Hi Guys,

Had a browse through alot of info regarding "new" style student loans.

I had a new style student loan in 2005, I have the dates and I have never made a payment nor acknowledged the debt, which would bring it into the 6 years from which was cause of action.

As it would stand this debt would be statute barred. But as the new loans are now "income contingent loans" the money is now taken directly from your employee pay. So they do not have to take you to court nor pass it on to a DCA.

However, all "Student loan agreements are simple contracts."

The key point I am making here is they are still "simple contracts" which brings me on to the main point of the limitations Act. We now look at the Limitations Act S.5

"An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued."

Also stated on the HMRC website.

Now are they stating that the only "action" they are referring to is taking the debtor to court to reclaim the money? Wouldn't taking money directly from a person's pay still be an "action". Therefore wouldn't this be breaking the law by taking action on a simple contract that has expired after 6 years?

Please let me know your opinions on this? Also if anyone knows it anyone has gone to court on this argument?

sadly the new loans can never be SB'ed

this has been discussed at length before.

dx

sadly the new loans can never be SB'ed

 

this has been discussed at length before.

 

dx

Is that a legal stance? Or just that they cannot be statute barred due to the fact they are taken direct from pay?

Has this ever been taken to court or discussed on a legal level?

Would a student loan taken in 1995 & 1 in 1997 also be statue barred after 6 years of non payment or acknowledgement

Would a student loan taken in 1995 & 1 in 1997 also be statue barred after 6 years of non payment or acknowledgement

Yes a student loan taken before 1998 would be statute barred if there was no payment or acknowledgement...

Anywho, back to the orginal thread.

Fantastic news, makes me ill now that i started paying it back when i found myself in a better position, Im still getting threats and charges added to the account for letters every 2 months for an amount i disputed at the time for a lapse in deferment due to them not sending the paperwork out and me not requesting it. I proved i was signing on at the time yet they said the charges still stand. Ive disputed these for over 15years yet they still keep adding interest and letter charges.

dx100, please can you let me know which threads this has been discussed in before? I wanted to find out some more about the post 98 sl's and sb, but can't find the threads

post 1998 SLC loans can never be statute barred

dx

with help and some research it transpires that post 1998 CAN be statute barred

the issue lies with you cannot stop the PAYE system from letting them take payments when earning over the threshold.

if you are not PAYE or overseas, then you are ok.

dx

OK, thanks for letting me know dx.

I sent Student Loans a statute barred letter (recorded), but capquest are still chasing me for the debt. Any ideas on what I should do next?

This is from the student loan company website

Student Loans are an unusual case, as they changed in September 1998. Any Student Loan taken out before this date was a consumer credit agreement, which means the Limitation Act 1980 applies. But any Student Loan taken since then is an ‘income contingent’ loan – so repayments can be deducted from your wages without any court involvement, regardless of how old the debt is.