'Don't pay your kids tuition fees upfront' Discussion Area

Oldernotwiser

arsenalbarnie wrote: »

As stated you could then take your custom elsewhere after you have paid off your overdraft!

That's not the point.

It's been stated here, several times, that no other lender can change its T&C and that's patently untrue. As for your suggestion, whether you owe ten grand to a bank or to the SLC you can borrow the money elsewhere, pay it back and leave the existing arrangement, so what's the difference?

kayr_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

That's not the point.

It's been stated here, several times, that no other lender can change its T&C and that's patently untrue. As for your suggestion, whether you owe ten grand to a bank or to the SLC you can borrow the money elsewhere, pay it back and leave the existing arrangement, so what's the difference?

I suppose that if they do impose early repayment penalties it might be quite difficult to pay off the SLC and go elsewhere. The problem is there are a lot of unknowns at the moment while we wait for the government to reveal all their plans. What worries me is that MPs were happy to vote this through before all the details were clear. I think that if the government had said they were going to have repayment penalties they may have had more trouble getting the bill through. Students are putting their UCAS forms in (first deadline tomorrow) and the financial details are still being ironed out.

arsenalbarnie

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

That's not the point.

It's been stated here, several times, that no other lender can change its T&C and that's patently untrue. As for your suggestion, whether you owe ten grand to a bank or to the SLC you can borrow the money elsewhere, pay it back and leave the existing arrangement, so what's the difference?

I suppose you could take your loan elsewhere if anyone will lend an unemployed graduate the money. I know other lenders can change their terms. Who is going to lend you £50k plus to pay off your loan if on a low income?I don't think people here would be so worried (as haven't on the old s loans)because the amounts involved were less and interest not being added at such a high rate. However, now substantial amounts of debt are now going to be involved, possibly £100k if doing 5 year degree, it is making more of us sit up and read the small print. I notice that the folks who are unhappy on here about the terms seem to be the parents of children still to go to uni, me included.

arsenalbarnie

kayr wrote: »

I suppose that if they do impose early repayment penalties it might be quite difficult to pay off the SLC and go elsewhere. The problem is there are a lot of unknowns at the moment while we wait for the government to reveal all their plans. What worries me is that MPs were happy to vote this through before all the details were clear. I think that if the government had said they were going to have repayment penalties they may have had more trouble getting the bill through. Students are putting their UCAS forms in (first deadline tomorrow) and the financial details are still being ironed out.

I feel for those having to apply this year not knowing the full terms of such a huge amount of money is scandolous.

kayr_2

LauraW10 wrote: »

Trouble is, once you start deliberately missing stuff out of the guide, it makes you wonder what else is missing. Once you start showing a bias towards presenting information to achieve a particular end, it makes you think the whole guide is biased in that way. How useful is the guide if it doesn't have all the facts ? It starts to look less lke a guide and more like government propaganda. (I'm not saying it is government propaganda, just making a point)

You have a good point in general but in this case I don't think ML was deliberately missing something out - this clause thing is worrying at first to some people (including me) but when you think more about it, it is less worrying - in fact there are many things ML could have included which have a slight risk of happening: various economic scenarios, wars, natural disasters etc - all these things could alter the financial picture drastically but very probably won't happen. But to include all these things and be totally balanced would be impossible and would also require ML to be a psychic. As I've said before, I'm not a fan of his and I think he has at times come across (to me at any rate) as a bit biased (but we all have our opinions and interpretations). In this case I don't think he has any intention of trying to be misleading by not talking about variable T&Cs - it simply isn't relevant to the big picture. And I don't think the government (much as I despise them!) put this clause in with the intention of doing something dastardly later; it's so they can tweak things (as in the example atypical gave) easily when it is reasonable to do so. And we can dream that a future government might improve the T&Cs.

We are grown ups and have access to lots of information. I see the MSE guide as just that - a guide, which may or may not be brilliant/rubbish. Nobody can predict exactly who would be better off paying/taking the loans but the more information you can get the better your guess will be.

Oldernotwiser

arsenalbarnie wrote: »

I suppose you could take your loan elsewhere if anyone will lend an unemployed graduate the money. I know other lenders can change their terms. Who is going to lend you £50k plus to pay off your loan if on a low income?I don't think people here would be so worried (as haven't on the old s loans)because the amounts involved were less and interest not being added at such a high rate. However, now substantial amounts of debt are now going to be involved, possibly £100k if doing 5 year degree, it is making more of us sit up and read the small print. I notice that the folks who are unhappy on here about the terms seem to be the parents of children still to go to uni, me included.

Why on earth would you want to take your loan elsewhere if you were an unemployed graduate or on a low income? Who else is going to suspend payments until you start earning a decent amount?

FrankieBoyle

kayr wrote: »

We are grown ups

So give us the facts and stop gilding the lily

PaulW1965

kayr wrote: »

in this case I don't think ML was deliberately missing something out

The headline grabber for this article/guide is

Don't pay tuition fees upfront Many will end up throwing £20,000+ away

It doesn't say - "but only if the government write off student loans, of which there is no guarantee, since there is a get-out-clause for future governments and no government is yet to write off any tuition loans".

So how can you claim that anyone will save £20k by taking out a SL???? It seems crazy to me that's all.

kayr_2

PaulW1965 wrote: »

The headline grabber for this article/guide is

Don't pay tuition fees upfront Many will end up throwing £20,000+ away

It doesn't say - "but only if the government write off student loans, of which there is no guarantee, since there is a get-out-clause for future governments and no government is yet to write off any tuition loans".

So how can you claim that anyone will save £20k by taking out a SL???? It seems crazy to me that's all.

FWIW I don't like ML's new article title (preferred the original "Should I pay tuition fees upfront?" which is what I am wondering - I don't like being told what to do!) or his opening paragraph about shivering with fear - over dramatic - but I think it would be unbalanced to add the proviso you suggest as it is (IMO at least) very unlikely that they will go back on the deal to such a large extent. You may have even less faith in politicians than I do - and that's saying something - but for me the "lack of guarantee" is not a deal breaker. What may be a deal breaker is the 8% (RPI +3%) interest rate while they are studying, possible early repayment penalties...
At least in this article ML admits that for some people SLs would not be a good deal financially (Scenario 3) and I think the latter part of the article is very sensible. We can only make an educated guess about what will happen. There are so many possible scenarios that it makes my head hurt. What if we pay our son's fees then in 10 years a radical government decide charging for university is a bad thing and writes everybody's loans off? Unlikely I know but I'd be kicking myself! I would love there to be high quality, free education for all but it's not going to happen and we've got to make the best of a complex situation.The way all this has been introduced is shambolic, but that's the way it is.

I agree it all seems a bit crazy but it is possible some people will do well financially by taking a SL because they won't pay it off (yes, that's if the clause doesn't get used in a big way!). ML is entitled to have an opinion; just never take what he says as infallible because it's not (obviously!). However I do think this particular article is one of his better ones.

PaulW1965

kayr wrote: »

- but I think it would be unbalanced to add the proviso you suggest as it is (IMO at least) very unlikely that they will go back on the deal to such a large extent.

FWIW I think it's highly likely! And for that reason I believe it should be in the article because people can then make their own minds up!

Anyway, thanks for your considered response.

I did notice this proviso at the bottom of the article

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

• This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Looks like he has his sixes covered.