Student Loans - 1992 & 1993: What can I do?

[abo999]

Ok here is my story:

 

Took two loans out; one in 1992 and one in 1993. When I left Uni they were both deferred for a few years, up until about 2000. Then I was earning more money than the deferrment threshold so I started paying them off at the prescribed monthly amount.

 

Then, hard times landed; I was still earning more than the deferrment amount but due to circumstances (long story, involves owning a house in 'smacksville', forced to move out, two mortgages due to needing to buy house to raise offspring away from terror, house in smacksville destroyed by junkies but still paying the mortgage on it etc. etc.) we got into financial difficulties and are now going through the CCS to pay off creditors, the SLC being one of them. They're currently being paid at about £7 a month.

 

I'm not too sure on what my rights are here; can I submit a CCA? I've tried browsing about the FAQ but couldn't really find what I'm looking for. Can anyone supply some help, or a link etc.?

[abo999]

Oops, forgot to mention: I've not received a CCJ relating to this, just the agreement to pay the lower amount.

[maybelline]

you could start with a Data Protection Act subject access request, it costs £10, you need to ask for all the information they have, statements and so on, might as well do a CCA request also, this cost £1. go to the library for template letters or I will try to come back and link them. once you have all the info you at least will know where you stand, also read around the student loans threads to understand the regs on the 92/3 loans, the old mortgage style one I believe that is. you will have a clearer idea then what your rights are given your particular situation.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

[Hippy-chick]

These are old style loans. So they cannot just take money off you - that's the difference as I see it. Old style are simple contracts. If you have been paying recently, I see no point in trying to deny the debt. If the level is too high, you should write to them ( not ring them) and make an offer you can afford. If you are below the level at which you should be paying back you should be asking for the deferrment forms. They are really bad at not sending these out and losing them once you return them. Once you start paying they try to pretend that you have to continue. However, this is not the case. If you are below the income threshold with old style loans you are able to defer payment. Stick to your guns.

 

You should SAR them to see that they have not been levying charges. You can CCA them, but my feeling is that you want to pay what you owe. So SAR them and ensure that you pay what you owe, but only that. The letter is in the templates library - or post here again and I'll find it for you.

 

Last of all - don't get bogged down by all this. It does get better. And keep posting - we've all been there and we're all here for you now.

 

[rory32]

I'm not too sure on what my rights are here; can I submit a CCA?

Yes, as they were taken out before 1998.

 

But as HP states, if you are below the threashold level then you should be looking for a deferment.

 

Is it a case of you aren't earning enough to pay them (e.g. you can apply to defer it) or that you simply have too much money going out to pay them?

[Hippy-chick]

But as HP states, if you are below the threashold level then you should be looking for a deferment.

 

 

LOL Rory. It's HC, not HP. Rofl at the idea!

[rory32]

Oops, silly me (typo or freudian slip, not quite sure). Now where's my tarrot card reading?

[Hippy-chick]

Oops, silly me (typo or freudian slip, not quite sure). Now where's my tarrot card reading?

 

It's done, oh greenie.

 

Your wish is my command.

 

[LyncusBee]

This starting to confuse me now. As I have been told the loan has `matured' I am told by SLC that I cannot defer and the full sum is due now now now, this however seems contradictory to the stated 'use of discretion' in the terms and conditions.

 

I am a student currently and am therefore definately under the threshold even though my partner is employed to the tune of 20k odd I was income assessed for my current course and received loans, so I am fairly sure that means 'we' would be assessed under the threshold also.

 

I have made a CCA request for my 93 loan and am disputing the debt as described in my thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/students/119007-lyncusbee-slc.html

 

They don't seem to understand the CCA request at all (or don't wish to) and the 12+2 days is nearly up which is why I have asked for clarifications of the CCA (s77-79) and how this would preclude any future litigation in them seeking an enforcement on the debt as I have posted hear:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/students/114843-cca-request-12-working-2.html

 

Now I am not trying to troll this thread but offer my opinions for consideration by the more learned and mods on the board:

 

If no Credit Agreement is forthcoming then any court judgement would be precluded as unenforcable? If however they can cough one up on the day of hearing and that is still valid, even though they have not compied with CCA requests by the defendant surely that would make the CCA timeframe of 12+2 working days to comply under statute law +30 Calender days further before they have commited an offence a mockery if they can still have it enforced at a court hearing without giving you a copy??

 

Secondly since it is a simple contract based credit agreement, pre-98,

then it should be subject to the limitation of 6 years if no payments or deferments have been applied in that period; in my case that is true for 14 years and they last contacted me over 6 years ago having had my contact details for at least 4 years and probably longer (which is why I made the S.A.R.) and having defered on two other contracts with them faultlessly (on my part) since 1997. If they can't correlate account details why is that my fault?

 

So the confusion lies in why I, or others should feel obliged to repay a debt by moral duty to a company which has misadministered an account. These statute laws are there to protect consumers from exactly these situations arising, so unless they are somehow exempt or the more learned know of reasons why a court judge would side with SLC just because they are working on behalf the Government, then surely these laws apply and no judge could overlook that in considering one's defence and dispute over the debt?

 

I am very seriously now considering paying for a sitting with a lawyer to clarify this so that I can get hard information on how these laws apply to pre-98 SLC credit agrrements, so that I can let others know.

 

No disrespect to the more senior members of the board but at the moment I have only read speculation on how such law applies as a defence and intimations to to pay the debts which seems contradictory to the implications of the Act?

 

So really it is the finical implications of the CCA regard pre-98 loan contracts that I/we need clarification upon.

 

TIA

[rory32]

If no Credit Agreement is forthcoming then any court judgement would be precluded as unenforcable?

Yes, the court can not enforce the account (look at s127 of the Act). This doesn't mean that no debt exists it just means you can choose whether to pay it or not.

 

If however they can cough one up on the day of hearing and that is still valid, even though they have not compied with CCA requests by the defendant surely that would make the CCA timeframe of 12+2 working days to comply under statute law +30 Calender days further before they have commited an offence a mockery if they can still have it enforced at a court hearing without giving you a copy??

 

They can't just produce a document. There is a little thing called disclosure.

 

So the confusion lies in why I, or others should feel obliged to repay a debt by moral duty to a company which has misadministered an account.

If there is no agreement then as previously stated the choice is yours whether you pay it or not.

 

I am very seriously now considering paying for a sitting with a lawyer to clarify this so that I can get hard information on how these laws apply to pre-98 SLC credit agrrements, so that I can let others know.

 

There is a wealth of information and knowledge on this site, but if you do go to a lawyer make sure it's one who specialises in consumer law. Your average lawyer is not very clued up on the Act. I would also suggest that you perhaps try your local law centre first as these are free.

 

No disrespect to the more senior members of the board but at the moment I have only read speculation on how such law applies as a defence and intimations to to pay the debts which seems contradictory to the implications of the Act?

 

I have no idea which posts you have read, however you may wish to look around the debt forums where you will see some very good, well constructed defences which have worked for people in the past and continue to work. These are defences based on the Act.

 

So really it is the finical implications of the CCA regard pre-98 loan contracts that I/we need clarification upon.

 

I think it is you that needs to clarify it for yourself. Most of the more senior members are very aware of how the Act works. There are links to the Act and other supporting Acts in the Statutes Library http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/statutes-library/

 

In order not to confuse you you may wish to avoid the 2006 amendments as these are not retrospective.

[LyncusBee]

Thanks for the prompt and detailed replies rory32.

 

I certainly didn't mean to imply that mods and senior members don't know the law, just that non-legal people like myself and other student users can only speculate on the finical points of what we read and not interpret from experience. Since most defenses are casuistic we ultimately rely heavily on clarificatioon from senior members to confirm we have the right end of the proverbial stick before deciding on defensive actions.

 

It can be very difficult when one is trying to speed learn quite tricky civil law and statute acts etc, whilst studying for a degree or struggling with low incomes etc escpecially when the letters, charges, and phone calls start coming thick and fast.

 

I shall look closely at the CCA74 s127 as I would like to know what the time frames mean, you mention disclosure, but I suppose I am trying to decide when disclosure can still be made , If that means a court sends you a copy of the claim and associated documents then I don't see there is any penalty to a claimant if they ignore the timeframes.

 

Urrrgggg my head is full, I am trying to get a response together to their 'can you be more specific' letter when I feel I have been implicitly clear. Also the quicker I tell them that the less it shows I have just let the matter go by and have provided clarification promptly.

[rory32]

If that means a court sends you a copy of the claim and associated documents then I don't see there is any penalty to a claimant if they ignore the timeframes.

 

The court sends you only the documents that are required to give the particulars of the claim and for you to state whether you will be defending or not and the subsequent form for filing a defence.

 

All other documents (such as those that would be relied on in your defence) would be requested under the civil procedure rules (part 18) if the case is under English Law. The claimant can't just slip one in at the last minute.

 

Urrrgggg my head is full, I am trying to get a response together to their 'can you be more specific' letter when I feel I have been implicitly clear.

I have suggested a response on your thread.

[LyncusBee]

Don't get me wrong; I understand that the claimant has to disclose a true (legible) copy of an original Credit Agreement, signed and executed: Yet I am still confused over such that is the time frame, as prescibed in CCA74, with which they can still present an original Credit Agreement and thus still mantain an enforcement upon such a debt?

 

By what you have said, even if they ignore the statute timeframes to comply with a CCA request there is no diffrerence if they comply or not ( within the given time frames in CCA74 ) and can forward their claim to a court to enforce the debt in court?

 

Again I am just trying to interpret what I read but not being an exprerienced legal mind I can only guess or speculate on how such a defense would be received in a civil court?

 

TIA

[maybelline]

my understanding is that no creditor would try to enforce a debt through the courts without the original agreement as it would be found unenforceable and they would have to pay costs on top, also it would not look good for them if there is evidence from you that they have been attempting to enforce a debt when they are in breach of the CCA request. what would the judge be enforcing, I could take you or anyone into a court and say excuse me judge, make this person pay xxx amount because I say so?

 

Making a Claim

 

have a look at how the claim process works and this might help

[maybelline]

http://www.bdl.org.uk/images/25_liability_for_debts_and_the_limitation_act.pdf

 

according to National Debtline the old style loan is subject to Limitations Act (unless I have read it wrong) scroll down the pdf to see the part about Student Loans. If you have not acknowledged the debt then I think they cannot enforce.

[maybelline]

is seems obvious that the deferment process is designed to override the Statute of Limitations, the SLC deferment process is also incompatible with natural justice, the CCA clearly is a social document written with protections in place for the consumer......

[LyncusBee]

All other documents (such as those that would be relied on in your defence) would be requested under the civil procedure rules (part 1:cool: if the case is under English Law. The claimant can't just slip one in at the last minute.

 

Part 1 - Overriding Objectives

 

confused over this content but

 

1.4- 2- (e) encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution (GL) procedure if the court considers that appropriate and facilitating the use of such procedure;

 

Seems the most applicable to SLC since they seem utterly non-leniant in there approach to recovering the debts even when they are aware that one's circumstances would mean it impossibl;e without a CCJ

 

I am trying to make some sense of:

 

Part 6 - Service of Documents

 

but this is going to take some time to digest.

 

the CCA clearly is a social document written with protections in place for the consumer......

 

The CCA74 is a statute law I am pretty sure so if old style loans are subject to it then surely that would have to be considered in a defense based upon it whether that be that no credit agreement copy was forthcoming in the specified timeframe 12+2 working days (or perhaps the 30 calender days after, I'm not fully sure which applies yet) or whether you claim it statute limited since no payments or deferments have been made in over 6 years?

 

I suppose what I am trying to assess is how the CCA timeframes for sending a true, executed copy of the original credit agreement apply. After I have received the information from my S.A.R. then I will be able to write to them proposing that it is subject to the statute limitation as I will have a record of what payments and deferments have been applied and when, though I know there not to have been any in the last 6 years.

 

It's for me just a matter of course; request credit agreement, request account transactions and records by S.A.R. then propose the debt statute limited after I have the records I need to prove that.

 

I am beginning to beleive that the heavy handed telephone approach is to get you to agree to make payments however small so that the limitation period resets as the phone call I had yeaterday was along the lines of ' need you to agree to make payments on this debt', when I iterated that I had made written requests that needed to be dealt with first she didn't seem to know what I was talking about until I told her that they had been recieved by track and trace:rolleyes:

[maybelline]

the statute of limitations argument was used by the banks but most folk went on to claim more than six years, the problem I think with slc is that they claim that your contacting them is acknowledging the debt, which is why letters and so on have to start with 'I do not acknowledge any debt to XXX' even if an agreement is unenforceable whether by failure to comply or whatever it still seems to come down to persuading the court you are right, whether slc want to go to court with every one, does seem to be alot of students forms gone missing??

[LyncusBee]

If I am perfectly honest what is stressing me the most is that they are supporting me (thus far) on my final 4th year of an Architectural Design degree. So they are paying me installments on the one hand and demending an almost equal sum back with the other.

 

This is a tough degree and the 4th year the toughest, it's the completely demanding approach when they have full knowledge of my income since it is from them, and have had my contact details for at least the last 4 years whilst they've been supporting me. To chuck this at me in the last and most critical year of study is just against all that they put forward about being a consiencious company supporting students.

 

WHEN WILL PEOPLE GET THE DAMN MESSAGE WE PAY FOR OUR EDUCATION AND A HIGH PRICE AT THAT. We are consumers now and didactic institutions businesses with customer care departments!!

 

Rant ends, sorry feel better now:mad:

[LyncusBee]

the problem I think with slc is that they claim that your contacting them is acknowledging the debt, which is why letters and so on have to start with 'I do not acknowledge any debt to XXX'

 

Possibly a prudent idea but the SLC trying to claim in court that because you have contacted them over the debt by writing or by telephone in order to discuss the matter constitutes an admission of debt would surely be ridiculous by any normal business practises? If that is what they are intimating then that's as ridiculous as trying to use the charges for CAR and S.A.R. as payments to credit your account with as also ridiculous as you have implicitly sent them for a service. I cannot beleive those tactics would be seen a fair or proper by any judge surely!

 

Has anyone actually been in court with SLC defending against an enforcement of an old debt yet? I mean with reasonable reasons why they feel they shouldn't pay now now now, lost deferments, misadministration etc.

[maybelline]

Hi Lyncusbee, you have a right to be stressed, good luck with your final year!

I hope you did not think my comment on 'deferment going missing' was meant toward you, it is indeed meant to be a comment on SLC totally and entirely SLC, they have all too conveniently spirtied away hundreds of students deferment forms, it seems to me that it is a way of making money for them, first of all they have a 'rule' written into their education act saying about deferment and giving students impossible scenarios to abide by which they cannot be in contrl of, we have no control over lost post for example and these rules contradict the consumer credit act that specifically is intended to provide protection from unscrupulous lenders, such as slc IMHO, and the system of requesting those who are so poor they cannot afford to pay have to 'keep in touch' (it is national debtline who state this might be acknowledgement under SOL) so as to prevent the debt expiring under the six years rule, it must be the only debt that will follow the poor for the rest of their life??!

[LyncusBee]

No I didn't take it that way at all. I am between minds on whether the losses of deferments is deliberate to generate government revenue or just another measure of their complete incompetence to tie things together in administrating accounts.

 

In my case they just never bothered sending me my statements, deferments (as they did with my other loans) even though they had my contact details. As I say my loans were deferered barre this one they have now dragged up.

 

Yes the deferment process resets the limitation period, but that is what we agreed to and isn't entirely (I suppose) unreasonable if it was administered correctly. As you correctly say when the onus is on the consumer to keep asking for forms that don't get sent and then get lost when returned producing default notices, and arears to be paid with potential charges then that is highly unreasonable.