ERUDIO student loans help

anna2007

@ fermi But you can't read "all sources" in isolation, it has to be linked in to the rest of the text. surely you can see how it could mean"all sources that are liable for deduction of, or relief from, tax (except taxable DR benefits)?

I would have thought if it was meant to include non-taxable income, it would specifically refer to it? I'm assuming they didn't because it's generally accepted that non-taxable income is not classed as gross income.

I think I have some old SLC deferment stuff 'filed' away in my garage, will have a look this afternoon.


Edit: I did wonder if she was referring to the big pointy arrows, easy to see how that could be misconstrued...

ericctheking

fermi wrote: »

All income before tax is not equal to only taxable income.

That is just ridiculous! What about the self employed? If you follow that line of reasoning then sales are classed as gross income and costs can not be subtracted!

fermi

I'm sorry, but I can see how could make that link if you want that to be the case, but can't see that it's there in the fashion you claim.

It's simply saying that gross income is from all sources before any taxable or chargeable deductions are taken from any those apply to. Not that it only applies to taxable or chargeable income.

If you disagree, we are going to have to disagree and leave it there, as I cannot see it any other way. Sorry.

PS: As said, I would love to be wrong, but can't ATM see how it could be.

fermi

fermi wrote: »

Paul Tilley mentioned in that article is one of the site team on the legalbeagles.info forum

if you want to ask the horses mouth about the present state of things and your agreements, then I would get on there and see what he might think.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/member.php?551-pt2537

Did anyone do this ^^^^?

JeLaw

fermi wrote: »

The SLC forms gave a list every year of what sources they excluded, and that list does not include child benefit or any tax credits.

If SLC misapplied the regulations in many or some cases, that is neither here nor there.

I don't have any legal training so could be completely wrong but if SLC misapplied the regulations has that not set a precedent? Is there a legal case for that?

Separately, I was lying in bed last night thinking about the whole Erudio mess (can't believe it's taken over my life to such an extent!). I still feel that we were mis-sold these loans.

I was wondering whether it might help to do some research at the British Library looking at the newspaper archive. I'd like to look at how the introduction of these loans was reported on. Especially relating to the impact on our credit record. And also the fact that these loans were promoted on the basis that they were different and nothing to worry about because "they were with the government".

I clearly remember being repeatedly assured by my university finance department that these loans were nothing to worry about because they were with the government and that our credit records would affected.

Do people here think that might be useful?

Roger_Mellie_2

This thought probably occurred to some of you, but it's a pity none of us had the foresight to club together and buy the loan book off the govt. With 350,000 loan holders, I'm sure over 50% of us could have chucked in a £1000 each to raise the finance to buy the loan book. Those who contributed could have then written off their own loans followed by an offer to those who didn't contribute to write off their loans for a few hundred quid or so.

I'll keep dreaming...LOL

anna2007

Ok, I've tracked down some old SLC paperwork, the earliest SLC application form I can find is dated February 2003, and the guidelines and sample form (with the big pointy arrows), is pretty much identical to the current one.

I did find an SLC information leaflet on loan repayment, dated August 2005, which interestingly refers to earnings:

"This form gives details of the maximum income level you can earn (before Income Tax and National Insurance) if you wish to delay repayments. The gross income level until August 2006 is £2,011 per month. If you are earning over this threshold you will not be eligible to defer your repayments" - page 2.

There's also a section on page 3 on "Information for disabled borrowers", which lists a number of benefits and states "These benefits are deducted [not disregarded as stated in the DAF guidelines] when assessing your gross income for deferment".

I've attached the whole leaflet in 3 files - the pages are a bit muddled as it's a folded leaflet, but the pages mentioned above are in the second link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fxtmv8k5ckvcgkl/SLC%20Info%20Leaflet%201.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q5d39matarnoh55/SLC%20Info%20Leaflet%202.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7tfwietle6ruhm2/SLC%20Info%20Leaflet%203.pdf?dl=0

I'm pretty sure I have SLC paperwork going back further, but may have to empty the garage to find it

gardenia101

fermi wrote: »

Did anyone do this ^^^^?

I've registered on the forum, but there aren't any more recent posts than 14/08 AFAIK. I have posted a question about child maintenance & child related benefits & will update here when I get a reply.

JeLaw wrote: »

I don't have any legal training so could be completely wrong but if SLC misapplied the regulations has that not set a precedent? Is there a legal case for that?

Separately, I was lying in bed last night thinking about the whole Erudio mess (can't believe it's taken over my life to such an extent!). I still feel that we were mis-sold these loans.

I was wondering whether it might help to do some research at the British Library looking at the newspaper archive. I'd like to look at how the introduction of these loans was reported on. Especially relating to the impact on our credit record. And also the fact that these loans were promoted on the basis that they were different and nothing to worry about because "they were with the government".

I clearly remember being repeatedly assured by my university finance department that these loans were nothing to worry about because they were with the government and that our credit records would affected.

Do people here think that might be useful?

Glad I'm not the only one having problems sleeping (well, not really glad as its all a bit pants, but YKWIM).

As a partially sighted person living nowhere near London, I don't feel that is a job for me, but it could be useful.

I also feel that such a precedent has been set, but no idea if it will actually count for anything.

anna2007 wrote: »

Ok, I've tracked down some old SLC paperwork, the earliest SLC application form I can find is dated February 2003, and the guidelines and sample form (with the big pointy arrows), is pretty much identical to the current one.

I did find an SLC information leaflet on loan repayment, dated August 2005, which interestingly refers to earnings:

"This form gives details of the maximum income level you can earn (before Income Tax and National Insurance) if you wish to delay repayments. The gross income level until August 2006 is £2,011 per month. If you are earning over this threshold you will not be eligible to defer your repayments" - page 2.

There's also a section on page 3 on "Information for disabled borrowers", which lists a number of benefits and states "These benefits are deducted [not disregarded as stated in the DAF guidelines] when assessing your gross income for deferment".

I've attached the whole leaflet in 3 files - the pages are a bit muddled as it's a folded leaflet, but the pages mentioned above are in the second link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fxtmv8k5ckvcgkl/SLC%20Info%20Leaflet%201.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q5d39matarnoh55/SLC%20Info%20Leaflet%202.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7tfwietle6ruhm2/SLC%20Info%20Leaflet%203.pdf?dl=0

I'm pretty sure I have SLC paperwork going back further, but may have to empty the garage to find it

Thanks Anna - I can use the quote about disability deferment now I've seen it in black & white, so that is really useful.

On a not so positive note I did find the pre98 T&C (from the legalbeagles website Fermi mentions). The bottom box only mentions excluding certain disability related benefits from deferment, so I'd conclude from this that everything else (tax credits etc.) will be counted by Erudio

What do you all think?

The applicable regulations provide for (a) deferment of repayments (from a date and for a period determined by us under the applicable regulations) if you satisfy us that your gross income (ignoring certain disability-related benefits) for a month does not exceed a sum prescribed by the applicable regulations and that your gross average monthly income
during the three succeeding months will not, or is unlikely to, exceed that sum.

gardenia101

Still compiling my letter to Erudio, & am wondering what I should blank out on my bank statemnts. It is the same bank account that they have details about (even if they can't actually manage to collect the direct debit that has always been in place).

I need to show child benefit & tax credits, interest from a savings account that gets paid in monthly, & child maintenance from ex. Salary is already covered by supplying wage slips, showing all deductions.

I'm planning on blanking out all my d/ds for utilities etc., my credit card d/d - all of these show funds leaving my account so I can't see how they can argue that they need to see them. Am I obliged to show them a running balance on my account, even if they can't see where the money is going? I don't really like them knowing anything about me that they may try & exploit - this isn't like dealing with HMRC etc. where I'm happy to give them full access to everything. Or am I being too paranoid?

What isn't so clear is a gift from a family member for my DS's birthday - I want to block this out as it has her bank details on, & also isn't my income, yet this could possibly be seen as trying to hide income? Thoughts anyone.

I've no idea what info Erudio will already hold about me either.

Should I also blank out my NI & employee numbers from my wage slips?

anna2007

fermi wrote: »

Did anyone do this ^^^^?

I think you posted that info in response to my comments re illegible CCA agreements? If so, I completely forgot to follow up on it


Do you think he could help with the gross income definition in the regs?