Many thanks - it is as I thought.

I work in retail and my employer is expecting all staff to be in work 10 minutes before the paid shift starts and then remain for as long as it takes, unpaid, after the shift has finished. In this time the employee is expected to count tills, mop floors etc. however many of the staff are starting to feel exploited. I can fully expect a member of staff to be in the premises in good time for his/her shift but is it wrong for them to be expected to work for free when they are paid by the hour? Also, if a member of staff refused to work this extra could the employer put them on a disciplinary even though it is outside of their contracted and paid hours ?

Quick Update. SLC eventually removed all charges from my account on the basis I settled the now matured loan. Luckily the amount that I legitimately owed was very low. Two and half years of arguing. I am amazed how incompetent large companies are and what they will try and get away with. This has been a great learning experience and I feel sorry for those people employed by such companies (it is not necessarily the individual to blame but the restrictive structuring of the companies). Many thanks everyone.

Unfortunately the current prices at the pumps have set a precedent of what people will continue to pay. Reducing the amount of tax payable may lower the price for a couple of days but I am sure that the higher price will return. Instead of what you pay being put back into this country it will go straight into the pockets of the oil companies and its shareholders.

Why not photocopy tha card and send it to a random MP or Judge or Local dignitary perhaps even the Queen or Prime Minister and hope the recipient phones them and sees what a bunch of @*!!%*! are at the end of the phone. Sabotage this tactic! (I would not really reccomend this tactic for legal reasons though - I'm a coward) As to the comment by CurlyBen it is debateable as to whether the cards are ambiguous as they are clearly headed NCO. As all other correspondance from this company is sent in envelopes it seems that these postcards are intentionally sent to defame. As to suing for loss of earnings NCO will claim that there is no specific date on these cards - just a day. There is no postmark with a date on this cards either to my knowledge. I am currently using the defamation argument with the Student Loans Company as I have a disputed debt with them and feel that these cards are defamatory not just against myself but other members of the household. I also live within walking distance from their headoffice and am assured that my postman is familiar with the company that is just up the road. SLC has taken the account away from NCO but the argument is still ongoing with great fervour.

Best thing to do in my opinion is to search all statements to find if there have been any 'penalty' charges added to the account prior to the house move. If so - dispute these by going through the SLC complaints procedure - this will move your account away from Crapquest and back to the SLC and then you can negotiate payment with them. It is your responsibility to tell an organisation of any relevant change of details. The SLC will then demand full payment in an inappropriate way ie. over three months. This is obviously unacceptable to you and highly unacceptable for a company to demand this. Make your offers in writing and don't leave yourself short as your quality of life is of the upmost importance. Remember that if this should go to court depending on your circumstances the payments could be very small. Send all letters RecDel and keep copies. Also read the deferment conspiracy thread as I am sure you probably have as there are many sound arguments raised there about deferment procedure or lack of. If you aint got the money then you have nothing to pay them with. Hope this is of some help. M.

Ah - good old leatham-locke LLB. LLB after the name only indicates that this individual has gained a law degree - don't assume that they are solicitors and take their letter as the standard 'scare tactic' letter it is. I assume that if you write you will not get any response. And what is a 'pre-litigation' department ? Why don't they just send an LBA ? I suppose that writing back will show that you are a tough cookie to deal with though so it could have its advantages. Good luck and kepp up the good fight

Don't waste your time with NCO - log all phone calls - keep all postcards they send you (these could be seen as defamatory against you and other people at your household as there is no excuse to send an open postcard especially as all their other mail arives in envelopes). If they continue harrasment report them to Preston Trading Standards with copies of logged calls etc. I am currently going through the complaints procedure with SLC and the antics of NCO have given me a huge amount of ammo against the SLC. NCO are ulikely to listen.

Perhaps it is worth learning that if a judge asks you the question as to whether you feel you have breached a contract with the bank by exceeding your 'agreed' overdraft limit the answer should be 'yes'.

The problem is that I have only paid £48 of the charges (they took this from a third party cheque paid directly towards the loan account - as there is no provision in the T&C's to add anything apart from interest to the account I think they are totally in the wrong here - although they have failed on several occassions to address this point !). There are still c.£212 pounds of charges which I am refusing to pay. Does the fact that I have not paid the full charges make it more complicated ? I am also a small step away from having the case submitted to the 'external assesor' (I hope I spelt this right;) ) - I have read his reports, and although there is little detail there he does seem to sort things out. As I have got this far I am not sure should it go to court whether the court will look badly upon me by not going all the way through their complaints procedure. Thanks

I thought not - but it may be of interest that after three years of requests the Student Loan Company has given me just that. I have posted the thread in the Student section of this site: SLC Letter Charges - is this justification legal ? I can understand why banks are unwilling to give out this information and am extremely suprised that any financial organisation would have done this. As I am no legal expert (far from it) how would the application of this costs become an unfair term ? I would appreciate any help.

Received a letter from SLC Collections Operations Manager after three years of requests for a breakdown of charges applied to my account. They claim the letter charges are made up of the following costs: Agent Salary (Inc Pen, National Insurance etc) - £9.20 this is based on 5 x 3 minute outbound calls and 3 inbound calls @ 9 mins each Supervision Costs - £2.62 T/L costs associated with maintaining the account. Cost of Printing and Mailing - £0.98 worked out as 19.6p per letter and the assumption that they have sent five. Support Costs - £1.94 for Rent, Rates ,Lighting, Electricity and etcs. Correspondence Handling - £0.50 for letters they receive from borrower. Cost of outgoing calls - £1.25 for BT charges - obviously these are based on the above assumption of call duration and not actual costs. Corporate Support Functions - £1.92 (HR, Finance, Facilities Legal etc) ICT and Licence Costs - £3.09 As I have said previously this information has taken over three years of requests to come to me. It is also the kind of information that other financial institutes seem unwilling to divulge ! I must also point out that I have been in correspondence with SLC regarding numerous issues including rejection of deferrment and that my argument with them is ongoing and currently being hauled through their compaints procedure. Are the above true representations of the costs and expenses I have personally had them incur due to my alleged default ? If I was not seen to be in the position of default by the employees of the SLC would their electricity bill be lower, their rates be lower - would they have to buy as many light bulbs ? I could go on - The other problem regarding the above costings is that the SLC obviously have a vested interest in administering charges in order to alledgedly fund the up keep of departments. Is this propper practice or is this system open to abuse to the detriment of the borrower ? I took out my loan in 1991 when the SLC was a relatively small affair - In that year there were roughly 180,000 students who took out loans with SLC - last year it was roughly 871,000. Since taking out my loan the company has expanded in size and property and upon reading their annual reports is expanding rapidly to incorporate their future expectations. Therefore their alleged costs and expenses cannot be justified and would be impossible to prove as being actual and in no way have been caused by my alledged breach. It is also evident from their literature that they have continually strived for easier, quicker and more cost effective ways of managing accounts however I am sure that any one can see that these cost saving benefits have in no way been reflected in the charges levied - which have increased from £12 to £20 since 2001. Are we being charged for bad business acumen ? I can only say that I feel that the clause in the contract with SLC is an unfair term however my fight still goes on. I would be grateful of any help

I think the three month period is laid down in the Student Loans Regulations which is statutory. Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 211 I do beleive that this does leave it wide open for abuse of the system to the detriment of the borrower and begs the question as to why the deferrment policy has been put in place. It seems that it is not for the protection of low earners and therefore just a political folly to mis sell a loan.

This seems to be a common complaint with the deferral procedures and have been in the same boat though SLC still maladminister my loan (not HSL) although from what you are saying above they seem to be using the same tactics. The system set up to prove earnings prior to being deferred is so badly thought out and open to abuse as maby of us seem to be finding out. PS emma have you read your PMs ?

Just wondering if anyone has had a breakdown of the 'costs and expenses incurred' or any financial breakdown of what makes up admin charges/letter charges from any financial institution or business. Has anyone ever got to the stage where they can request further and better particulars in court or do you think like me that this is the last thing they are prepared to reveal as it could open up the unfair contract argument. What makes up the 'costs and expenses' or administration costs ? In certain agreements I have come across it would be expected that a company would be able to provide this information on demand - in my experience this is definately not the case.

Thanks I will check this out

Do The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs. 1999 apply to an agreement made in 1991 ? If not, what are the relevent regulations that govern a 1991 contract ?

Nasty devious plan #3 ~ Await the time they send you one of their famous postcards then photocopy it and send it to some high level person such as the information commissioner or an MP or Bin Laden

these people are a joke. The problem for them is that through great sites like this people are now aware they are a joke. They are becoing less effective. Companies that condone and endorse their procedures by employing them are surely questionable as well. Their business must becoming such hard work - thus less profitable hah hah.

Nice to see it is bonus related and has 'challenging' targets. Pay ain't too good though and you run the huge risk of losing all your friends and possibly family. One thing though if you work for them you will not reach the threshold to need to pay back your loan should you have one although I cannot see any graduate stooping so low.

So where is the legally binding contract in their reply? They 'want to discuss'.

I think one of the problems with the Student Loans help on this site is that there are so many different Terms and Conditions flying around including the confusion of the pre/post 1998 saga. It is hard to understand each individuals situation in relation to the T&Cs - for example in my T&Cs there is no provision for the SLC to add anything apart from interest to my loan account - however when a cheque is paid into my loan account they have deducted numerous charges for letters. I am sure this is in no way legal. It has also come to my notice through correspondence with the SLC that they too are highly confused as to which T&Cs relate to my loan. My fight still goes on - could write a highly amusing book about the SLC adventures !

Charges started at £12 and quickly reached £20 per letter. I have had charges only 8 days apart! Totalling over £200 ! I had to request my statements of which they duly sent with no problem although I had to send some awkward letters. The software angle has been brought up as the charges only started to appear after this new software was installed and it seems to me that they are treating all the older loans under one set of T&Cs - they have mis quoted my terms and conditions so many times and referred to parts that do not even exist. The charges are just a small part of the problem with this company as they seem to be in breach of many aspects of the T&Cs of the loan as well as the administration. The SLC still own my loan. It has been disputed since early 2004.

I took out a Student Loan in the early 1990's and have recently been going through my statements. It has come to my notice that charges have been added to my acount from around October 2001 yet no charges have been previously added before this date. In my research it appears that year ending 2001 the SLC installed new software called Tallyman - an automated acount management software that deals with all account procedures. I am concerned that this automation procedure has levied charges onto my account that in no way reflect the Terms and Conditions of my Loan Agreement. I am interested if other people have had charges added to their account prior to this software installation. I must also note that my loan was taken out in the early stages of the Student Loans Company's emergence into the world and that there are no references to 'standard charges as set out in the Student Loans Charges Guide' as appear in some of the T&Cs. My T&Cs purely refer to costs and expenses incurred. Thanks

I thought that under the CCA you should receive a statement of account from your creditor not more than twelve months apart. If you had been sending payments from your new address then surely they have no excuse for not sending these. Ask for proof of postage or any record of postage perhaps under a data protection act subject access request.