Applying for SF as an individual

Kennethkbryant

You sound like you are already above-average accomplished with a real job record spanning some years. That is of course admirable in this climate.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

Kennethkbryant wrote: »

You sound like you are already above-average accomplished with a real job record spanning some years. That is of course admirable in this climate.

Is there an echo in here ... ?

But seriously, why do you see it as your role to make a judgement, Taiko ? Are you taking yourself a little too seriously with pronouncements such as this ? Perhaps you see your role as one that keeps the floodgates firmly shut against the tide of the inevitable - that is the one that will eventually become obvious to all right-thinking people in that it is a disgrace for anyone let alone the government to argue that there is an important connection between an undergraduate's deserving of state financial support and their parents' incomes.

I feel offended every time I see attempts made to bolster this appalling assertion as if it is good law that we all need to take good heed of. It is exactly the opposite, so if we take good heed of it, it should be with the intent of knocking it down at the first opportunity and the best way to do it is to test it sorely, mock it, bend it, and show it up for what it is.

Who gives a flying fig whether rich parents oil the wheels of the minority of undergraduates and make little Tarquin's or little Estella's economies easier than most by footing the weekly wine bills? You think the great British taxpayer believes that's the danger ? That Tarquin and Estella will get given funds intended for more deserving low income students ? What rot. All they will get is offered loans which we are urged mean nothing and don't have to be paid back (another very wobbly assertion that even Martin Lewis felt the need to qualify this week).

The vast majority of undergraduates who don't live at home are in the same economic boat when they go to university in England. Their parents are largely underpaid, the students themselves are way underpaid if they have part-time jobs, and the civil servants administering these ridiculous and largely unspoken "assessment" hoop-jumping systems like those working at SLC & HMRC are of course a total waste of public money. What on earth is the purpose of using such skills as they are using ? It certainly has no high purpose, does it? Is it rather to keep the masses in their place i.e. to keep them poor and frightened of government by demonstrating that HMRC will track you - you won't be able to start in life until HMRC can see exactly where you came from, and where you are likely to go or to return to?

I wonder what the administrators tell their friends at dinner parties when they describe what they do for a living ... "I'm actually a tax man - the Lord take pity upon me" ??

So, with the passing of a few more days, are we to conclude that the OP will get no clues in this forum as to how to approach SLC and make a case for their independent financial status ?

That's a pretty poor show, I reckon.

Taiko

Nobody can give advice to the OP without the OP answering questions which, as I'm sure you're able to read, has not happened as yet.

If you don't like the regulations, then lobby your MP for alternatives.

amiehall

Blimey how about you just let the OP speak for themselves?! Maybe they don't want to post again lest they be associated with your nonsense....

I've managed to make a claim for independent status on less than solid ground. The point being that you have to know the rules and understanding fully what facts will and won't be relevant to your claim is very useful.

What the OP should do seems obvious to me. Collect as much evidence as possible, write a letter explaining the low earnings in the year abroad, send the application and hope for the best. Considering how low the earnings in the third year are, I think other posters just want to help the OP work out whether this is a long-shot or a lost cause.

I would think that if the OP has no right to funding as an independent student, they would be better to come to terms with that now so they can make proper plans to support themselves on the amount of loan they will receive.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

Well if perchance, you have a good command of 'the regulations' (or more likely, a command of the guidelines issued in their interpretation?) you may well be able to explain the exact relevance of the four (sort of) questions you and DR have asked so far between you? There doesn't seem to be much more to be said in reply. That makes me question again why you jump to the somewhat unhelpful repeat judgement "not convinced".

The questions you and DR asked were: specifically in relation to 2011/12:

Presumably you were only working abroad for the summer season (5/6 months?) so I think it may come down to how you managed financially for the rest of that year. Did you leave school in summer 2011 and for how long were you claiming JSA?

(The first question of these questions has been answered by the OP, and like many readers of this thread I bet, I am not sure of the relevance of the second).

And in relation to all five years: (and part answered now by the OP)

What were your living arrangements for those years?

And before that(and answered):

Were you in full time education for any of those years?

It might be best if you tried to explain what actual nuggets yet to be uncovered will be crucial to the assessment (in your view). Then perhaps we and the OP might begin to know how to frame the sorts of answers that might achieve the least fuss positive result! We are afterall, talking about obstacles, hoops, hurdles etc.
.
It would be very useful to know where the obstacles are and how high. Financial independence is more prevalent than not in 20 year olds, so som general advice on avoiding pitfalls would be helpful. As I am sure you agree, there is no sport in watching anyone fall at the first ...

And amiehall ... 'nonsense' is a useless word unless you care to explain - and you clearly don't. You seem to be advising a course of action which relies a lot on hoping for the best. That last one is a tactic practised by many sheeple of course.

It has not been established whether the OP has a right to be treated as financially independent student so I think on closer inspection, your last sentence may be much closer to 'nonsense' than anything I have written, don't you?

Taiko

It's the responsibility of the applicant to convince SFE that they are independent, in accordance with Schedule 4 of The Education (Student Support) Regulations. As a former assessor, based on the information provided thus far, I do not believe that the requirement has been met, but I would however have invited the student to provide further information to back up their claim.

Why don't you post up why you think they should be entitled, and keep your answer in line with the regulations on it?

amiehall

I don't think that it's "nonsense" to suggest someone be realistic about their prospects. I think it's mad to give up a job and start to study without making realistic plans about how to support yourself. If there really is no lifeline from parents available then this is imperative.

Not me, you nor anyone else here will be making the decision about the OPs application. What do you suggest anyone could do other than prepare the best application possible, send it off and see how it's judged against the regulations?

Dunroamin

I'm not going to wade through all that turgid, unhelpful rubbish but to say "Financial independence is more prevalent than not in 20 year olds, so som general advice on avoiding pitfalls would be helpful. " completely misses the point that you have to have been financially independent for the 3 years before that which would be quite unusual. Perhaps you know lots of financially independent 17 year olds but most of us don't.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

Taiko wrote: »

It's the responsibility of the applicant to convince SFE that they are independent, in accordance with Schedule 4 of The Education (Student Support) Regulations. As a former assessor, based on the information provided thus far, I do not believe that the requirement has been met, but I would however have invited the student to provide further information to back up their claim.

Why don't you post up why you think they should be entitled, and keep your answer in line with the regulations on it?

Thanks Taiko. What I am hearing here (and many readers will be unfamiliar with the construction if they are not used to interpreting legal documents) is that the student is guilty until he proves him or herself innocent ?

A quick Google for "Schedule 4 of The Education (Student Support) Regulations" as I am sure you know, yields a confusing mess of original and amended statute, guidance of various quality and motive, and commentary (of various quality and motive) which anyone associated with it now might be ashamed.

As Rafter has said in the student loan sell-off thread, this type of government financial engineering should be outlawed. As I strongly agree with that, I am also far from impressed by the bad legislation which created the proverbial can that the government kicks down the road in our name.

No-one within government has even seen fit to provide an online copy of the updated Education (Student Support) Regulations which means that no interpretation can start until some clerk (or the reader themselves) has researched the history of the regulations as enacted, found all the amendments, decided which is the the original, and then systematically gone through the original and annotated the original with all the amendments.

Until then, perhaps we must satisfy ourselves with Taiko's partial pointer and go look at Schedule 4 to see if we can spot anything to get started on after some days of skirting around the OP's original question (maybe this):

Independent eligible student

2. (1) An independent eligible student is an eligible student where—

(a)the student is aged 25 or over on the first day of the relevant year;
(b)the student is married or is in a civil partnership before the beginning of the relevant year, whether or not the marriage or civil partnership is still subsisting;
(c)the student has no parent living;
(d)the Secretary of State is satisfied that neither of the student’s parents can be found or that it is not reasonably practicable to get in touch with either of them;
(e)the student has communicated with neither of the student’s parents for the period of one year before the beginning of the relevant year or, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the student can demonstrate on other grounds that the student is irreconcilably estranged from the student’s parents;
(f)the student was looked after by a local authority (within the meaning of section 22 of the Children Act 1989(6)) throughout any three-month period ending on or after the date on which the student reached the age of 16 and before the first day of the first academic year of the course (“the relevant period”) provided that the student has not in fact at any time during the relevant period been under the charge or control of the student’s parents;
(g)the student’s parents are residing outside the EU and the Secretary of State is satisfied that either—

(i)the assessment of the household income by reference to their residual income would place those parents in jeopardy; or
(ii)it would not be reasonably practicable for those parents as a result of the calculation of any contribution under paragraph 8 or 9 to send any relevant funds to the United Kingdom;

(h)paragraph 5(9) applies and the parent whom the Secretary of State considered the more appropriate for the purposes of that paragraph has died (irrespective of whether the parent in question had a partner);
(i)in the case of a student who began the current course before 1st September 2009, the student is a member of a religious order who resides in a house of that order;
(j)as at the first day of the relevant year, the student has the care of a person under the age of 18; or
(k)the student (“A”) has supported A out of A’s earnings for any period or periods ending before the first academic year of the course which periods together aggregate not less than three years, and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph A is to be treated as supporting A out of A’s earnings during any period in which—

(i)A was participating in arrangements for training for the unemployed under any scheme operated by, sponsored or funded by any state authority or agency, whether national, regional or local (“a relevant authority”);
(ii)A was in receipt of benefit payable by any relevant authority in respect of a person who is available for employment but who is unemployed;
(iii)A was available for employment and had complied with any requirement of registration imposed by a relevant authority as a condition of entitlement for participation in arrangements for training or receipt of benefit;
(iv)A held a state studentship or comparable award; or
(v)A received any pension, allowance or other benefit paid by any person by reason of a disability to which A is subject, or by reason of confinement, injury or sickness.

(2) An eligible student who qualifies as an independent eligible student under sub-paragraph (1)(j) in respect of an academic year of a designated course retains that status for the duration of the period of eligibility.

However that takes no account of any amendments that may or may not have been made so it may not be the whole story.

So as far as the whole thing ('the regulations') might actually sit right now, I think the following links show how it has officially been left for public consumption rather lazily, given their importance, but I am no expert:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1986/made (as amended by) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1653/made

or

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1986/pdfs/uksi_20111986_en.pdf as amended by http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1653/pdfs/uksi_20121653_en.pdf

if you prefer your doses of undisciplined gobbledegook in original print form.

Note the comment at the top of these:

Status:This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format.

That would seem to demonstrate that no civil servant has yet been rewarded handsomely enough for their expert knowledge on the chronology of the regulations and amendments since June 2012, or simply seen fit to use that knowledge to create an up to date copy of the current regulations - "You can build your own if you like but we won't help you until you tell us why we should. Meantime we are the king of the castle and you are the dirty rascals."?

Funny how I was already getting that impression from some responses in this thread - maybe it's another of those dire cultural things that needs fixing in the UK ?

Statutory Law is only seen to be good if it is used to uphold citizens rights i.e. it must be open and accessible for challenge and it must be seen to be practised for the public good. If it is used instead by insiders or practitioners as a multi-pointed poisonous trap to limit access to common rights then that is a bad thing.

In summary, Taiko, please do not hide your light under a bushel - please share it so that we may see. Please provide exact pointers to current complete (amended) wordings or phrases of sections of the regulations that you believe are apt in the assessment of a case such as this.

Have I found all the right parts from your treasure map yet?

Please also share any published guidance for assessors that you know of so that we may look at it and decide whether the guidance is good, or whether it too is evidence of bad culture.

And Dunroamin, the strange phrase "cultural bypass operation" crossed my mind when I read your last. I had better not try to explain! However, I will agree that, if anything is, the regulations are a turgid affair


Now then, Experts and Commoners, here is your starter for ten:
The regulations as stood in 2011 (I haven't checked to see if the sentence I quote now was changed later or not) are drafted in such an ambiguous way as to limit the period of qualifying independent financial support - which 'A' may demonstrate to be eligible - to approximately two years prior to the commencement of the course, not three. True or false ?

2.(1)(k)_in_Schedule_4 wrote:

the student (“A”) has supported A out of A’s earnings for any period or periods ending before the first academic year of the course which periods together aggregate not less than three years, ...

Taiko

Doesn't seem ambiguous to me, just merely states that it is up to the student to provide evidence, which is what we've tried to obtain from the OP. So far, you've contributed nothing.