Student Loan Statute barred

[okokok]

I have two statute barred student loans from 97 and 98.

 

I am finishing my degree and was told by student loans company that I have no outstanding debt and that I could proceed with the finance application.

 

I have now been told that:

 

"We have had confirmation that the balance is statue barred, however, this does not wipe off the debt from your account.

As you are in breach of the original loan agreement, you will remain ineligible until such a time as the arrears have been cleared in full from your account".

 

I will be derolled if I can't get the loan to pay for the tuition.

 

Is this correct information I have been given?

 

Thanks

[AndyOrch]

Thread moved to the appropriate forum...please continue to post here to your thread.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Ethel Street]

It's correct that statute barred doesn't extinguish the debt, only that the debt cannot be enforced.

 

SLC aren't attempting to enforce the original debt,

just saying that because the original loan has not been repaid they will not give you another loan?

 

I'd have thought they are entitled to say that,

but I don't know precisely what rules they work under in these circumstances.

[unclebulgaria67]

Agree they probably can refuse the loan, on the basis that past experience is that commitments entered into have not been kept to.

 

If there reason to complain and ask for student loan legislation and government policy on, then a complaint should be made in writing to SLC.

[okokok]

Really it is a technicality.

The old style loans were meant to be paid once reaching a specific income.

I have never reached that level of income due to ill health.

 

These new type of loans are automatic.

The payments come out automatically once earnings are above £21,000

- so it is a completely different format.

 

I wonder if I have been rejected because of my age or disability?

 

Does anyone think it a good idea to offer to pay back the old loans under the new type of loan scheme

ie. automatically after earning £21,000

if they give me the finance for the tuitions fees to allow me to complete my degree?

[dx100uk]

as with any creditor

they can and will refuse further credit because as ES pointed too...

there is no such thing as a statute barred debt in E/W when it remains with the original creditor

 

this is why certain SLC debts of this era wre not bought by erudio [arrows]

they knew they could never enforce them.

[okokok]

they were both bought by link and erudio.

There is no debt with the SLC.

[Ethel Street]

Really it is a technicality.

The old style loans were meant to be paid once reaching a specific income.

I have never reached that level of income due to ill health.

 

If that's the case you need to challenge SLC's statement that you are "in breach of the original loan agreement". If the original loan agreement didn't require repayment until you reached a certain income and you haven't reached that income then surely you aren't in breach of the loan agreement? Ask them which bit of the loan agreement you have breached.

[okokok]

Thanks Ethel. It was being seriously ill and the SLC not sending out the deferment papers combined that meant the loan went to repayment status - even though I was on nil income.

Does the Government have any legislation for positive discrimination towards disabled people studying at University to return to work?

[dx100uk]

If the debts have been sold to those two fleecers then what are SLC going on about!!

No debt exists on their books now. They sold them!!

[okokok]

Yes. This is what the SLC collections department told me also, that there was no debt. This is why I began the course.

[unclebulgaria67]

Think you should write back to whoever has written to you asking for legislation supporting their refusal to offer new student finance. Because it is government led student financing, there should be legislation that supports this loan refusal.

[okokok]

Thanks for all the replies.

There is a formal appeals process to follow. 3 stages if necessary.

Hopefully it will be resolved at stage 1.

[okokok]

I am still awaiting to hear back from Stage 1 Appeal process.

 

It is still within the 15 working day target they aim to respond by.

 

It is really affecting my ability to study,

worrying that I may now be in serious debt.

 

I am wondering if I should get in touch with an M.P over this issue and if there is any right way to do this.

 

I am going to be derolled shortly if I can't get this fixed.

 

Also would it be a conservative M.P I would raise this issue with or a labour/other?

 

Thanks.

[okokok]

Thanks for the PM. Very helpful

[dx100uk]

what pm?

[okokok]

Polite request - please no more trolling or nasty, unproductive comments. I am having a difficult time with this. Thanks.

 

Ok Further update here.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ (They sent me this link upon further request of where the following legislation comes from - but I can't yet find it)

 

"Eligible part-time students

137.

(3) A person ("A") is not an eligible part time student if

 

(b) A is in breach of any obligation to repay any loan".

 

This is the legislation quoted to me to reject my application for tuition.

 

I confirmed yet again with the SLC advisors that no debt exists with them and the balance is zero

- which suggests to me that the "obligation" to the SLC is non-existent.

 

However the appeals letter outcome states that "your debt to the Student Loans Company does indeed still exist... you will remain ineligible until such a time that the outstanding balance is paid in full" -

 

I spoke to Link and Erudio advisors where the loans were sold on to and both initially confirmed that their screen was stating that the accounts had been closed and very specifically that the debt had been "written off".

 

The SLC then told me that apparently Erudio is the problematic one and so I re-rang to get a letter in writing to state that the debt had been written off.

 

 

A different advisor then said something different (this is after I had put my written Appeal stage 2 in to the SLC) and that the balance was outstanding but was statute barred and they would not pursue it.

 

I then asked if they would accept a token amount £100 as a full and final offer in preference to never getting anything and this was rejected stating they would need the balance in full.

 

 

I also asked them how much they paid for the loan and they said I would have to ask the Student Loans company.

I was told that the SLC policy is to never offer further finance to anyone who has a statute barred loan.

(I did however receive a small grant in 2009 from them).

The SLC insist they are acting under the government strict policies.

 

If anyone has any legal expertise or insight to offer here, I would be very grateful.

 

Thanks.

[dx100uk]

why are you RINGING THESE FLEECERS.

 

writing only

 

if they are statute barred ignore everyone offer nothing.........

[okokok]

Because I am about to be de-rolled from university.

 

The issue is the SLC seem to be blocking me from receiving tuition fees due to the statute barred debt with Erudio.

 

Therefore I hoped that by taking out a £100 loan,

they may accept a full and final settlement in order to get the status to "written off" which apparently then allows the SLC to grant me funding.

 

I am trying to move forward with my life and there are just endless roadblocks.

 

This afternoon an Erudio advisor swore blind the status was "written off" and then when I rung again to ask for that in writing another said it was statute barred.

 

All have confirmed they will not be pursuing.

 

The SLC company can not tell me how much they sold the debt to Erudio for as it was covered in 2008 Sale of Student Loans.

 

My question is it seems the "obligation" was settled then to the SLC, and transferred to Erudio.

 

I need help with the legislation they produced as it doesn't seem to apply and also if there are any exceptions etc that can be made.

 

Also, SLC acknowledged no connection with Erudio and that they are a private company

[Ethel Street]

I don't see anyone trolling you here okokok, but anyway hopefully you don't think this is a nasty unproductive comment.

 

As I understand your posts your problem isn't that some DCA, or anyone else, has been trying to recover the loan.

Your problem is that you need a new student loan from SLC or you will be removed from your course

but SLC are refusing saying they will not provide a new loan while you still owe money on the old loan, even though it is statute barred.

 

SLC have quoted legislation that says you are not eligible for a new loan if you are "in breach of any obligation to repay any loan".

The legislation they quoted is The Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 section 137 (3) (b)

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1986/regulation/137/made

 

This isn't what you want to hear but in my opinion you do still have an "obligation to repay" your original student loan even though it is statute barred.

 

There's a difference between the loan still being due and the SLC being able to enforce recovery.

They can't enforce recovery but the loan still exists.

 

I don't know if any court has ever ruled on this and a judge might not agree with me,

but that's my opinion,

I think SLC are justified by The Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 in refusing you another loan.

 

Sorry.

[okokok]

HI Ethel, no you have never trolled the troll posts have longed since been deleted, I was simply putting in a polite request for no more as I almost didn't come back for the support I need.

 

My main purpose is to understand, so thank you for your input. The link is great.

I think you have the gyst of the scenario.

 

However technically, in this instance, SLC have been paid and the debt with them was settled by Erudio.

 

Erudio are a private company with no connections to SLC.

 

I don't see any difference with say if my friend had paid the SLC loan amount off.

 

As far as the SLC are concerned, as their records show, there is no debt - therefore no obligation - to pay to them.

 

The Appeals letter states that my debt to the SLC still exists. I ring the SLC and they say it doesn't!

[dx100uk]

sorry i'd quite forgotten your unique situation....

[okokok]

Another way to view this, which is perhaps what you are getting at Ethel, is the loan ("loan" means a loan made under any provision of the student loans legislation) is an entity in and of itself and it doesn't matter who owns it - the obligation is to repay it.

[okokok]

sorry i'd quite forgotten your unique situation....

 

That's ok There isn't much about this anywhere. I just can't accept that under the circumstances, this is applying the spirit of the thing correctly.

[Ethel Street]

 

However technically, in this instance, SLC have been paid and the debt with them was settled by Erudio.

 

Erudio are a private company with no connections to SLC.

 

I don't see any difference with say if my friend had paid the SLC loan amount off.

 

As far as the SLC are concerned, as their records show, there is no debt - therefore no obligation - to pay to them.

 

OK. Let us know how you get on.

 

Bear in mind that even if SLC accept that selling the loan to Erudio is equivalent to paying off the loan Erudio won't have paid anything like 100% of the original loan amount.

 

So if Erudio paid SLC say 20% of the original loan (just guessing, I've no idea!) SLC would say that 80% of the loan was still outstanding and due from you.

 

And I doubt removing the loan from their financial statements means that the loan is therefore no longer owed to them.

 

That's just my gut feel though, I couldn't point you to any court decisions or legal rules relevant to this.