address it properly. You can email your complaint SLC's site has the email address.

Dealing with the SLC & their constant harassment based on their false claims of arrears arising from their maladministration had a profoundly negative effect on my quality of life until it was resolved. Glad it isn't hanging over me anymore, but also glad I didn't back down & continued to contest the arrears. Their tactic seems to be to psychologically bully & pressure people into paying arrears even when the SLC has falsely created them, they know their claims arent justified in many cases hence their unwillingness to issue court proceedings. Large chunks of Student Loan debt have been sold off to private companies, how on earth are the student loan companies going to recover the loans unless they resort to these tactics ? If you don't fit the graduate stereotype of having a well-paid, high-flying job above the loan repayment threshold (& very many don't) then you end up caught in the crossfire. The last thing they want is borrowers exercising their right to deferment! Then they can't recover any money!

To end your state of limbo I would formally complain through all the stages then to the FOS if necessary. The account would be in dispute until these complaints are resolved. I'd imagine that at the stage 3 level of complaint they'd grant the deferment they should have applied years ago.

[emmaf01]

I just followed the bank charge stages because I felt I was getting nowhere and won. I had to get to court though, as their solicitor had problems getting the correct details out of the SLC- poor woman. Very pleasant to deal with.

Then I got the rest deferred.

[pdc.withy]

Originally Posted by daveydavey

The SLC's continued threats to take me to Court never materialised either.

They have been threatening me through many companies for many years, I would imagine the first 'we will take you to court in 7/14/28 days letter,' came about 5/6 years ago. They phone me up 2-3 times a week at present and I always say that I don't owe them any money, it's a dead debt to which they get humpy. About 18 months ago I asked them to take me to court if they felt they had a case, the chap on the phone paused and said that they didn't want to do that. I asked if they ever took people to court but he could not confirm this. The longer it goes on the more confident I get that they are grasping at straws (cue summons in the morning!). I've been nonco-operative for many years and feel that if it were a bank/credit card company I'd have come a cropper a long time ago. My loans are from 92-95.

A long winded way of asking: Do they ever take people to court? If they are not doing so with me is it because they lack the paperwork/wherewithal to do so? When can I stop worrying?

[emmaf01]

I think I heard of someone in the DAG section- but I think that was through an external DCA for a post 1998 loan- but don't quote me- I read too many threads and can get muddled.

It might be an idea to search the site.

[Mr. H]

I'm sure that any claim by SLC be frowned upon by the County Courts if it was demonstrated that SLC had delayed in bringing their action.