https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/may/20/student-loan-erudio-under-fire It says here that the loans are cancelled 25 years after graduation or when the borrower turns 50, whichever happens first. 20 years is close to 25. Its a case then of losing all my credits. Waiting another 5 years and starting my degree from scratch. No, don't worry, not taking it personally, just pointing it out. Interesting to get other points of view. What has happened to the cancelled Link loan then? Which doesn't seem to be creating the problem. What happens after the 25 years as in my post above when the loans are cancelled? What does cancelled in this context mean? Is there any provision anywhere for cancelling my 98 loan under exceptional circumstance? This is what I need to find out. I think examples need to focus on SL because they really are a special type of loan for an individual situation as you say with their own set of complications. Prisoners have an easier time of it.

Thanks. What about 20 years later? and p.s. it wasn't that I disappeared, it was that the SLC did not send me out the deferral forms to fill out (which I believe they have been held accountable for running a shoddy show) and I was too ill to really have an awareness of it at the time. First I heard about there being a problem was from the debt collectors.

the link loan has been written off then and is not causing a block to re-financing. Potentially, then the issue is one little old Erudio loan... I understand there are terrible situations that people go through, third world problems which always seem to outweigh anything most of us could imagine. But I am going to feel something I have never felt before and that is real anger and profound disdain towards the government for this. If you knew what I had been through, I think you would understand. To deny me of this opportunity, as I feel I am making some progress, because I was forced to go down the route of statute barring the debts as I was on nil income due to disease and being hounded by debt collection companies - is spiteful, petty and evil. Not even when I have been left to rot, by the benefits and medical system, including getting hypothermia and periods of starvation, being made homeless, from lack of money did I feel any animosity. I have put in so much hard work these last three months, really motivated and thrilled to be making some gains, and the first sign of improvement and these organisations supposed to help people are stomping all over it. I am sick of it at every turn. The guy on In The Pursuit Of Happiness had a walk in the park in comparison. That is my first ever online rant. Stupid, utterly useless systems. Off to immerse myself in a happy vibe now today and get my essay finished and submitted as the deadline is tomorrow. Thanks for all the input so far. okokok.

I recall letters from thesis before link, the final letter is from link. That would at least explain a little more....

They received 160 million from Erudio. That more than covers it However I can't seem to apply your logic, and I am sincerely trying. The SLC have said there is no debt outstanding because they sold it to Erudio. The SLC chose to sell it for a price they were happy with. I really don't understand this thought: "And I doubt removing the loan from their financial statements means that the loan is therefore no longer owed to them" The balance outstanding at the SLC is zero. I need the legal stuff I think as the SLC aren't going to tell me. It was a stupid system and it only defaulted on a technicality - I was never earning anywhere near the financial threshold the government set to protect students.

I had a letter from link stating the account was closed and cancelled. The advisor also confirmed that the screen was showing it had been written off Erudio had not sent the final letter - however the advisor stated the screen showed it had been written off. That changed after I put in a formal Appeal in writing to SLC. Erudio now say the loan is outstanding but statute barred and they will not pursue it.

That's ok There isn't much about this anywhere. I just can't accept that under the circumstances, this is applying the spirit of the thing correctly.

Another way to view this, which is perhaps what you are getting at Ethel, is the loan ("loan" means a loan made under any provision of the student loans legislation) is an entity in and of itself and it doesn't matter who owns it - the obligation is to repay it.

HI Ethel, no you have never trolled the troll posts have longed since been deleted, I was simply putting in a polite request for no more as I almost didn't come back for the support I need. My main purpose is to understand, so thank you for your input. The link is great. I think you have the gyst of the scenario. However technically, in this instance, SLC have been paid and the debt with them was settled by Erudio. Erudio are a private company with no connections to SLC. I don't see any difference with say if my friend had paid the SLC loan amount off. As far as the SLC are concerned, as their records show, there is no debt - therefore no obligation - to pay to them. The Appeals letter states that my debt to the SLC still exists. I ring the SLC and they say it doesn't!

Because I am about to be de-rolled from university. The issue is the SLC seem to be blocking me from receiving tuition fees due to the statute barred debt with Erudio. Therefore I hoped that by taking out a £100 loan, they may accept a full and final settlement in order to get the status to "written off" which apparently then allows the SLC to grant me funding. I am trying to move forward with my life and there are just endless roadblocks. This afternoon an Erudio advisor swore blind the status was "written off" and then when I rung again to ask for that in writing another said it was statute barred. All have confirmed they will not be pursuing. The SLC company can not tell me how much they sold the debt to Erudio for as it was covered in 2008 Sale of Student Loans. My question is it seems the "obligation" was settled then to the SLC, and transferred to Erudio. I need help with the legislation they produced as it doesn't seem to apply and also if there are any exceptions etc that can be made. Also, SLC acknowledged no connection with Erudio and that they are a private company

Polite request - please no more trolling or nasty, unproductive comments. I am having a difficult time with this. Thanks. Ok Further update here. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ (They sent me this link upon further request of where the following legislation comes from - but I can't yet find it) "Eligible part-time students 137. (3) A person ("A") is not an eligible part time student if (b) A is in breach of any obligation to repay any loan". This is the legislation quoted to me to reject my application for tuition. I confirmed yet again with the SLC advisors that no debt exists with them and the balance is zero - which suggests to me that the "obligation" to the SLC is non-existent. However the appeals letter outcome states that "your debt to the Student Loans Company does indeed still exist... you will remain ineligible until such a time that the outstanding balance is paid in full" - I spoke to Link and Erudio advisors where the loans were sold on to and both initially confirmed that their screen was stating that the accounts had been closed and very specifically that the debt had been "written off". The SLC then told me that apparently Erudio is the problematic one and so I re-rang to get a letter in writing to state that the debt had been written off. A different advisor then said something different (this is after I had put my written Appeal stage 2 in to the SLC) and that the balance was outstanding but was statute barred and they would not pursue it. I then asked if they would accept a token amount £100 as a full and final offer in preference to never getting anything and this was rejected stating they would need the balance in full. I also asked them how much they paid for the loan and they said I would have to ask the Student Loans company. I was told that the SLC policy is to never offer further finance to anyone who has a statute barred loan. (I did however receive a small grant in 2009 from them). The SLC insist they are acting under the government strict policies. If anyone has any legal expertise or insight to offer here, I would be very grateful. Thanks.

Thanks for the PM. Very helpful

I am still awaiting to hear back from Stage 1 Appeal process. It is still within the 15 working day target they aim to respond by. It is really affecting my ability to study, worrying that I may now be in serious debt. I am wondering if I should get in touch with an M.P over this issue and if there is any right way to do this. I am going to be derolled shortly if I can't get this fixed. Also would it be a conservative M.P I would raise this issue with or a labour/other? Thanks.

It is stupidity beyond belief. And yet it goes on and on. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/microplastics-microbeads-ocean-sea-serious-health-risks-united-nations-warns-a7041036.html I used to be really good at what I bought and recycled, now, not as much.

Thanks for all the replies. There is a formal appeals process to follow. 3 stages if necessary. Hopefully it will be resolved at stage 1.