ERUDIO student loans help

ericctheking

rizla_king wrote: »

Any perceived standard definition of gross income used elsewhere is utterly irrelevant if an act or regulation of parliament specifies its own. As the 1990-98 student loan regulations do. That includes income from all sources except the exempt disability related benefits.

Do you have a link to these regulations because that would be useful?

Also, is it true that the exempt disability related benefits referred to don't actually exist anymore (not surprising as it was written from so long ago) and have been replaced by different benefits.

There is a case of one disabled person who Erudio are refusing deferment because the benefits that are exempt don't exist anymore and Erudio refuse to disregard the benefits that came into replace the old ones! In fact, they quote these no- longer excising benefits in letters to her as the only benefits that can be disregarded and refuse her deferment because of a different name to the benefit these days!
Surely this can't be right?

dizzybuff

Surely a benefit that is specifically for the child and means tested such as ctc(childcare element) should be discounted. I'm not saying discount all. But as this and in my case is solely used for my childcare so I can work. My ex is now threatening withdrawing the children's maintainance.as he is fuming they have included this. The post 1998 rules are so different. A % is taken out after the threshold is reached and this is just on gross employment income. Sonot only am I being discriminated because I am single ( npt my choice) but because I receive benefits.

Slc deferred me the year before erudio came in as I was on maternity leave in 2011. 2012 I was single and was deferred. 2013 erudio took over and I couldn't get deferred my complain is nearly a year old. I'm scared of arrears.but have not been informed of these by erudio.. I'm sure someone said they shouldn't accumulate arrears when with the ombadsman. Well we will see and if there is. It will be fired off to the ombadsman once more.

Chadsman

Has anyone managed to get payments refunded that were made while deferment applications were being processed and subsequently granted?

anna2007

AReeves wrote: »

The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998 defines "Gross Income" as:
“gross income” means income from all sources before deduction for or relief from tax or other statutory charge, but not including any disability related benefits, and less any disability related costs"[/I

@ Anthony Do you think this definition could be legally interpreted to mean all income that's subject to tax, or relief from tax, rather than all taxable and non-taxable income? This was discussed earlier in the thread, and there are a fair number of people who know that non-taxable income was definitely disregarded by SLC, otherwise they would have been over the threshold and not granted deferment.

I think SLC responded to an FOI request saying non-taxable income was included in the assessment, but this doesn't tally with what people have reported on here.

anna2007

rizla_king wrote: »

Nope. Gross income is income from all non exempt sources before deduction of tax on the taxable ones. Both taxed and untaxed sources included.

"Gross" doesnt mean just "taxable" ones.

The regulations don't refer to non exempt sources, or say that both taxed and untaxed sources are included, so where have you got this from?

If it's just your interpretation of that definition, then clearly others are interpreting it differently, especially those who had non-taxable income previously excluded by SLC.

Might be playing devil's advocate here, but I can absolutely see the alternative definition that excludes non-taxable income. It's not just wishful thinking, but how people have been treated by SLC in the past.

On a practical level, it makes more sense that certain income should be excluded, e.g. if it's means tested (redistribution of wealth), or it's for a specific purpose, like child maintenance. On a moral/ethical level, and given that these were loans issued by the Government, it seems reasonable to interpret it as meaning non-taxable income is excluded.

The definition in the regs is basically pants - it defines "gross" clearly enough, but not income - the cynic in me says that was intentional, way back when they cobbled this sh!tty bit of legislation together.

anna2007

ericctheking wrote: »

Also, is it true that the exempt disability related benefits referred to don't actually exist anymore (not surprising as it was written from so long ago) and have been replaced by different benefits.

The definition in the regulations:

“disability related benefits” means long term incapacity benefit or short term incapacity benefit at the higher rate, severe disablement allowance, disability living allowance, industrial injuries benefit and disability working allowance, all payable under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992(2), or the amount of any disability premium and severe disability premium included in the applicable amount in calculating the income support payable under the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987(3), or any other statutory disability related benefit which replaces any of those benefits and which the lender gives the borrower details of;"

Lungboy

anna2007 wrote: »

The regulations don't refer to non exempt sources, or say that both taxed and untaxed sources are included, so where have you got this from?

If it's just your interpretation of that definition, then clearly others are interpreting it differently, especially those who had non-taxable income previously excluded by SLC.

Might be playing devil's advocate here, but I can absolutely see the alternative definition that excludes non-taxable income. It's not just wishful thinking, but how people have been treated by SLC in the past.

On a practical level, it makes more sense that certain income should be excluded, e.g. if it's means tested (redistribution of wealth), or it's for a specific purpose, like child maintenance. On a moral/ethical level, and given that these were loans issued by the Government, it seems reasonable to interpret it as meaning non-taxable income is excluded.

The definition in the regs is basically pants - it defines "gross" clearly enough, but not income - the cynic in me says that was intentional, way back when they cobbled this sh!tty bit of legislation together.

I think if your interpretation were correct, there'd be no need for the exemption for the disabled benefits. The fact they are specifically exempted says to me that the others aren't.

anna2007

Lungboy wrote: »

I think if your interpretation were correct, there'd be no need for the exemption for the disabled benefits. The fact they are specifically exempted says to me that the others aren't.

But some disability-related benefits/costs are taxable - that could be the reason they are specifically exempted?

datlex

I have just had my deferment application rejected. I sent them my evidence for the previous 12 weeks and stating on the forms my gross monthly income which is below the threshold. They have decided I earn above the threshold. I rang them straight up told them what I earned - hourly rate etc and how I had had 1 month due to client's needs of extra overtime which was out of norm. The person I spoke to has agreed to send me out a new deferment form. As a result I am going to resubmit an application with a whole years worth of pay slips rather than just 3 months worth to show my earnings over the whole year so they can see how rarely I do much overtime. Rather than looking at the gross pay to date and dividing that by the number of months so far this calendar year they have penalised me for a month of overtime due to a busy period at work. I think I will add a spread sheet to the information to make it easier for them given that they clearly have difficulties in doing simple calculations.
I have informed them I will not be making a payment whilst I am applying for deferment since I know my income is below the threshold. I will add a notice of correction to my credit file should they attempt to put any marker on it explaining that payments were not made as my income falls below the current threshold.


If a deferment is rejected but your income does fall below the threshold, how do you stand when it comes to not paying? Will a court up hold their decision or will they agree with you provided you have submitted all evidence of income?

Student1983

Hi all. Update. My loan has been written off as I was 50 last week. Thank goodness. That stress has been sorted.
Contacted erudio to check if this had happened. Have to say their customer service was fantastic. They also said they would phone me back if I didn't want to be put on hold whilst they checked my status.
My story to date for those who don't know.
Was due to defer in October but did not want to use their form. Attempted to defer without it but they said my deferment was incomplete and in abeyance until I completed their Daf.
Meanwhile I insisted they took payment from me until my deferral was sorted as I did not want to have any arrears/ marks against me as I knew my write off was looming.
Despite the fact that I had a direct debit in place and despite the fact that I insisted they collect this erudio did not do this. I had to phone them and make a repayment. I did this to ensure there was absolutely no reason for them to call my account into disrepute. I also knew at this time if they did not cancel my loan I still had the opportunity to defer with their form and black out all the rubbish and hence backdate my payments. I decided that 2 months repayment was a price worth paying if all went according to plan. My repayment amount was correct . Erudio did not try to lessens the term not increase payment.
I also write to BIS 4 times my last email I had asked them to intervene on my behalf. I don't know if they did as I did not receive a reply. Meanwhile my payments cannot be reclaimed as I had not finalised my deferral before write off.
I am delighted that they are out of my life so happy to give them a few hundred despite the fact that I shou not have. If my write off was not imminent I would have played it very differently.
I hope this is helpful