I posted here in March to see if 25 years, or when I turned 50, was when my SLC student loan (taken out 1997) was written off, and it was confirmed to me then. However, I did some googling about it and now they say loans from my time are written off after 30 years, as in (I assume) a change in government policy. Is this true or not? I tried contacting Erudio, but no reply as yet.

Thanks for the confirmation

If it happened, it was over 15 years ago at least and I didn't keep any records, and I don't think there were arrears of any kind. I just can't remember, it was so long ago.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, to be honest.

There was only the one time I didn't fill in the deferment form in time, made a couple of payments and then deferred. It was a long time ago, not sure about the details.

In my last Uni course, I applied for a SLC loan (at age of around 24) on the 13th of January 1997 and it was granted, and I have been deferring it every year since then, except the odd repayment when I delayed it too long. Now I've found out that it could be written off as early as next year, when I turn 50 in September 2022. Is that the case?

I found this one in 15 seconds: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/cruel-benefits-sanctions-dwp-job-advisers-evidence-work

I don't have proof, just heard about claims made in articles I've read in the past, and that was for JSA. These articles would be from around 2012 to 2015 online.

No really fair or justified reasons, they just wanted to meet their targets for sanctions is all. Or does that not still happen now?

Alright, since no-one is going to answer my last post, what is the biggest cause of benefit sanctions for over-50s? Or indeed, any age group? Missing appointments?

That's another thing that puzzles me. If an appointment letter comes from the JC, then that should be the highest priority to deal with, and the claimant should make a special effort to turn up early for the appointment and make sure they get there in plenty of time. I've heard countless times of people who turn up slightly too late - that's on them, to be honest, as they didn't consider it important enough.

I have looked at a few graphs and charts that show this kind of information: https://www.cabwiltshire.org.uk/images/sanctions_by_age_groups.png https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/gallery/publications/report/2018/10/2018-annual-report-welfare-reform-9781787812628/00541551.jpg And the thing that I wonder about is, why do less benefit sanctions of any kind get applied to older people as opposed to the young? My thinking is that the young should be encouraged to work after leaving education, and most of them have the support of their parents, so that's why sanctions are so high there. But as the age increases, the sanctions fall. Is this an acknowledgment by the UK GOV and DWP that older claimants are less likely to find work, and so the work coaches are more lenient on them? Or is it something else? I've been looking up and down for an explanation for this, but Google either doesn't have it, or I'm not phrasing the search parameters correctly.

I've been looking at the issue of Housing Benefit in Universal Credit, and I can't get a simple straightforward answer as to whether or not the stated monthly amount of UC even includes HB. I understand legacy JSA and IB and ESA having fixed amounts each fortnight for a benefit, but I always thought that since the HB was set by the local council, that it varied a lot from person to person based on their rent, which can vary substantially. But if UC includes a fixed amount for ALL possible rents, doesn't that leave some people at a disadvantage if their rents are high? Also, is it true the HB part of UC also gets stopped during a sanction, and can't be restarted separately with a NIL INCOME call to the council? Does the council even control the HB in UC?

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefits-change-circumstances Thanks for the clarification, everyone. A HMO does sound much more like where I am at, and thank for the link, Ethel! I can't believe I've been using the wrong term for so many years!

I have been at the same address for over 13 years, which is shared accommodation run by a private landlord. There is a rented bedsit each for the tenants, and the landlord lives at the same address, in his own room. The tenants are not related to each other, but they move in and out on a regular basis as the years go by, and I have known about two dozen people doing this. The kitchen and bathroom are shared by all. The problem I've got now is that I have neglected to tell the DWP about the people moving in and out, and their incomes. I don't know anything about their incomes, nor did I want to ask. I was told a long time ago that I didn't need to relay such information, but otherwise I would've been filling out Change of Circumstance forms on a regular basis. Am I in trouble? Or am I misinterpreting the Change of Circumstance clauses known as: changes to the benefits you or anyone else in your house gets people moving into or out of your house (for example your partner, a child or lodger) Would I really have to repay any excess amounts? Why does it matter what incomes and number of people there is?