Student Loans Company - What Now?

[Adam_S]

Hi all.

 

First of all, I hope nobody minds me posting this here.

 

Here's the situation:

 

I have 2 pre-1998 style loans outstanding with the SLC and another with the Honors Student Loans company (I'll deal with them next, mwahaha!).

 

I have sent off a CCA request for both loans and have been sent a CCA for the second, but not for the first. I have written back saying that the account is now in default, they may not add interest or charges, pass information on to debt collectors or credit reference agencies etc. They have about 3 days to get their act together then I will be writing to them again telling them I will no longer make any payments to the account and that they may be comitting an offence under the CCA. I have also put in a subject access request for everything they have on me with a view to reclaiming various unlawful charges that have been applied to the accounts in question.

 

Ordinarily I'd be happy to now let the loan in default go as it is basically unenforcable in a court of law. Recently though it appears that the SLC have started unlawfully regestering defaults with credit reference agencies. This may not be the end of the world as I'm planning to emigrate in a couple of years but I'd rather avoid it. There's also the principle of the SLC getting away with breaking the law (again). My question therefore boils down to this:

 

How can I force them to stop processing the account in question? Alternatively, how can I get the entire debt written off? I understand that I can use section 142 of the CCA. What letters do I need to write and what procedures do I need to follow? If they do try and register a default, what are my options?

 

Thanks in advance.

[bertsuzuki]

Hi, i'm in the process of drafting a response to the SLC threat to issue a default notice. Having spoken to the National Debt Helpline to get my facts reasonably straight it appears they're breaching all sorts of guidelines by threatening to issue defaults when an account is in dispute. Give me a day or so and i'll post the text of my response to there latest missive.

[Adam_S]

Hi, i'm in the process of drafting a response to the SLC threat to issue a default notice. Having spoken to the National Debt Helpline to get my facts reasonably straight it appears they're breaching all sorts of guidelines by threatening to issue defaults when an account is in dispute. Give me a day or so and i'll post the text of my response to there latest missive.

 

Thank you very much.

 

I'm keen to try and be pro-active about this because if I just let it fester then I'll probably end up with a default on my credit file etc.

 

Does anybody have any info about bringing a case against them for criminally breaching the consumer credit act? I suspect this may be the best route to go because I have a nasty feeling that the information comissioner will end up doing sweet f*** all in response to a Data Protection Act complaint.

[bertsuzuki]

Text of response:

 

Pauline Curran

Collections Operations Manager

Student Loans Company Limited

100 Bothwell Street

Glasgow

G2 7JD

 

xxth June 2009

 

Ref

 

Further to your latest correspondences (multiple) dated xxth June 2009 – Notice of intention to register student loan defaults. It is noted that you “intend to make all student loan defaults a matter of public record and pass default information onto credit reference agencies.”

 

As you are fully aware and as made very clear in my correspondence of xxth February 2007, acknowledged by yourselves on the xxth of May 2007 I consider the account to be in dispute.

 

The Office of fair trading guidance clearly states that: “putting pressure on debtors, or third parties is considered to be oppressive; this includes ignoring disputes about whether money is owed and refusing to freeze action if a debt is in dispute.”

 

As this account is in dispute and has been since the xxth of February 2007 this is a breach not only of the OFT collection guidelines, but also a breach of the Consumer Credit act 1974 and the data protection act 1998.

 

OFT debt collection guidance states further that “continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the administration of justice Act 1970.”

 

Your recent correspondences are in breach of this guidance. Your correspondence of the xxth June 2009 is clearly a demand for payment of a debt that is barred by statute.

 

.

 

 

 

 

Further more, OFT guidelines state that “It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with customers in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner” as you can see from your own figures detailed below you give wildly differing amounts for the disputed amount owed and no indication of the reason for charges issued.

 

Correspondence dated the xxth May 2007 - Total amount owed £41xx.xx

 

Correspondence dated the xxth December 2008 – Opening balance £43xx.xx, total arrears of £36xx.xx

 

Correspondence dated the xxth June 2009 - Total arrears of £36xx.xx, total charges £32.00, total amount £37xx.xx

 

Correspondence also dated the xxth June 2009 - Total charges £32.00, total balance due £44xx.xx

 

There is no breakdown of the amounts in question, a difference of £7xx.xx in the two amounts claimed on the xxth June 2009 and no indication of the nature of the charge of £32.00. In short, this is unclear, inaccurate and misleading, again a breach of OFT guidelines.

 

Furthermore, “charges should not be levied unfairly” examples include not putting the specific amounts that can be added for collection costs in the original credit agreement. Your charges guide issued as part of the demand (applies from September 2004 – original credit agreements date from 1993 to 1996) clearly states that third party charges and litigation fees are at cost, hardly a specific amount.

 

The Information Commissioner’s office Data Protection Technical Guidance to Filing Defaults with Credit Reference Agencies states that under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 “personal data is processed fairly and lawfully” [section 2] and that “if a record is unreliable or based on none standard criteria, it is unlikely to be meaningful to another lender. In these circumstances it would be unfair for a lender to process the data to assess an individual’s credit worthiness [section 2]”

 

With this in mind I would refer to section 9 - “where there is an unresolved dispute about whether a default exists lenders should refer to paragraphs 42 – 45” which states in section 43 “If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly if a default has been filed. Defaults filed in these circumstances may also be inadequate for the purpose of credit referencing in that they do not provide meaningful information about the credit worthiness of the customer”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 11 - Time Framework - clearly states that “there should be a maximum period after which, if anything is recorded with a credit reference agency, a default must be filed. Accounts should normally be filed as being in default where payments due have not been received for six months.” Your correspondence of xxth June 2009 states that the account was scheduled to be paid by 31st of March 2004.

 

As you are aware I am fully conversant with the OFT debt collection Guidance and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations of 2008 and as you have chosen to ignore my dispute and continued to press for payment I have no choice but to file an initial complaint with the OFT (copy included.)

 

If any adverse comments are made on my credit reference files I will not hesitate to take legal action under the Data protection act 1998.

 

 

Yours faithfully

Edited June 18, 2009 by bertsuzuki

[bertsuzuki]

Text of letter to OFT

 

Enquiries and reporting centre

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London

EC4Y 8JX

 

18th June 2009

 

Dear Sir / Madam

 

I would like to complain in the strongest of terms with regard to the actions taken by the Student Loans Company (contact details enclosed) that continue to breach guidelines set out by the Office of Fair Trading. My concerns for complaint are outlined in my latest response letter to the Student Loans Company dated xxth of June 2009 [copy enc.]

 

On the xxth of February 2007 I wrote to The Student LoansCompany regarding an expired debt that was alleged to be owed by myself. That letter was received and subsequently responded to on the xxth May 2007. [Copies enc.]

 

In this letter I pointed out the following items:

 

1) Under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 "an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued".

 

2) The OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that "it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period".

 

 

 

 

 

cont.

 

 

 

 

3) The last correspondence/payment/acknowledgement or payment of this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

 

 

4) The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that "continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970".

Since then I have received further correspondence [copies enc.] regarding the disputed debt, demands for repayment and Notice of intention to Register Default. It is clear that the original contact regarding this debt may well have been in breach of the Office of Fair Trading Guideline referred to in item (2). Furthermore, subsequent correspondence is in breach of Office of Fair Trading Guidelines referred to in item (4) and directly constitutes harassment.

There is also a blatant disregard of The Information Commissioner’s office Data Protection Technical Guidance to Filing Defaults with Credit Reference Agencies in respect of disputed debt.

Many thanks for your help in this matter.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Enc.

Edited June 18, 2009 by bertsuzuki