Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

oldstudent

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About oldstudent

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. NOT 30 40 - if you took out the last of your loans before the age of 40, they will be written off when you reach 50, or after 25 years, or if you were over 40 at last loan when you reach 60 - whichever is sooner. Check legislation UK for full and accurate regulations on student loans http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1675/regulation/12/made#text%3Dstudent%20loans%20cancellation
  2. I wish you the best of luck with your interpretation of the terms Sabby - although I've seen no evidence to support your view anywhere. It seems clear to me that SLC use Gross income to mean ALL income, from all sources, whether that income is taxable or not, BUT (added together) before that tax has been deducted - whether the income is taxable or not. That is quite simply not the same as saying they only base their calculation on 'taxable income'. Perhaps they will be open to that reading of the meaning of the terms but personally, I wouldn't book my holidays on the strength of my case. There's lots of 'warriors' who'll advise you to fight battles but you need to assess this one brutally honestly - it's your anxiety levels that will suffer. Again - good luck - I hope you win it and let everyone know if you do and then they can use this argument.
  3. I see how you're reading that... interesting. Personally, I suspect they meant "income from all sources" AND whether that income is taxable or not taxable - but before any tax has been deducted. I hope you're right but why would they make a special point of saying "not including disabilty related benefits" which I presume are also untaxable, when by your argument, they should have said "not including any benefits" because your position is based on all benefits being treated as non-taxable income. So why didn't they state that? Who knows? That's just down to semantics and some you win/some you lose. Good luck in any case. One for the people!
  4. Sabby, I hate to say this and I hope you win the dispute but, on the scans of original loan agreements posted on the mumsnet thread - SLC define Gross income as: "income from all sources before deduction of tax but not including any disability related benefits" As a layman, that means to me that housing, child benefit, income support etc - every single benefit under the sun EXCEPT disabilty and only except disabilty related benefits, is counted as part of your gross income. And if your gross income is over £2398 you're done for I can only wish you luck with it - but I can't see a way out of that one
  5. Warren, are you sure that simply being in receipt of any state benefit automatically entitles you to defer? After all, child benefit is a state benefit and is open to any parent regardless of income. A borrower wouldn't be able to defer, if their income is over the repayment threshold simply because they get a state benefit. My understanding of Sabby's dilemma is that she is working and earning an income (which is of itself below the repayment threshold) however, she also receives benefits which, when added to her income from employment, push her over the repayment threshold. Her dispute is that these benefits should not be included in her Gross income declaration - if that were the case she would then be able to defer repayment of her loan. However, it seems Erudio are saying that ONLY 'disabilty related benefits' do not count as part of Gross income. Housing benefit, child benefit etc DO count as Gross income (according to my understanding and Erudio's position)
  6. Sabby, I would agree with dx to the extent that I wouldn't rush to show my hand immediately, unless it's impossible to reply without doing so - that may be the case in your situation. I have to say though, that on the surface, it seems as though all benefits (except disability related) are counted as gross income. If you're convinced that you have a case to argue then of course, you must, but it seems a bit shaky to me - but... I'm no expert and what have you got to lose, if you'll end up over the threshold by not disputing.
  7. Sabby & all others - worth looking at the Mumsnet thread where someone has kindly posted a copy of an original SLC loan agreement detailing the terms and conditions
  8. Sabby, I didn't realise your loans were from a different era to mine. Mine are mortgage style loans pre-1998 which were sold to Erudio in November last year - I think. Sounds as though you are getting similar paperwork to me - I'm fairly sure the same benefits as income rules apply though.
  9. Cheers guys - Ah! I've had a NOA too - lots of food for thought. I think I would have to go through the process for deferral and if they rejected that application on the basis of some spurious omission on the form, address status, or telephone number for example, then I would let them go through the court process on the basis that no reasonable person/judge would consider an attempt to obtain a judgement for full repayment because of an omitted phone number, to be anything other than vexatious. If they play by the rules - I should get deferred - but they're only in it for the money - so let's see what happens - I'll post here with any updates too.
  10. I take on board what you're saying Rene and Sabby - I don't think I would enjoy the stress of the 'journey' though. The debts have been sold entirely by SLC to Erudio. Why? Because they're practically worthless to the SLC but a private DCA sees some potential for return by putting everyone through the mill - an option closed to the SLC. What's a NOA Sabby?
  11. Afraid I can't post links yet as you have to have made more than 10 posts before you get link posting rights! The Mumsnet Erudio thread has links posted to the original legislation which seems to indicate that only disabilty related benefits are excluded so although it's worth disputing, I suspect you're on a sticky wicket - even if SLC treated your application differently. However, unless you want to risk a full repayment demand, I would seriously consider using the form they sent to reinstate the direct debit - regardless of the dispute element. I'm only saying that because I think that the technical condition is that you must provide an active DD mandate (whether you are repaying or in deferment) or else you are in breach of the agreement. Erudio won't be able to take a payment from your account without writing to you to tell you when they will take the first payment (that's a condition of the banks DD Guarantee scheme) - if they do, and you dispute it, your bank will refund the money to you ... and then Erudio would pursue you for payment etc... Last year SLC said my loans would cost me £150 or so per month if I started repaying but I was able to defer and I know I haven't earnt enough to repay this year. But I'm suspicious of Erudio and they will look for any trick to get you to pay (unlike SLC, they have no moral or ethical restraint). I know I'm below the threshold, but if I had to repay, I'd rather do it at £150 per month than be brought to court for all the cash in one go. Don't know what would happen then - not been down that road...
  12. Sabby, I'm reading this thread at the same time as one on Mumsnet - useful info there. I can see nothing in any online info or any documents I have that would mean benefits were not counted as gross income - and it is definitely gross income (not net) that repayment is based on. The only benfit that is excluded form the total - is any 'disability related benefit' - if your benefit doesn't fit this description then I suspect you will be liable to repay. Again, I'm no lawyer but I'm sure any error SLC made in failing to include your benefits would not bind Erudio to do the same thing. Please don't get caught out on the cancelling direct debit mandate issue - I think that will be what Erudio are hoping loads of people will do and they'll go straight to court if necessary and demand full repayment. They can mark your credit record. Whether this actually affects you or not is debatable. If you're in deferment, a prospective lender may see you have outstanding debt but if they see you don't have to repay it they may not be unduly worried. However, if you go into default, or don't pay by direct debit this will definitely adversely affect your ability to get credit. Someone posted this link on Mumsnet detailing the changes the Govt allowed to let SLC mark peoples credit records: Telegraph - Government toughens stance over non payment of student loans (can't post links here yet)
  13. I'm in a similar position to Saaby, not on benefits but have always acknowledged debt and always deferred due to low income. SLC and consequently Erudio already have direct debit information through data migration. Providing a direct debit mandate (which obviously includes your bank details) was an original condition of getting a loan from SLC. If you do not complete a DD mandate for Erudio I think they will say you have breached an original condition of the loan and demand repayment/place you in default. You will then be sabotaging your own ability to defer repayment. I am not a debt expert but I am puzzled how anyone can advocate just not paying/doing nothing. Erudio have addresses and bank details and the loans are acknowledged. If Saaby doesn't apply to defer they will just debit payment from her bank account. On what basis are people asserting that debt collection agencies have NO powers? I don't understand this point. In relation to what exactly - do they have no powers? They own the debt? With regard to Erudio and the new more detailed Deferment forms, I have a question on what the extra information is for and whether the borrower is legally obliged to provide the extra information. They ask if you are a tenant or homeowner - if you are a homeowner (which does not affect deferral income threshold) - and you do not get deferred - and Erudio cannot get your direct debit details - can they attach a legal charge against your property. Would they have to go to court to get a judgement against you for the amount of your loan? I can't see how they'll get value out of the debt without doing this sort of thing.
×
×
  • Create New...