Student Loan Deferment Conspiracy ? (long)

[daveydavey]

Are you aware of how Student Loans Companies are trying to recover money from you even when you're on a low income, & entitled to deferment? plse read below if you have time! any comments welcome, may help our defence(s) in Court !

Plenty of people on low incomes or benefits due to disability etc are being harassed & threatened with Court Action & Bailiffs and the cancellation of the whole amount of their Student Loan, even though they qualify for deferment due to low income. This is happening because the Student Loan Companies aren't processing all of the borrowers' annual loan deferment forms, thereby creating 'arrears', adding unlawful penalty charges (£20 per letter in my case, including two letters sent in five days!) & then claiming the borrower to be in default !

 

They're negating the whole 'contingent' principle of income-contingent loans through their own 'maladministration' & then denying any responsiblity! Is this their way of trying to meet recovery targets, as they're obviously not doing so?!

 

The Student Loan Companies are in a system where they are actually *rewarded* for messing up, not acting on, misfiling or 'losing' annual deferment applications, even when sent by Recorded Delivery. If they process them as they should, sum recovered = 0 ! If arrears are created through failure to process the deferment application, & the borrower (rightly) objects, they invoke a '3-month limit for backdating deferments rule', even when chasing the borrower after the 3 months are up! They then claim the borrower to be in default , add lots of unlawful charges for standard letters & unlawful penalty charges & threaten to cancel the whole of their loan & to demand repayment of the whole loan in full, even when the borrower is on a poverty income or in receipt of Income Support due to illness!! This negates the whole founding principle on which Student Loans were introduced, that they only become repayable once a borrower's income rises above 85% of a national average wage.

 

Reposted from other sites :

http://moblog.co.uk/view.php?id=101478 part of below :

 

 

Student Loans sold to ‘loan shark’ bringing despair and debt to thousands.

 

In November 2004 the government sold out a whole raft of student loans to the highest bidder, Honours Student Loans, bringing confusion despair and debt to hundreds of thousands of ex-students. HSL have been accused of using tactics normally the reserve of backstreet loan sharks to force students into accepting debts that they should have been protected from, creating a new underclass of ex students. HSL are accused of entrapment, bullying and harassment of an unprecedented scale and of making a mockery of the governments pledge to protect low income students and their families.

 

When the government introduced student loans it argued that low income students where protected from unnecessary debt and hardship by the 85% income threshold. Those students, it proudly announced, who after graduating found themselves in low incomes, would not have to pay back their student loan. This includes many who went on to use their degrees in public service such as teachers, social care workers as well as individuals who through circumstance or lack of opportunity found themselves on low incomes- often at the minimal wage. The larger proportions of students who fail to benefit from higher wages after graduating are from the lower income families, which the government claimed they wanted to encourage into university.

 

Thousands of those ex students have suddenly found themselves victims of the confusion around the deferment process and of unprecedented incompetence, harassment and bullying resulting in their being forced to pay back their student loans, despite being on low incomes. This has brought despair, thrown whole families into hardship, brought many to the brink of suicide and created a whole new underclass. They feel that the government has sold them out to the highest bidder and that the DfES (Dept. for Education and Standards) have washed their hands, abandoning them as the victims of a flawed education policy.

 

Those ex students accuse HSL of incompetence and deliberate entrapment within the deferral process. Deferrals can only be backdated three months, but HSL delayed in sending out deferral forms, then created confusion regarding the process, lost deferral forms and correspondence and only informed the student when they have past the deadline by demanding arrears and immediate full payment of the loan. The monthly repayments demanded are often over £100 a months, more than a low income family could afford and they add their own charges. They are also accused of forcing students to sign new agreements which benefit HSL. Those students that succumb to the harassment and set up direct debit payments have found HSL making regular errors, and HSL force the student to pay extra charges for their own mistakes.

 

Many students first realisation that they have not deferred is in the form of a postcard telling them that they are in default and that an agent will be calling at their house within the next three days. These postcards are from company called PDR or Pennine Debt Recovery, which just happens to have the same postal address as HSL. It is what happens next that has brought misery, fear and anxiety into those ex student’s homes, the demands and the way they are enforced.

 

Using an auto dialler system the phone calls start at 8 am every morning of the week, 7 or 8 phone calls in one day is not unusual and some students have been harassed this way for months. This has caused despair and anxiety and many students report that the daily haranguing has affected their health, driving many to the doctors through the anxiety and illness this daily and multiple intrusion into their lives brings, on top of the despair at not being able to meet the payment demands made.

 

I is also widely reported that HSL and PDR staff who man the phones, have only one script threatening court action and are rude, ignorant and arrogant, adding to the distress and anxiety felt. This is of course on top of the letters which regularly demand payment and threaten court action and debt recovery.

 

Accusations are also made that the internal complaints procedure is one sided, that of HSL, and that the DfES maintain they cannot interfere. This has driven many students to take their own action, in particular against the telephone harassment. The despair is now at such a level that ex students are organising themselves to put pressure on both HSL and the government. Lives are being made a misery, families placed under pressure and forced further into debt. This is causing anxiety and illness, and there is the very fear that this has and will drive some ex-students to suicide.

15th Sep 2006 10:34

 

& also (reposted from other blog - link at bottom)

 

Misery

_______________________________________________________________

IIf you have reached this page it is probably because you have become a victim to yet another government scandal. You and hundreds of thousands of ex students have been betrayed. Your government and specifically the DfES have sold you down the river to the highest bidder. When you took out your student loan to pay for your education you thought you where entering into a contract with the government, those of you who subsequently got low paid jobs after graduating at least had the reassurance that you could defer your payments. We were told that the low paid, many low paid because of employment in for example local government such as social care, others because of circumstances and lack of opportunity, would be protected from having to pay back our loans. This we were told was to recognise and protect students who did not fiscally benefit from graduate education, and poorer families, to encourage equality of education, to encourage students to go to university from poorer families.

 

What they did not tell us was that our student loans were up for grabs to the highest bidder (a Dutch Bank) and that they would wash their hands of any responsibility and not give a damn what happened to those students, not care if their promises where broken. They sold our lives to the very worst of street loan sharks for the highest price, Honours Student Loans, and then washed their hands.

.

They even confounded the problem by introducing the most idiotic and confusing deferral process that could have ever have been invented leaving us to be mercilessly exploited.

 

This is what you need to know

 

All deferrals are to go through SLC or Student Loan Company,

 

HSL or Honours student Loans administer the loans sold by the DfES in November 2004.

 

PDR or Pennine Debt Recovery is part of Honour Student Loans and used to apply pressure on students.

 

Seems straight forward until we see HSL at work their tactics

 

The Sting

 

The key-Deferrals can only be backdated 3 months whatever the circumstances.

 

HSL wait until after three months before contacting you, this will probably be the first time you are aware of their existence, because-

 

You sent of your deferral as usual to SCL and presume everything is ok.

 

Circumstances such as illness, for example, meant your deferral was delayed but you had contact with SLC by phone and explained the problem. You were told ok, we will defer you for 28 days and send you another deferral form, please return as soon as you are able.

 

It is staggering how many students have reported that their deferrals were sent and went missing, along with other correspondence or have had assurance that they have a temporary deferral which is not a problem.

 

The first you know there is a problem, a major problem, is contact from HSL a company you did not even know existed, until now. Suddenly they are demanding arrears, -you have no deferral, you are in breach of your contract and owe the full amount of your loan, and have arrears that demand immediate payment and then a monthly payment of some staggering amount.

 

Next stop a card through your letterbox from PDR with your account number and telling you �an agent will call at your home within the next three days.�

 

Ringing them only gets you informed of your need to pay arrears and make payments or the full amount will be demanded, you are threatened with court action.

 

Then the telephone rings at 8 am or very soon after, but there�s no one on the other end, not long after another it rings again- an operator asks you to set up a �password�, they are from PDR -now please hold whilst I transfer you, sorry I cannot get through we will ring you back. A short time later they ring again, you are passed to another operator. They demand payment or we will take you to court. But, you say, no they say- you are in default if you do not pay we will take you to court and demand full payment of x thousand pounds.

 

A short time later another call, it�s PDR, please hold whilst I transfer you, look you say I have just spoken to you, not to me sir/madam, you are in default we will take you to court, but, you say- no they say we will take you to court.

 

A short time late the process starts again, and at 8am the following morning the process starts again, and the next day and the next day. You can get locked into this harassment anxiety and distress for months.

 

So what do you do? Write to them explain, get another deferral form or send the delayed one, it seems logical as you are being threatened by PDR to send these to them, wrong.

 

They do not respond- they have received nothing, no deferral, no correspondence. In a state of stress it does not make sense. Even if they inform you that deferrals can only go through SLC, it is too late. It can only be backdated three months, you owe arrears that must be paid �or we will take you to court and demand full payment�. That three months rule which the student was not aware of is their mantra. You could have sent them full information, but they won�t have received it or �deferrals can only be made by SLC�.

 

Meanwhile the phone rings at 8 am next morning and the process starts again. The same mantra the same threats. Not forgetting the demand letters that start to appear. Even if you successfully defer through SLC, after contacting them to get another deferral form your problems do not end. In itself deferring twice is no mean feat because you sent the relevant proof, final wage slip etc. to PDR (or SLC), but they say they have not received any correspondence, photocopies won�t do, it has to be that which you can�t produce, so you have to get a letter from your employer, proof from the DWP etc, all this takes time and your arrears and costs mount.

 

Then there is the old HSL trick of saying you need to sign a new contract with them for your student loan, to get you to change your contract or accept the arrears or whole debt, even when you know that this is morally wrong, that you did send the deferral, have explained etc. etc.

 

It�s not much better when you want to make a complaint, try getting the complaints procedure, try asking to speak to a manager, in fact that�s the quickest way to get them to hang up the phone. When you do, it�s very one sided, you have heard the same mantra by now a hundred times on the phone. Complaints are not addressed, or simply dismissed. We conform to OFCOM regulations and guidelines, no they don�t, not sections 128-130 of the Communications Act 2003 they don�t. Our records show we have not contacted you more than twice in any one day, not counting of course the times you threw the phone at the wall, left it ringing, answered and no one was there, or you could not be put through because everyone is busy. Best of all �we only use the telephone to gather information�. But, you scream, nothing has changed, not from one hour to the next, or from day to day, nor month to month. Why do they have to check your information several times a day? This is harassment, it is designed to get you to agree to their demands and accept a debt you do not have, once you give in desperation then they have you.

 

It is impossible here to go through all their tactics and methods. There is another blog at, please take a look it could help you, share experiences, get advice from other students experiences.

 

This company needs to be stopped, they spread despair and anxiety, they act immorally, they bully and entrap.

 

How can we fight back

 

I would urge all to whom the above is familiar with to spend time to do the following:-

 

1st Contact the DfES and complain- you can do it on line from their website. Or e mail to [email protected] We need to make the DfES aware of the number of people affected by their policy.

 

2nd Contact you local CAB at the first opportunity ask for their help. This will not go away and will only get worse; you need their help and reassurance, the sooner the better. Do not agree anything with HSL until you have seen the CAB.

 

3rd Put a complaint in writing to HSL to Andrea Halls, Operations Manager at HSL.

You need to be seen to be reasonable no matter how distressed you feel and it does not hurt to show them the extent of the misery they are causing; they do not mind harassing students.

 

4th You can also- if harassed by telephone especially-complain to Consumer Direct on line, or contact your local Office of Fair Trading. Telephone harassment is illegal.

 

5th If the telephone calls persist you can report this to the Police who will give you a crime number, it may help later in your defence!

 

 

We need to fight these people together, we need the DfES to take responsibility, we need to ensure that this despicable practice does not cause misery to other students, but most of all you need to protect and defend yourself.

 

Talk to other students effected by this issue, you are not alone, share your experience, get advice and pool resources visit;

 

http://moblog.co.uk/view.php?id=101478 link for above

 

 

 

[emmaf01]

Having not ended up with HSL, I am horrified with what you have described.

 

Keep us up to date, and what methods you are using to fight them.

[morrie]

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 ?

[noomill060]

This "Can only defer back 3 months" business- wonder if this would be an unfair term -as in the UTCC regs?

 

If you earn less than the theshold anyway, what on earth is the point of only being able to defer 3 months payments?

 

The law says you arent expected to repay anything unless you earn more!

 

Hmmmm.... going to have a think and read the UTCCR.

 

Methinks this 3 months thing is simply to scare you into complying with their system, purhaps any payments we make could actually be -errrrrr...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

penalty charges for not simply not defering in time...

[morrie]

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.

[noomill060]

Yes, it does appear to be set in stone by Parliament, and the UTCCR does appear to exclude statutory rules such as this.

 

However- the reason that the European directive (on which UTCCR is based) precludes statutory rules and terms is because it presumes (naively) that member states would not go out of their way to impose statutory terms or rules that are contrary to fairness in consumer contracts.

 

So, one could argue that by showing the SI (under which SLC may only defer for 3 months) to be unfair and was being used in such a way as to cause significantly "imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the (SLC) contract, to the detriment of the consumer" then the scope of the Directive, and therefore the UTCCR would be extended to target that part of your SLC agreement that they claim allows them to do so.

 

 

As I recall, UK legislation is to be interpreted as complying with all European Directives. If you can show it doesnt, the law is wrong, not you.

 

I have a feeling there could be a human rights act situation waiting to happen here.

[daveydavey]

Would the '3 month rule' constitute an unfair relationship under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, as set out below ? In my case, the SLC took 12 months to inform me my account was in arrears (due to their failure to process my deferment application with notification of a change of address), as their letters were sent to my old address. Now, almost 3 years later, they're threatening Court Action for the 'arrears' they failed to defer - so on the one hand, there is a 3 month limit for them to correct their non-deferral; on the other, they will sue me for the non-deferred 'arrears' & unlawful standard letter charges (45% of the arrears amount) nearly three years later ! Would this be an 'unfair relationship' ? Wouldn't time limits have to be the same for both parties for the relationship between lender & borrower to be fair ? Also there is no mention of a 3-month limit in the original (pre-1998) Agreement.

 

 

Consumer Credit Act 2006: Unfair Relationships

 

The Consumer Credit Act 2006, which was given royal assent in March 2006, has widened the scope of consumer credit legislation by removing the £25,000 limit, which was in place under the 1974 Act.

 

The scope of the Act is further extended by the provisions relating to unfair relationships, which replace the provisions relating to extortionate credit bargains at sections 137 to 140 of the 1974 Act. The unfair relationship provisions will apply retrospectively to all consumer credit agreements, including unregulated agreements which were previously outside the scope of the 1974 Act. The only exception to this is where an agreement is secured by a land mortgage and the entering into the agreement is a regulated activity pursuant to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

 

Under the new provisions a court is able to decide that a relationship between a lender and a borrower is unfair to the borrower because of the following:

 

 

the terms of the credit agreement or any related agreement;

the way in which the lender has exercised or enforced its rights under the agreement or a related agreement;

any other act or omission of the lender either before or after the date of the agreement or related agreement.

 

When deciding whether an agreement is unfair the court will consider all the circumstances it believes to be relevant and the fact that the relationship between the lender and the borrower is at an end does not prevent the court from making a determination.

 

The Act provides the court with various powers if it is found that a relationship is unfair and those powers include:

 

requiring the lender to repay any sum paid by the borrower under the agreement or related agreement;

requiring the lender to take action or refrain from taking action in connection with the agreement or related agreement;

reducing or discharging any sum owed by the borrower;

directing the return of any property which the borrower provided as security;

setting aside any duty imposed on the borrower;

the power to alter the terms of the agreement or a related agreement.

 

If a borrower makes an allegation that their relationship with the lender is unfair, the onus of proof is placed on the lender to demonstrate that the relationship is fair. The unfair relationships provisions will apply from 6 April 2007 for agreements made on or after that date. The provisions will come into force on 6 April 2008 in relation to any agreements made before 6 April 2007.

 

The new legislation also requires the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to issue guidance as to how it believes the unfair relationship provisions will interact with Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. An OFT consultation document providing draft guidelines was issued in June 2006 and is available on the OFT website. In the draft guidelines the OFT indicate that when considering whether a contractual provision is unfair it will consider whether the provision would be unfair pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The consultation period is due to run until 29 September 2006, with the OFT aiming to produce final guidance by 31 December 2006.

 

 

Changes to Default Notices

 

With effect from 1 October 2006, the provisions relating to service of a default notice under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will be amended. Section 14(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 amends the relevant provision of the 1974 Act (section 88(2)) and provides that the period of notice given in the default notice is extended from 7 days to 14 days. An agreement cannot be enforced until a correctly prepared notice has been served.

 

The 2006 Act makes provisions for further changes but these will not yet be comi

[Giveitback]

does anyone have any blank deferment forms handy?

[emmaf01]

There is no such thing as a blank deferment form as they are pre-printed with your details. If you ring them they will send you a form.

 

I sent mine off by recorded delivery today. I really don't trust them at all anymore.

[Giveitback]

rang them, they said that they couldn't send me one as my account is in arrears, I need to speck to smith lawson. Smith lawson said I need to speak to someone else, and on it goes.

 

Suspect I'll have to find an alternative route.

[mpul]

if you look at the t & c's of you loan you will notice there is no mention on deferal this is because deferment is a consession on your loan that thay offer to help people on low incomes there is no legal right to this and there for cannot be fought with legal action. i know this because i have tried

[mpul]

in reference to your last comment GIVEITBACK

[mpul]

in reference to your last comment GIVEITBACK you have been misinformed even with the arrears on your account the abilty to send you out a deferment form is still there.i would call back and speak to a team leader if refused again.

[Giveitback]

thanks mpul.

 

Any idea what the gross monthly income level is currently? ie the amount below which you are entitled to defer?

[BrainAche]

I've been through the entire Student Loans/Smith Lawson/NCO routine twice, see this thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/106342-students-loan-company-nco.html

 

To recap; I had two loans in 95 and 96. The deferral form for one of those loans got lost and ever since they (the SLC and/or NCO) have been on my case. Not as bad as HSL, but not exactly pleasant either. I remember telephone harasssment from the SLC, and actually changed my phone number - you can do this for free with BT once every 12 months, so if at all practical, it's one sure way to end the phone calls, oh and of course to ensure that your new number is ex-directory. NCO actually passed my file back to the SLC, having decided there was bo case to answer.. Any reasonable organisation would then have called it quits, but as we all know, the SLC (and even so the HSC, so it appears) are not reasonable people. And so after 5 or 6 months, the SLC started the whole process over again from scratch. That was what .. 3 - 4 years ago. I've literally begged them to go to court; I've written to NCO's head office in Preston, 2 typed A4 pages outlining the case I intend to present in court, adding a p.s. to either TAKE ME TO COURT OR GET OFF MY BACK. And still the circus carries on. They sent me letters; I phone in response; usually they refuse to talk because I refuse to provide a contact number. And yet last Friday, finally one of their reps deigned to discuss the situation. Without losing my temper, it has to be said, I ran rings round him. It's not difficult. These people are nothing more than Phone Monkeys. They don't know the law, they don't know the rules. All they know is the script with which they've been provided. NCO and the SLC are nothing more than bullies and cowards, I suspect that the same can be said for HSL. Don't give in to them. When it comes down to it, you might be surprised how often these people don't have a leg to stand on. Which is why they harass and bully rather than resorting to litigation - in my case refusing to accede to demands to take me to court.

 

A final message to anyone at their wits end, with the SLC, NCO, HSL or the like. I've got debts amounting to maybe £50,000. I can discuss these debts in a civilised manner with genuine, legitimate debt collectors. My payments include CCJ's, token payments of £1 per month per debt of up to £10,000. However, I do not regard the Student Loan "arrears" as a legitimate debt (again see the thread I mentioned for my reasons) and have refused to contemplate any form of repayment plan. Whether anyone else should take a similar attititude depends on their individual circumstances. However, one thing I do know is that things are nowhere near as bleak as they appear. A major purpose of these people is to drive you to your wits end, to make your situation look as hopeless and desperate as they can, to bully and to harass you into submission. Always bear that in mind and DONT let them get away with it.

[BrainAche]

To answer one more question, the SLC have told me on different occasions that a replacement form would be sent out, had been sent out, and finally "no we never send replacement forms". So what you do is to obtain proof of income, either from your employer or the DSS, and send this to them by Recorded Delivery together with a note containing your account number and any other relevant personal details.

[sal28]

Hi ohhh i know this story so so well. Im looking for a solicitor in the gloucester or london or even bristol area.. does anyone know how i can find someone with relevant experience. I had exactly this problem, when i started to pay them back desoite much despute i failed payments which were too big for me and the fine letters started coming in. I basically ran away from the problem but now my parents get all the letters... I have never earnt enough money since college but stopped defering because the more i corresponded with them the more fine letters i got. Im 31 now and still on a low income how can I find a solicitor who knows about this? thanks

[emmaf01]

You don't necessarily need a solicitor- some of us have been fighting back here, quite successfully.

 

Depending on your loan dates, either CCA, SAR or both. Then work out your charges, then claim them back. And get your CCA agreements- see if they comply.

 

Its worth taking the control back in this situation. We were all in your position or similar at the start.

[soma]

I don't think its a conspiracy they are just incompetent. The problem is you are stuck with them, you have no choice but to take out loans (unless very wealthy) and you have no choice but to trust they will act accordingly at deferment time. I have seen this behaviour time and time again with any body that has a monopoly over a particular group. There is no incentive for HSL or SLC to invest time & money in hiring effective staff or creating proper systems. These are just costs to be kept down to them. Student Loans are a licence to print money as the debt will always be repaid either by the student or eventually by the government. Debts cannot be written off even through bankruptcy. There will always be a ready and willing market to take out loans each year, so it is not even as if they have to market themselves or worry about their public image. Perhaps the government could look at fines for not meeting relevant Key Performance Indicators?

[emmaf01]

if you want to see how incompetent they are just check out the end of my thread at the moment. I'm having to argue about my correct loan account numbers, as they have got them wrong!

[sal28]

so if i start to comunicate with them again.. do you think it is possible to get back to the status of deferred ? I do need some kind of professional advice as its quite alot of paperwork to wade through.. which definately isnt my forte.. so if anyone could recomend where i should go for this I would greatly appreciate it. thanks

[daveydavey]

Update : still contesting the 'arrears' created by the SLC's failure to defer my Loan in 2004: £130 + £60 for three letters (45% of the 'arrears'), including two £20 charges for two letters sent to me 2nd class within a 5-day period, hardly giving me a reasonable time to respond. I was in receipt of Income Support & Disability Living Allowance due to long-term illness for the whole of the deferment period (which they didn't defer). Hardly in a position to earn 85% of the national average income & become liable for repayment.

 

Just had a very aggressive & LOUD phone call from Smith Lawson & Co. (collection division of the Student Loans Company), I too told them to take me to Court & I will defend it. Still waiting for the summons or any written follow-up. There is scope for them to resolve the situation by showing a little goodwill & granting deferment for the year when I was clearly entitled to it & applied for it in the proper manner. But I will defend their wholly unreasonable claim in Court if I have to & counterclaim for my expenses / time / stress caused by their highly unreasonable behaviour.

 

Submitted an idea here, currently under consideration :

 

Better Regulation Executive (BRE): Let us have your ideas:

 

Suggest anyone else who's had problems with deferment does the same - this is currently the first google.co.uk search result for 'student loan deferment problems', so at least submissions will be widely read, if nothing else.

 

I do not believe it was the intention of Parliament for disabled people in receipt of Income Support to be pressured into repayment of Student Loans when their circumstances mean that they are entitled to deferment.

 

It is the Student Loans Company which is acting against the intention & interests of Parliament by taking recovery action against borrowers whose income is very low, & well below the thresholds at which repayments become due.

 

Who is more like the criminal in these cases ? The Student Loans Company / Smith Lawson & Company, or the borrower trying to uphold their right to deferment, not wanting to be penalised as a result of the common problem of deferment forms going 'missing' ?

[chelsea1]

I too am having problems, I am sure that the media would find this interesting. Same story, missing deferrment forms, unpaid refunds, threatening phonecalls. I've just checked out their website and the call centre monkeys are paid £13k plus bonus's. No prizes for guessing what they have to do to get the bonus. There is no incentive for them to help. Anyway if anyone fancies a laugh, take a look at the JD for these guys on the SLC website. The HR dept there are so dumb that the JD is in a format that can be cleverly edited by anyone. Any takers?

https://interact.slc.co.uk/OA_HTML/OA.jsp?akRegionCode=IRC_VIS_VAC_DISPLAY_PAGE&akRegionApplicationId=800&OASF=IRC_VIS_VAC_DISPLAY&OAHP=IRC_EXT_SITE_VISITOR_APPL&transactionid=411268774&retainAM=N&addBreadCrumb=RP&p_svid=601&p_spid=15030&oapc=9&oas=QwFFhJ85T5nbR1QkxT6IIA..

[emmaf01]

Daveydavey, if you are on DLA try going for a three year disability deferment. I went for that this time, and they can't chase you for any arrears while on this type of deferment!

 

Its a good idea, needing only your deferment form (a sore point I know) and a letter from your doctor stating you will be unfit for work for the next three years.

[birdkeith]

hi, to almost all the above comments,my loans are controlled by the 1974 cca

but i have to agree with you,they use the same bully boy tactcs with all of us,mind you in my case they did take me to court but didnt bother telling me,

you see i was deffered from april 2000 to april 2001,but in sep 2000 i moved

house and informed them of this,then didnt hear from them again even though

i rang them with my wherabouts evry april,in 2005 i found out they had taken

me to court and got a ccj,a letter to myMP from them states that mail had

been returned to them in nov 2000,this resulted in an external trace agent

being employed to find me,these people informed them that i was still living at

my old address,this taking place six months befor my defferment expired,they

then said they sent defaultment letters to the same address,i hadnt lived

there for over twelve months and could prove it,i got the ccj set aside,but

now they are taking me back but are asking the court to strike my defence

they realy are gangsters, i will fight,but please be careful birdkeith.