Student Loans Company/Smith Lawson & Company Recovery Se

[MadamePompodour]

Hi,

I would appreciate any help on my question. My brother was seriously ill for some time last year and during that time missed payments off his student loan even though as he wasn't earning he shouldnt have been paying anything. Depsite explanatory letters they have passed on part of the debt to a recovery company who seem charge happy and wack on a charge every time they sent out a letter. What I wanted to know is does the law apply in this situation as it does with banks - has he any chance of hetting the charges back from this compnay?

Any help much appreciated.

P.S. Brilliant Site!

[BankFodder]

If the charges relate to disproportionate penalties then they are not legally enforceable.
You need to post more detail but alsl you should read the FAQs and the forum material before continuing

[soulcatcher]

Hi,

There are a couple of things to note:
(1) Smith Lawson & Co is NOT a debt recovery company. It is Student Loans Company under a trading name (SLC & SLC, see?)
(2) Certainly in the mortgage-style loan agreement, the borrower agrees to pay charges as per the charges guide.

I'm not well up on this bank charges thing, so I don't know how this affects your position. The explicit term in the agreement presumably makes it a little more difficult, but it is still possible to argue that the charges (at, for example, £20 for a form letter) are unrepresentative of actual cost and thus that the term is unfair (under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations Act.) I think this is the basis of the Office of Fair Trading's position.

Check the other advice available.

Regards,
SC

Originally Posted by MadamePompodour

Hi,

I would appreciate any help on my question. My brother was seriously ill for some time last year and during that time missed payments off his student loan even though as he wasn't earning he shouldnt have been paying anything. Depsite explanatory letters they have passed on part of the debt to a recovery company who seem charge happy and wack on a charge every time they sent out a letter. What I wanted to know is does the law apply in this situation as it does with banks - has he any chance of hetting the charges back from this compnay?

Any help much appreciated.

P.S. Brilliant Site!

[mahala]

Originally Posted by soulcatcher

Hi,

There are a couple of things to note:
(1) Smith Lawson & Co is NOT a debt recovery company. It is Student Loans Company under a trading name (SLC & SLC, see?)
(2) Certainly in the mortgage-style loan agreement, the borrower agrees to pay charges as per the charges guide.

I'm not well up on this bank charges thing, so I don't know how this affects your position. The explicit term in the agreement presumably makes it a little more difficult, but it is still possible to argue that the charges (at, for example, £20 for a form letter) are unrepresentative of actual cost and thus that the term is unfair (under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations Act.) I think this is the basis of the Office of Fair Trading's position.

Check the other advice available.

Regards,
SC

Soulcatcher, the fact that the charges appear in the T&Cs is neither here nor there. They cannot be enforced, because they are unlawful - that is the basis for this whole site!

I would suggest reading the FAQs as a matter of urgency.

[soulcatcher]

Thanks. No need to shout. Did I not mention that I'm not well up on this bank charges thing? Did I not mention that I think the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations Act is the basis of the Office of Fair Trading's position?

I shall keep my mouth shut next time should I?

[mahala]

I didn't shout. I pointed out your error, which was important because it may have meant a mistake in someone's claim.

No-one has asked you to keep your mouth shut. However on a site such as this, where the issues are at times complex, it may be best to do some reading around the issues before offering advice on a subject you, by your own admission, know very little of.

[soulcatcher]

Thank you.

(1) There was no error in my posting. (Apologies for correcting you on that.)
(2) I *do* know what I am talking about. Although my advice was offered indpendently of the CAG's position, it does not mean it is unfounded or that I am not qualified to advise.

The contents of my posting were perfectly fine and there is no reason why my advice would cause an incorrect claim. I didn't notice you replying back in March when the query was first posted. I think some helpful advice is better than none at all, don't you?

You might ask yourself why it is don't I know much about CAG... It strikes me, mahala, that if you'd put as much effort into keeping your finances in order over the last six years as you've put into your claims, you might not be in this position in the first place.

Give it a rest and save your criticisms for your latest Particulars of Claim.

[StoneLaughter]

MadamePompadour; your agreement to the terms and conditions has absolutely no bearing whatever on your claim. Unlawful charges cannot be enforced whether you agree to them or not.

[Whisperwolf]

Before tempers start to run high, let me just say that whoever is chasing you is immaterial. What they put in the contract is immaterial. The question I tend to ask people is, "If I draft a loan agreement, which states that at the end of the loan period I can come and shoot you dead, can I legally do so?" The answer, of course, is no. You might sign the agreement, but the fact that the clause in it tries to give one company the right to break the law, does not allow such a clause to be legal. That's a very radical outlook, but the principal of law is the same. If a company says "if you do this we WILL apply a penalty charge", that doesn't actually allow them to do so, because doing so breaks the law (in this case the fair terms in consumer contracts act which is european law, not just uk law).

This law also doesn't differentiate between banks and anyone else. It says such charges are illegal, full stop. Banks have profited from breaking the law for years, so it's not really surprising other companies have decided to give it ago, but to set your mind at rest, yes if these are penalty charges they ARE covered by the same laws, and they ARE just as illegal as penalty charges applied by banks.

I should add here that TWO posts in this thread have been reported, so please let's calm it down; this question has been answered, I'm sure MadamePompodour will post any other questions.

Peace, all!

[maybelline]

I have received a letter from SLC. Despite writing to Student Loans Co many times and explaining that for the period they describe I was in, in receipt of disability benefits and had a right to defer because of that. I sent them the relevant info at the time but they seem to ignoring that fact. I looked at Student Loans website and pretty sure it states various courses of action open to former students who find themselves ill or unable to work and to keep to the original agreement, and suggests writing to them and they will consider the matter. I have done this and still no reply. It might be worth looking them up anyway?

[pyewackett]

Hi. My son is in his early thirties and is still being chased by SLC. Circumstances such as three times redundant, and poorly paid jobs have caused it to last this long. We have been having a fierce battle with them and refuse to aknowledge Smith Lawson as it is purely a 'Frightener' which we saw through. I am interested in the charges which appear to be illegal. We did not know that. Now we will persue this. We succumed to paying the 'non-payment' debt which includes the charges, even though my son is adamant he filled in all the deferrment forms. I get the impression that they take no notice of the letters they receive. We always stipulate that we will not recognise any letter that is not personal ie. Standard letters. They eventually complied with this.
I notice that tempers rise on this site, well no wonder when we have to live with the SLC. So please do not lose your rag with me, (at 67 I dont deserve it), when I repeat something which I gathered from Barclays ( we have the same problem with them and their loans dept) and I wonder if the same applies to the SLC. The signatories on letter do not exist, therefore its impossible to speak to them on the phone. It does not matter what address you send the letter to they are all sent to the call centre. The letters are opened by some faceless person who then decides which bit of your letter is relevant, that is then put onto the computer on your account. So when you ring up and try to find out why your question has not been answered, that operative has no idea of the full content of your letter. Is it any wonder we are all banging our heads agains a wall.

I agree they are the most incompetant organisation ( Ha!) I have ever come accross. I pity all students who have to deal with them. Surely there should be another body of people who can offer a much better loan service. Still I suppose if its part of some government body what can we expect!.

[soulcatcher]

Hi pyewackettt,

I shall try to respond, this time hopefully without being unduly set-upon. I'll email you separately if with further advice if possible.

You touch on a number of subjects, but the key point is that the situation with the debt collection charge (presumably the £20 per letter charge) falls into the same bracket as bank charges and can be dealt with in exactly the same way. Although now that the OFT has suggested that £12 is fair (although arguable) I'm not sure if this changes matters (i.e. could you only claim back £8 per charge?) It doesn't matter if you've paid the charges already, they will be refunded.

HOWEVER, a catch-all approach may simply be to approach this from the angle of failure to comply with the agreement if, as you suggest, your son correctly sent a deferment application form. I'm not sure what the position is regarding applications lost in the post, or what a court would say. However, deferment forms DO go astray (or at least sit in 'limbo') at SLC. Has your son asked if the deferment form was received? The first step is SLC's complaint's procedure. Don't expect much, but if it is not resolved by SLC it will go for independent assessment. Or see a solicitor, of course.

Am interested to hear that SLC have accepted your intention to ignore standard form letters. Was this anything to do with the Data Protection Act? That said, I have experience of page-fulls of manually written garbled nonesense that give no indication what the letter is about (other than demanding payment, etc.) and what it is in reply to.

Am not sure about the cutting and pasting of letters onto the system at SLC, although they do (as far as I'm aware) keep a copy of the full letter. I don't mind faceless organisations to be honest--as long as they get things right.

The reason I was drawn to this thread is Smith Lawson & Company (SmLC), a trading name of Student Loans Company, though not a trading arm in the usual sense (SLC only begins 'trading' with the customer as 'SmLC' once his account falls into arrears.) There are issues of fairness here. For instance, you may notice that letters from 'SmLC' are to an extent contrived to look like form letters sent from a third party "recovery services" agency. SLC's charges guide say that the company will charge the defaulter third party fees as cost. This may cause undue concern in the borrwer who has not caught on to the trick.

SLC created SmLC in order to cut the cost of using (real) external agencies. The company has also found that use of the SmLC trading name has improved returns on outstanding debts.

A thread on this site suggests that a separate thread for student loans would be a good idea. I think a whole site could be devoted to SLC.

Regards,
SC

[kokomar]

Hello Pyewackett

Firstly, if your son is in his 30's I'm guessing his loans are probably pre-98 and therefore are covered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. These loans are much more favourable (believe it or not) than the new style post-98 loans which are governed by the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998. This may become relevant later so you should check which category your son's loans fall into and read the other SLC threads on this site.

Secondly, I have sympathy with your son, more and more people are being told now by the SLC, myself included, that our loans have an end date after which you cannot continue to defer and must pay up whatever your circumstances. As we all know this is not in the spirit of what we signed up to. This is slightly inaccurate (no surprise there) they are relying on the updated terms and conditions (changed unilaterly by the SLC) as at March 1998. These t & c's say that if a (yes, a single) payment is missed SLC can request payment in full of the loan. Basically once they have done this your automatic right to deferrment vanishes into the mist!. I might start a thread on this aspect once I have sorted myself out a bit and done the necessary typing. I kept all (?) my original docs.

As far as unlawful charges are concerned start your own thread so we can follow your progress, there are a few of us at the mo just starting on the SLC. I think I've included the word incompetant on every single post I've made about the SLC, I use much stronger words than this privacy of my own home!

Koko

[imac]

How can they be allowed to completely change the terms and conditions of my loan without informing me?? Maybe they did though, that letter must have ended up in the same black hole that my statements/deferment forms/change of address forms and any other information i have sent to them or requested from them.

I think this incompetent shower needs a whole section devoted to them!!

[hackersons]

I signed up to the pre 98 style loan from SLC with stipluates I must be earning more than 17 thousand a year before I am eligible to pay.
I have never earnt more than this amount, but one year they also said they had not received my deferment and therefore started demanding installments from me.
I immediately sent off new deferrment forms but in the mean time I was asked to pay £80 in installments for that period. At this time I was made redundant and went onto state benefits. From this point on they started charging my £20 - £25 a letter and the charges kept clocking up.
This was in 2001, and since then I have paid more than £500 in charges to Smith Lawson and they are saying I still owe them over £100.
Considering I was not elibible to pay the installments in the first place and I can prove this I am horrified to read this forum and discover I have been xxxxx. Even though I have been in employment for most of the last 6 years, I have never earned more than 15 thousand punds a year, and with a young child to supprt I find it hard to meet their demands.
I always send my deferrments by recorded delivery now, but occasionally they still try and say they did not receive them - it seems they lose things a lot.
What I would like to know is, can I claim my charges back, and is there any way I can show that I did not owe the original money to start with and therefore nullify their claim from the beginning?

[hackersons]

aaa

[emmaf01]

Hi-fellow SLC-sufferers!
I am at the beginning, requesting info from SLC to start a claim against them.(all pre-1998 loans)

In the past 6 years I have been charged in excess of £3000 in charges and "arrears"- caused by late deferments due to lost forms and my illhealth. I have managed, while surviving solely on benefits, to pay them in excess of £700 towards these arrears/charges. Finding out that these payments, made to stop their constant letter/phone harassment, are to cover illegal charges- well it makes my blood BOIL!

I am definately going to pursue this, hopefully we can all do this together.