Student Loan

CLAPTON

Simon11 wrote: »

I got my student loan in 2007 and a few weeks later I dedicated that I didn't require it.

I wrote a cheque and gave the full amount back to student loans.

A year later, they send me a letter requesting that I pay the £4.56 interest due for the duration of the time I had the loan!

I've just ignored it, but they still waste time and money writing a letter every year, asking for payment.

I don't get why they don't write that debt off! Its more the principle, than actually paying it.

HMRC and government both national and local also believe in the 'principle of the thing' when dealing with tax payers money. The also believe in setting an 'example' to encourage the others.

They have long memories and don't get bored or frustrated but they do occasional wretch peoples financial lives who believe that fighting a wrong battle on principle is worthwhile.

You have left school now just pay what you owe.

Herzlos

Simon11 wrote: »

I don't get why they don't write that debt off! Its more the principle, than actually paying it.

Because it's a legitimate debt. You borrowed money, returned it early and are being chased for the interest over the few weeks you borrowed it, exactly like if you'd got a bank loan.

ahxcjb

CLAPTON wrote: »

HMRC and government both national and local also believe in the 'principle of the thing' when dealing with tax payers money. The also believe in setting an 'example' to encourage the others.

They have long memories and don't get bored or frustrated but they do occasional wretch peoples financial lives who believe that fighting a wrong battle on principle is worthwhile.

You have left school now just pay what you owe.

Such nonsense. I really do believe you're on a wind up as no one can really be as blinded to reality as you are.

ahxcjb

Herzlos wrote: »

Because it's a legitimate debt. You borrowed money, returned it early and are being chased for the interest over the few weeks you borrowed it, exactly like if you'd got a bank loan.

I agree with the OP on this; the interest should just be written off. The sheer effort and costs incurred for postage more than outweighs the value of the debt. No private firm would engage in such behaviour of minuscule amounts, it wouldn't be cost effective.

I had a letter from HMRC last year informing me that I owed them a couple of quid. Just the postage alone to the USA and cost in processing that letter cost more than the couple of quid I apparently owed them.

I phoned them about this, and the person I spoke with agreed and just cancelled the debt.

The SLC pursuing such insignificant amounts of money, whilst continuing to pay senior staff hundreds of thousands of your tax payers money - all without tax deductions - is the real scandal. Not someone not paying back a fiver.

CLAPTON

ahxcjb wrote: »

Such nonsense. I really do believe you're on a wind up as no one can really be as blinded to reality as you are.

why did you pay then?

conversation on the road to Damascus?

TriathNanEilean

ahxcjb wrote: »

I agree with the OP on this; the interest should just be written off. The sheer effort and costs incurred for postage more than outweighs the value of the debt. No private firm would engage in such behaviour of minuscule amounts, it wouldn't be cost effective.

I had a letter from HMRC last year informing me that I owed them a couple of quid. Just the postage alone to the USA and cost in processing that letter cost more than the couple of quid I apparently owed them.

I phoned them about this, and the person I spoke with agreed and just cancelled the debt.

The SLC pursuing such insignificant amounts of money, whilst continuing to pay senior staff hundreds of thousands of your tax payers money - all without tax deductions - is the real scandal. Not someone not paying back a fiver.

We are in your debt, twice. Once for the concern you have shown for us poor tax payers and again for the entertainment value of watching you occupy the moral high ground on the issue of paying debts.

I especially like the idea that debtors should be the ones who decide when a sum is too small to bother about repaying. A few quid in this example. Or £500 in your earlier case. What an interesting world it would be if this sensible change of yours were put in place.

ahxcjb

TriathNanEilean wrote: »

I especially like the idea that debtors should be the ones who decide when a sum is too small to bother about repaying.

It's just general common sense. As a British taxpayer, do you want expensive resources wasted chasing a few quid, or their resources focused on more prudent tasks like recovering the largest debts first?

I know what I would choose, but then I am a tad smarter than you so maybe this blindingly obvious choice isn't as easy for you to make as I.

A few quid in this example. Or £500 in your earlier case. What an interesting world it would be if this sensible change of yours were put in place.

I can tell you right now that both a couple of quid and £500 are nothing in the grand scheme of things revenue wise. Whilst I don't think 500 quid should be automatically written off (I do think a final settlement figure should be offered, though), I absolutely think small amounts like a couple of quid should be.

Remember, and I don't know if you're up to speed with this fact yet, but the Treasury has issues recovering a majority of loans they made - so much so that the amount of loans now forecast to default since the tuition fee rises has forced the Treasury to look for other areas to cut expenditure on to make up for the expected shortfall in loan repayments.

If I was in government, I would quite happily take something of 500 quid, rather than nothing if my ability and cost to recover that debt was equivocal. In fact, that's absolutely what happens: both companies and individuals reach a SETTLEMENT with HMRC as to what should be paid. It's called good business.

You should look into it some time.