Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'audited'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me

Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day

Cost Per Day


Found 1 result

  1. My son got ripped off by the system some years ago. His college tutor advised him to redo year 2 of his course. So he took the advice, didn't complete the last few weeks of year 2, and intended to restart that year the following Sept (2007). However, the college converted into a university in the meantime and he was told during the Summer holidays that he couldn't retake year 2 as planned. He appealed and was told he could return at the end of the school year to retake only the bit he'd missed. The Student Loan Company (SLC) deemed that would amount to part-time education and so he would not be entitled to continue his student loan. Without the loan, he couldn't continue and so was forced to drop out. SLC then deemed that he'd intentionally dropped out and so was liable to repay the loan in full. I suspect that the SLC decision is perverse, but that's not the point of my post. Since leaving full-time education, he hasn't earned enough to take him over the payment threshold. He's now emigrated to Australia and set up his own business that's making insufficient profit to take him over the payment threshold. Unfortunately, SLC are demanding that evidence of his income be verified by an accountant or lawyer, which would incur significant professional fees. I have to ask why a copy of his tax return to the ATO would not be adequate and whether SLC have the right to demand that my son, effectively, spends a large proportion (more than he can afford) of his income on having his accounts professionally verified/audited when the only reason for doing so is SLC's demand? All help gratefully received.
  • Create New...