interesting the plink one is not being ref'd to as the same situation?

interesting the plink one is not being ref'd to as the same situation?

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.

weird

IMHO there is no difference!

unless the Link one was sold to THesis? [link in sheeps clothing}

I believe the way SLC sold debts to THese differs to the way they were latterly sold to Arrows [Erudio]

OK. Let us know how you get on.

 

Bear in mind that even if SLC accept that selling the loan to Erudio is equivalent to paying off the loan Erudio won't have paid anything like 100% of the original loan amount.

 

So if Erudio paid SLC say 20% of the original loan (just guessing, I've no idea!) SLC would say that 80% of the loan was still outstanding and due from you.

 

And I doubt removing the loan from their financial statements means that the loan is therefore no longer owed to them.

 

That's just my gut feel though, I couldn't point you to any court decisions or legal rules relevant to this.

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.

weird

IMHO there is no difference!

 

unless the Link one was sold to THesis? [link in sheeps clothing}

I believe the way SLC sold debts to THese differs to the way they were latterly sold to Arrows [Erudio]

I recall letters from thesis before link, the final letter is from link.

That would at least explain a little more....

yep explains it

there are very distinct differences between the sell off criteria to Thesis many years previous

and the Gov't one to Erudio.

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 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.

The rules for writing off debts in financial accounts are entirely separate from the law on whether a debt is still owing.

Writing off a debt in financial accounts is done because it's unlikely the debt will be repaid.

It doesn't extinguish the debt or say the person who is owed the money is giving up their rights to repayment if they are able to recover it later.

Hypothetical example.

I run a building supplies company,

you buy several £'000 of building supplies from me on credit and don't pay.

When I go to take recovery action against you I discover you have disappeared, I can't find you.

When I do my company accounts my accountant will tell me that by law I can only have debtors in my accounts if there's a reasonable expectation the debt will be paid.

It's unlikely your debt to me will be paid (because you have disappeared)

so I have to write it off

and the balance appearing on your account with me becomes zero.

But if I discover 2 years later where you are you still legally owe me the money and I can serve court papers on you to recover the debt.

It will not be a defence that I have written it off in my accounts.

That's irrelevant to whether you owe me the money.

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.

I did say the example was hypothetical okokok

And it's also a simplified version of what actually happens when writing off debts in statutory financial accounts.

I used a normal trading company as an example and not SLC because SLC has other complications,

such as their statutory powers under regulations etc.

20 years later in my hypothetical example?

Position would be as explained before about statute barred debts.

Debt isn't actually extinguished but I wouldn't be able to enforce it.

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.

I did say the example was hypothetical okokok And it's also a simplified version of what actually happens when writing off debts in statutory financial accounts. I used a normal trading company as an example and not SLC because SLC has other complications, such as their statutory powers under regulations etc. 20 years later in my hypothetical example? Position would be as explained before about statute barred debts. Debt isn't actually extinguished but I wouldn't be able to enforce it.

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.