Applying for SF as an individual

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

Taiko wrote: »

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.

To be frank Taiko, given the rather superior tone of your responses, whether you think it seems ambiguous or not fails to impress due to lack of argument ...

The fact is that the wording is ambiguous and if tested in a court I think it stands a good chance of being interpreted in narrow fashion in favour of the individual challenging the three year interpretation and arguing it is nearer two.

One possible conclusion (because the ambiguous phrase used is so rarely used in this world), is that some Oxbridge Classics graduate (who else?) drafted the legislation whilst recalling some long ago assimilated phrase from an analysis of Dante "which periods together" and having thought himself or herself clever no doubt to have coined such a poetic construction from Oxbridge days, he or she completely lost sight of how careless use of English can bvgger one up (and in this case make the law ambiguous, because few others ever read these things properly as part of the democratic process of passing them into law) :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

"the first academic year of the course" is obviously a period too so it must be counted as one of the periods which periods together shall not exceed three years.

What further incompetence is it possible to uncover within this rushed legislation, I wonder ? Or perhaps it was drafted deliberately as highfalutin with the intention of testing the intellects of the likes of Willetts, et al (to see if they noticed) before they voted for it ! :rotfl: Apart from Student Finance regulation, the only other place those three words appear in a Google search in that order are in set of accounts published on the Morning Star website :rotfl::rotfl:

Oh what Divine Comedy :T

So OP, looks to me that it is only two years financial independence (approximately) that you need to demonstrate as having supported yourself, not three. Are you up for a challenge? I think you might need a sense of humour to try it, because clearly those civil servants who don't appreciate the niceties of such clever phrases will argue against you till they are blue in the face

Mind you, Taiko probably hasn't even grasped the significance of my discovery today yet ...

Taiko

TurnUpForTheBooks wrote: »

To be frank Taiko, given the rather superior tone of your responses, whether you think it seems ambiguous or not fails to impress due to lack of argument ...

The fact is that the wording is ambiguous and if tested in a court I think it stands a good chance of being interpreted in narrow fashion in favour of the individual challenging the three year interpretation and arguing it is nearer two.

One possible conclusion (because the ambiguous phrase used is so rarely used in this world), is that some Oxbridge Classics graduate (who else?) drafted the legislation whilst recalling some long ago assimilated phrase from an analysis of Dante "which periods together" and having thought himself or herself clever no doubt to have coined such a poetic construction from Oxbridge days, he or she completely lost sight of how careless use of English can bvgger one up (and in this case make the law ambiguous, because few others ever read these things properly as part of the democratic process of passing them into law) :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

"the first academic year of the course" is obviously a period too so it must be counted as one of the periods which periods together shall not exceed three years.

What further incompetence is it possible to uncover within this rushed legislation, I wonder ? Or perhaps it was drafted deliberately as highfalutin with the intention of testing the intellects of the likes of Willetts, et al (to see if they noticed) before they voted for it ! :rotfl: Apart from Student Finance regulation, the only other place those three words appear in a Google search in that order are in set of accounts published on the Morning Star website :rotfl::rotfl:

Oh what Divine Comedy :T

So OP, looks to me that it is only two years financial independence (approximately) that you need to demonstrate as having supported yourself, not three. Are you up for a challenge? I think you might need a sense of humour to try it, because clearly those civil servants who don't appreciate the niceties of such clever phrases will argue against you till they are blue in the face

Mind you, Taiko probably hasn't even grasped the significance of my discovery today yet ...

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

Seems pretty clear. The student must demonstrate self support for 3 years prior to the 1st academic year. Note the use of the word "before". This indicates that, depending on when the student began the course, the cut off point is the 1st September (or January, if a Jan starter). The full definition is contained within The Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011, which are the relevant regulations, including amendments. The exact wording is:

“academic year” means the period of twelve months beginning on 1st January, 1st April, 1st July or 1st September of the calendar year in which the academic year of the course in question begins according to whether that academic year begins on or after 1st January and before 1st April, on or after 1st April and before 1st July, on or after 1st July and before 1st August or on or after 1st August and on or before 31st December, respectively

The only thing that needs grasping is your throat, It then needs to be twisted repeatedly so you can stop chipping in with nonsensical ramblings. You've so far provided nothing that can help the OP, and your comments will only waste their time, should they decide to return to the thread.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

Now that will not do, Taiko.

You and your kind are up a creek with this so-called legislation and I wish you would find a way back before you sink to any new depths.

The word "before" makes no difference - it will not save your hide nor SLC's. The sentence is totally ambiguous, was obviously never proof-read after the initial drafting stage e.g. what was all that mumbo-jumbo about student 'A'? Was it cut and pasted from some paragraph in use elsewhere where there was also a student 'B'? Schedule 4, 2.(1)(k) is however now a piece of a law with a year-sized hole in it through which coaches and horses may be freely driven if only you would get out of the way. How embarassing. It shall now be interpreted in the narrow fashion that favours the individuals you seem to think, or whom you seem to wish, it legislated against. That's the way the law repairs itself, thank goodness, but I can see it may not repair your pride.

Are you going to continue to argue against my assertion? You will need to be more convincing than the two or three paragraphs of bluster. You yourself have just reminded us that the full definition of academic year is a "period."

"Which periods together" means all those in the same sentence that come before the word "which" and not a biased selection of some of the periods which came before the last mentioned period (the first academic year). The three years therefore includes the first academic year, and I don't mind what dates you put on that!

atypical

The definition of a period is contained within the sentence:

"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"

As Taiko has already said, the periods that count are those that end before the first academic year of the course.

The rest of 2.(1)(k) goes on to list periods which count as a student supporting themselves. It's clear these periods relate only to when a student is not in their first year of university as it lists things like being unemployed.

Parliamentary Counsel writes all legislation and is made up of only around 50 people who do this day in, day out. Maybe they made a mistake, and maybe it got through Parliament without anyone noticing, and maybe everyone who uses the rule hasn't questioned it. Or maybe you're wrong and this is just another garden path you've led us all down. To be fair, we should know better.

MrUniveristy

Thank you for all of your replies; I really appreciate it.

I have recieved my employment history SA from HMRC; It states...

Source of income for the tax year ended 5 April 2011 - £3489
Source of income for the tax year ended 5 April 2012 - £6116
Source of income for the tax year ended 5 April 2013 - £11906
Source of income for the tax year ending 5 April 2014 - So far £12000

I have been living with my girlfriend in her single mums council house. For tax year ending 5/04/2012 I also have statments for rent contributions, I have evidence of bills, internet, phone, critical illness insurance (Done through a FA), car finance.

I also claimed JSA for 2 months when I was out of work for the tax year ending 5/04/2013.

I have been in contact with SF and they said this should be OK. Just send all the evidence I can when I submit my application.

Thoughts on this now with a tad more information?

Regards,

MrUniveristy

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

atypical wrote: »

The definition of a period is contained within the sentence:

"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"

As Taiko has already said, the periods that count are those that end before the first academic year of the course.

The rest of 2.(1)(k) goes on to list periods which count as a student supporting themselves. It's clear these periods relate only to when a student is not in their first year of university as it lists things like being unemployed.

Parliamentary Counsel writes all legislation and is made up of only around 50 people who do this day in, day out. Maybe they made a mistake, and maybe it got through Parliament without anyone noticing, and maybe everyone who uses the rule hasn't questioned it. Or maybe you're wrong and this is just another garden path you've led us all down. To be fair, we should know better.

Atypical, 2.(1)(k)simply does not contain any restrictive definition of a 'period'. Nor do the complete regulations.

It is too late for you or anyone else to claim that the definition we should use is the one you can now only suggest was intended. You must no longer assert it without good legal reason, and although I am no lawyer, I honestly don't think you will find one.

There is clear evidence that the drafting was neglected. There is absolutely no reason for that claptrap about Student "A" supporting A, is there? It was cut and pasted on POETS (day) no doubt and forgotten about on Monday morning when the work was shunted off to the printers!

Your suggested definition is not law (unfortunately for whomever wishes it was or may have been asserting that it was, to date), ergo in all fairness you must no longer assert that it is.

Instead an eloquent but in this case faulty construction "which periods together" hatched rather grandiloquently by one of those 50 Oxbridge wallahs you mentioned must now rely solely upon the logical English language interpretation of it, and consequently curious cats are now amongst the pigeons . Sure the 3 year rule may not have been questioned before, but that's what we are here for. We must all thank Taiko for encouraging me to go look at the regulations in detail, interpret them for myself, and return with my conclusions!

I love language - it develops beautifully, and sometimes it creates the most unexpected silver linings in clouds


Mr Univeristy, congratulations! You are clearly financially independent and should be proud of yourself. The very best of luck with convincing SLC. Even their advisors would congratulate you I think, and hopefully they will help you nail it.

Taiko

Send those in for the 11/12 tax year, and you should be ok. The only doubt would be is if your rent was being heavily subsidised, which could demonstrate in a roundabout way that you were being supported, albeit by your partner's family.

With regards to the interpretations, there have been many court cases brought around the interpretation in the past. I'm not aware of any that have been successful, nor am I aware of any being successful if they went to the Court of Appeal.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

With regards to the interpretations, there have been many court cases brought around the interpretation in the past. I'm not aware of any that have been successful, nor am I aware of any being successful if they went to the Court of Appeal.

This is not a reason to stop challenges. You make it sound like an employer to an unfairly dismissed employee: "Sue me - I always win". As we know, that's just talk. Actions speak louder and the evidence is probably in the number of amendments to date ! Unfortunately, with this law, it is too easy for half-baked wordings to enter the law and for questions to be brushed off later, or at worst, for the minister to act alone (or with the 50 wallahs) with revised regulations to fix the howlers

MrUniveristy

Taiko wrote: »

Not independent is my belief. What were your living arrangements for those years?

Taiko,

Just an update, I have been granted full independent status based on my income.

I have seen plenty of threads where you have stated your verdict and it has been wrong.

I appreciate you used to be an 'assessor of student finance' but I think you need to come to terms that you are no longer in the job role.

Regards all,

Taiko

I imagine that'll be the last time you're offered help by anyone on these forums, especially given that I posted up over two months ago saying you should be ok if you sent the additional paperwork, which you hadn't originally. Based on what you had sent, my judgement proved to be correct. Based on the advice given, you got the assessment I said you should have.

Feel free to explain how it was I was wrong though. Consider it a challenge.