You never know. They may not take you to court. But, I would at least try sending them a letter!

Have a look at the document posted above by cerberusalert as it has some interesting information about the lack of a cancelation clause. Maybe you could take a punt on that ground via a letter? It doesn't hurt to try!

Too right. Good old CCCR!

Hey Wiosna! I can’t see there being a problem and it is not a legal issue. But, I would suggest that the agents will not pass on your address to the landlord and it may be stipulated in the agreement between yourself and him that you provide an address when you leave so that he can trace you in the event of any problems with the property. However, I would advise that you simply leave your number with the agents for the landlord and say you will pop in for the cheque when they have drawn it. Hope that helps.

Hey Matt, I think that this agreement is enforceable pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as a regulated agreement between two parties. It does say, however, that the contract should be read in relation to another document and you should read this to see if there are any interesting clauses when considering if the contract is enforceable or not. You will probably know that contracts like this are rather formulaic and aren’t done through they tried and tested means by which the bank attempts to remove any possibility of the contract being unenforceable. You are right, however, by saying that the contract contains no clause which allows you to terminate it. in this sense you possibly have a remedy to terminate the contract under the act and render it unenforceable by virtue of L Schuler AG v. Wickman Machine Tool Sales Limited [1974] AC 235. Litigation such as this, seeking the declaration of court, is, however incredibly expensive and you would have to weigh up the tenuous possibility of you winning on the fact that contract was badly drafted with the large legal fees that would come from pursuing such a matter. Most contracts however do have a right to terminate the contract in certain defined circumstances and these clauses are often drafted in very broad terms, it seems to me that such a course is not contained within the wording of his contract. There are a number of defence is that one can raise, even if the contract is ‘valid’ under the 1974 Act. Perhaps the contract was misrepresented to view as defined under section 2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967 by somebody who sold you the product? Also, you can raise the remedy of deceit by one of the parties who sold you the financial product? There is, of course, the defence of non est factum as per Sanunders (Executrix of the Will of Rose Maud Gallie (deceased) v. Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004. You will have to think if any of these defences apply to the circumstances surrounding the contract. If any of them do you can appeal to the court for a recession based upon a mistake in equity. Hope this helps. [Anyone else with a similar agreement should see the post below by cerberusalert as it has some interesting things in about non-canceltion clauses.

Hello Welshie, It sounds absolutely terrible how you have been treated by your university. I am not aware of any university in the United Kingdom that has a statute in it’s association documents that would take a student out of the university on the grounds that you have described. Indeed, most universities are willing to move heaven and earth to keep you on a course. It appears that the university believed that you had given up on the course when you have not. Did you take any action to remedy this situation? Also, it appears that you have been very badly treated by tutor who has lied to university with regard to your situation. You may have remedies against the university for removing you from the course without following the due procedure. In respect of the student loan, you are liable to pay back the £1600 in full as this is an over repayment and the conditions of the loan clearly state that her payment must be made in the circumstances. I’m sorry I do not have any better news for you in this regard. In respect of repaying the amount, the Student Loans Company can be quite forceful when they want repayment of the amount. Therefore, I would suggest, that you write a letter to them stating the complete circumstances surrounding your ejection from the university and that you make clear that you are not in a position to make payment in full at this time. You should offer them a reasonable amount that you can afford to be paid per month. I would stress, if you have no assets and their job, you also inform them of this in the letter. Also, when you’re writing the letter, I would suggest that you place a paragraph in there stating when your circumstances improve you will settle the debt in full. Do you not have any of the loan left over? For the amount you owe the SLC, I cannot see them taking you to court, however you never know. If this does happen that you have various remedies available to you in terms of repaying the loan. The court will generally not ask or force you to pay an amount that you do not have and you will be allowed to pay in instalments, according to your means. All the best of luck looking for a job and I hope things improve for you very soon!

The first thing to remember about the assigning of debts is that the Law of Property Act is applicable in the circumstances. However, that the common law, a debt collection company has every right to take an action against you either as an agent of the creditor or as the legal owner of the debt following a notice or deed of assignment. I wasn’t sure from your post if you are saying that the debt that they are claiming as falling against you actually does? Or, if you are contesting it? If you are contesting the debt, then you should inform this company immediately of the fact that you are doing so. I would also suggest that you ask for evidence from the company that the debt has been uniquely assigned to them in accordance with current law. It should not take any action to pay them unless you are satisfied that they have a lawful right to collect the money on behalf of the bank. In terms of enforceability of the agreement, although I’m not in possession of all the facts, it appears that you have acknowledged that it by going through an agency such as Eurodebt, and I do not think that it is statute barred under the Statute of Limitations. On looking at the agreement however, it seems that it looks unenforceable. It would be up to the court to decide upon the application of the creditor, or if you sort a declaration under the Consumer Credit legislation. You should remember that they cannot and take any enforcement action against you until the matter is heard by the County Court and they have obtained a warrant of execution to allow bailiffs to visit all premises. I would put your mind at rest in terms of the idle threats they appear to be making until obtaining such a judgement against you. I don’t think they would dare go to court armed with that evidence, but you never know. If they do harass you in the meantime remember: In terms of the debt collection company harassing you, you should inform them in your letters that you believe the pressure they are applying to extract the debt from you falls under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. This Act creates the offence of the unlawful harassment of debtors, which, because it may overlap with blackmail, is incredibly serious. The offence, which is summary only and punishable by a fine, is committed by one who, with the object of extracting money from another person to pay money claimed as the debt under a contract: ‘harasses the debtor by demands which by reason of their frequency all manner of making are calculated to subject the debtor or members of his household to alarm, distress or humiliation.’ In your next letter to the debt collection company you should inform them of this. Good luck with it!

Hello duaplex, The first thing to remember about student loans is that there are two types: The first came into being between 1990 and August 1998. This type of loan (commonly known as a 'mortgage style' loan) was payable as soon as the studies ended by Direct Debit. The second type of loan was from September 1998 until the present and is called the 'income contingent loan.' This is the loan that you have. Pursuant to the Higher Education Act 2004, you have a responsibility to repay this loan and to inform them that you are working, even if you move abroad. You will not have a County Court judgement on your file until the matter is brought before the court and they win a judgement against you. Therefore, you should not be worried about this at this present time. The debt however should be collected through the taxation system by your employer, who then passes it on to the Inland Revenue, who pay it to the Student Loans Company. The responsibility for this rests with your employer and yourself. My suggestion is to do the following: 1) Contact the Student Loans Company (SLC) asking for your student unique identifier number and the loan agreement. You will need to give them as much information as possible in order to help them locate you. 2) They identify you by your National Insurance Number and the Local Authority from which you obtained the loan through. Therefore check that the two match: on the SLC agreement form and on your pay slip; 3) If they do not then correct the number with your employer or with the SLC; 4) Once this is done, you should be back in repayment if you are earning over £299 per week. It’s very important to make sure that all agencies have your national insurance number correct as they can affect benefits further down the line. Take care and hope this helps!

Hello Simple321 Sorry to hear that you have been having trouble with the Student Loans Company (‘SLC’). I assume that you have a "mortgage style" loan, which was repayable by Direct Debit, and not through the taxation system. These, in a way, while the worst type of student loan on account of the fact that they allow the payor to fall into arrears in respect of the debt. You have done the right thing by offering the SLC an offer of repayment regarding the arrears. Has the SLC accepted this offer or are they demanding more? Or, are they simply ignoring your offer of repayment? As a general rule when I have been involved in litigation is with the SLC in the past they tend to be rather aggressive collecting the outstanding arrears in. My first piece of advice would be to ensure that the student loan's company are in receipt of your offer of repayment of the arrears. If they have confirmed that they have received your offer in writing this is excellent as the court (should they take to court) will not be happy that they have vexatiously litigated by an offer of repayment was made. The debt collector issue is easy to solve. In my experience, debt collectors very rarely carry out their threats of appearing on your doorstep. They generally only do this when a large amount of money is owed, as it is very expensive for them to send an agent out. Remember, however, your rights should such a thing happen. They have no right to enter your home unless they are in possession of a warrant from the court authorising them to do so, they must also show you that they are acting with the authority of the court and provide suitable identification to make entry. The usual rules in respect of a High Court bailiff are applicable. Should they turn up on your doorstep my advice would be to simply shut the door in their face and inform them that you are not willing to enter into any negotiations orally and you will only do so in writing. In terms of the debt collection company harassing you, you should inform them in your letters that you believe the pressure they are applying to extract the debt from you falls under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. This Act creates the offence of the unlawful harassment of debtors, which, because it may overlap with blackmail, is incredibly serious. The offence, which is summary only and punishable by a fine, is committed by one who, with the object of extracting money from another person to pay money claimed as the debt under a contract: ‘harasses the debtor by demands which by reason of their frequency all manner of making are calculated to subject the debtor or members of his household to alarm, distress or humiliation.’ In your next letter to the debt collection company you should inform them of this, and I would also carbon copy the SLC into the correspondence. This should prevent them from sending someone out to your door. I think your case falls into this offence. This offence can only be prosecuted by the police or by a private prosecution before the magistraights. Harassment in the County Court is likely to lead to an expensive litigation and should generally only be used in specific circumstances. If the matter has its end in litigation, my suggestion would be to examine closely the schedule of payments made under the student loan. You will find that some of the debts could be statute barred on account of the fact they are made in installments. In my experience, you will also find that they have billed interest on the loan from its inception to the point that the order is going to be made and have not itemised the interest on the loan. This is a common mistake that they make and will show them in a bad light before the judge. It is also possible in such cases, based on the above paragraph, to ask the court to grant the remedy of esstople on the grounds that the loan does not fall due on account of the fact that the interest has not been calculated correctly. This is an equitable remedy and is up to the discretion of the court, but it is always worth a punt. Should the court decided that the debt falls due, or from negotiations made out of court you come to an ageement, a Tomlinson Order is probably the outcome. This doesn't affect your credit rating so long as you stick to it. It will however allow them instant judgement if you do not pay within the terms of the order. In any case, I hope that your situation improves and at you stop being harassed by the debt collection agency.

Hello! I hear you indeed. My student loan seems to be the only debt that it feels like I will never be able to pay off! I'm sorry to hear that you didn't manage to finish your course and now you are on benefits. Hopefully, you will end up getting a job at some point in the future. The first thing to remember about student loans is that there are two types: The first came into being between 1990 and August 1998. This type of loan (commonly known as a 'mortgage style' loan) was payable as soon as the studies ended by Direct Debit. The second type of loan was from September 1998 until the present and is called the 'income contingent loan.' This is the loan that you have. Although it racks up interest, it never becomes due until you earn (from employment, not benefits) in excess of £299 per week. I would not worry about it, if you do not expect to work in the future, or if you do not think you will make over £299 per week when you do start working, you will never have to pay it back. Also, the loan will generally expire when you are 65 years old. The mortgage style loan never was never provable in bankruptcy, which would the the only way to get rid of it. There was a time between 1998 and 2004 when one could have the debt placed in your bankruptcy, but the Education Act 2004 got rid of that loophole. Hope this helps! I would put it to the back of your mind. Despite the interest, it is probably the 'best' debt one can have. When you do go back to work, the amount you pay will be very small per month.