Student Loans discussion

rambojones

"All student loans have a finite lifespan but how long they last depends on the type of loan you’ve got and when you took it out, as the Government doesn’t change the rules retrospectively.

Pre-1998 loans are wiped clean in the following circumstances:

• 25 years after your repayments started, even if payments have previously been defferred
• If you reach the age of 50, unless you were over 40 when you took out the loan, then it's 60
• If you become permenantly unfit to work
• If you die."

Just thought I would post the above which I copied from the pages of THIS site, written presumably by the guy who owns this site. You can see it says that pre-1998 loans are wiped clean,

'if you reach the age of 50, unless you were over 40 when you took out the loan, then it's 60'.

This is INCORRECT! The loan is only written off when you reach the age of 50, IF YOU WERE UNDER AGE 40 when you took out the LAST loan!! Also it only applies if you have never, never, ever had a 'problem' with your loan; missed a payment maybe etc. Quite easy to have 'problems'. Example: SLC were supposed to have set up a DD and have taken the first repayment out of my account today the 18th August but guess what? No DD set up and no payment taken. Fortunately I am on top of it and have already emailed them and phoned them (put it in the form of a formal complaint to better get their attention).
I have posted this just to prove/show how even this 'expert' has got his information slightly wrong and how others will be 'lulled' into a false sense of security. Now somebody looking for information about student loans might think that this is GOOD information but it is not! I hope he changes his information because people are going to get upset when they find out it's wrong, just like I did.

rambojones

melancholly wrote: »

seriously, please can you answer the question on the SLC representative!

i don't doubt that you were given bad advice, but i have never ever heard of the SLC going out and canvassing for business! i'm intrigued!

You have misunderstood. I went to an office on campus and spoke to a Rep. twice as i recall and spoke to someone over the telephone. This was in 1991, so do not know how it's done now. Lot's has changed since.

The_One_Who

As I understand it that information reads as being fine. You apply for loans yearly, so if you were to be over forty when you need to take out a loan for the second, third, or final year then it would be better to get confirmation from the SLC as to the repayment conditions. Preferably in writing.

rambojones

moneymass wrote: »

An aside;

See if he can get his company to pay for his RICS accreditation path (royal institute of chartered surveyors) as land survey is covered under 'Geomatics'. It may take a quite a long time if he didn't go to University or similar but Chartered status in that industry is well worth it.

Thanks. They will pay for any course he wants. He finds the course he wants and they will pay. He has looked at a couple, affiliated with RICS, but wants more experience. I want him to do it now, he wants to wait a while. I guess I'll defer to him as he seems to have a better head on his shoulders than I have lol.

rambojones

rambojones wrote: »

"All student loans have a finite lifespan but how long they last depends on the type of loan you’ve got and when you took it out, as the Government doesn’t change the rules retrospectively.

Pre-1998 loans are wiped clean in the following circumstances:

• 25 years after your repayments started, even if payments have previously been defferred
• If you reach the age of 50, unless you were over 40 when you took out the loan, then it's 60
• If you become permenantly unfit to work
• If you die."

Just thought I would post the above which I copied from the pages of THIS site, written presumably by the guy who owns this site. You can see it says that pre-1998 loans are wiped clean,

'if you reach the age of 50, unless you were over 40 when you took out the loan, then it's 60'.

This is INCORRECT! The loan is only written off when you reach the age of 50, IF YOU WERE UNDER AGE 40 when you took out the LAST loan!! Also it only applies if you have never, never, ever had a 'problem' with your loan; missed a payment maybe etc. Quite easy to have 'problems'. Example: SLC were supposed to have set up a DD and have taken the first repayment out of my account today the 18th August but guess what? No DD set up and no payment taken. Fortunately I am on top of it and have already emailed them and phoned them (put it in the form of a formal complaint to better get their attention).
I have posted this just to prove/show how even this 'expert' has got his information slightly wrong and how others will be 'lulled' into a false sense of security. Now somebody looking for information about student loans might think that this is GOOD information but it is not! I hope he changes his information because people are going to get upset when they find out it's wrong, just like I did.

Addendum: it's semantics but what a god awful difference it's made to my life; one little mistake and wham!!

rambojones

The_One_Who wrote: »

As I understand it that information reads as being fine. You apply for loans yearly, so if you were to be over forty when you need to take out a loan for the second, third, or final year then it would be better to get confirmation from the SLC as to the repayment conditions. Preferably in writing.

Based on what exactly? Why should I have asked for 'confirmation', 'confirmation' about what? I had been given the answer to my misgivings initially, why would I have suspected anything would change?? (I was concerned about borrowing money at age 39, about being able to repay it etc). Based on what criteria? Remember the 'age 60' rule had never been mentioned to me at any point; either face to face or over the phone! HAD IT BEEN MENTIONED, I WOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN THE LOANS!!! The first I heard about it was after I turned 50! 11 years later!

The_One_Who

Maybe I'm just weird but I like to have my own copy of terms and conditions, contracts, any agreements, etc.

If you could survive without the loans then why take them? Because you'd effectively be getting free money for ten years? Students nowadays couldn't go to university if they didn't have loans. I certainly couldn't. I have little choice in taking one or not. English, Welsh and N. Irish students have even less of a choice.

rambojones

The_One_Who wrote: »

Believe me, I'm perfectly down to Earth. I know what I have gotten myself into with my student loan, credit card, phone contract. I was seventeen when I took out my student loan. If I could sit down and spend half an hour reading up on it then so can everyone else.

In your case you received bad advice. But that was more than fifteen years ago and things are very different now.

No! Just because you can does not mean everyone else can. Come on, get real. Why are so many people losing their homes right now? Not you though eh? Because you will always 'read' everything and understand everything. And guess what? I believe you! You sound like one of those who will have all the luck. But just remember, it's because some of us do not get some/any luck at all that folks like you get more, all the luck. Wouldn't do at all if we were all Richard Bransons, would it? Don't think Richard would like that at all. How about a bit of humility and less of the I, Self and Me syndrome. There are still plenty of 'suckers' getting sucked in to this university/loan/debt thing and if you do not believe me just look over this and other sites like it on the web. It may be 15 years later but things are not better, if anything they are worse and how worse we will find out when this recession that we are in really starts to bite. When all you 'young guns' come out of Uni with no jobs to go to. Well not you of course lol!

Oldernotwiser

rambojones wrote: »

? Because you will always 'read' everything and understand everything. And guess what? I believe you! You sound like one of those who will have all the luck.

Being informed about your life and finances isn't a question of "luck"! The more people who think that everything that goes wrong for them is someone else's fault and that getting things right is "luck", the worst it's going to be for the individuals themselves and for society in general.

Idiophreak

rambojones wrote: »

Addendum: it's semantics but what a god awful difference it's made to my life; one little mistake and wham!!

Wham what? Someone starts taking a couple of quid from you each month? I'm entirely confused.