Miss-sold a loan from the government

ericctheking

CKhalvashi wrote: »

As no borrowing would have taken place until someone is 18 years, I'd argue that no loans have been given to minors with a view to financial gain.

Wrong, loans have been made to under 18s, for example people who had been moved ahead one year due to being very gifted.

ericctheking

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Of course the private company is taking the view to a gain. If I ran my company with the view to making a loss, I wouldn't be very good businessman, would I?

So what? You can't legally promote loans to minors,
Promotional material was and still is distributed to sixth form colleges and the sixth form of schools.
Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 50 of that Act prohibits the sending of documents to minors with a view to financial gain

ericctheking

Pixie5740 wrote: »

This is all very interesting but what are you ultimately trying to achieve here?

That student loans were and continue to be miss-sold even now.

How can promotional material say one thing and the T&Cs (which are not explained) say something else?
How can loans be promoted to minors and the government use the loophole of they are not profit-seeking to get round this yet still be in the process of trying to sell off the loan book to profit-seeking enterprises?

Pixie5740

ericctheking wrote: »

Wrong, loans have been made to under 18s, for example people who had been moved ahead one year due to being very gifted.

This is actually true. I had just turned 17 when I started university and was able to get a student loan in my first year.

Pixie5740

ericctheking wrote: »

That student loans were and continue to be miss-sold even now.

How can promotional material say one thing and the T&Cs (which are not explained) say something else?
How can loans be promoted to minors and the government use the loophole of they are not profit-seeking to get round this yet still be in the process of trying to sell off the loan book to profit-seeking enterprises?

What do you mean the terms and conditions are not explained?

Student loans aren't profit making. I can't imagine that the government has made any money from them given the large volume of people who keep deferring year after year. One of my loans was sold to Thesis years ago and my others would have been sold to Erudio if I hadn't already repaid them. According to the SLC website, these old loans have exactly the same T&C with Erudio as they did with SLC.

kathrynha

Pixie5740 wrote: »

What do you mean the terms and conditions are not explained?

Student loans aren't profit making. I can't imagine that the government has made any money from them given the large volume of people who keep deferring year after year. One of my loans was sold to Thesis years ago and my others would have been sold to Erudio if I hadn't already repaid them. According to the SLC website, these old loans have exactly the same T&C with Erudio as they did with SLC.

Yes the same T&Cs according to the SLC, but Erudio are trying to force/trick a change of T&C on to borrowers.

jonesMUFCforever

Herzlos wrote: »

Any citations for these facts, especially number 3? I can't see how having a student loan would prevent anyone from opening a bank account. If anything having a credit history would help.

3 -? Wouldn't you need a bank account to pay in the student loan monies in first place?


A general point is that part of my tax monies went to fund these loans (yes loans!) and as a taxpayer I want value for money which means if they employ debt collectors to get the money back so be it.

ericctheking

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

A general point is that part of my tax monies went to fund these loans (yes loans!) and as a taxpayer I want value for money which means if they employ debt collectors to get the money back so be it.

Oh dear oh dear, someone who doesn't know the conditions under which the loans where sold.
You are probably angry that current loans are being paid back at such a slow rate and being written off with thousands owned. Set the debt collectors on them you say.
People are sticking to the conditions but you seem to think they should be changed for the taxpayer.
If this is the case and that money needs to be retrieved at all costs how can these loans have been sold correctly?
At the moment people like Martin Lewis advise people not to think of student loans as a loan even though the amounts these days are eye-watering. Students are making a rational decision to take on the loans because of the special conditions attached.
But you say it is alright to con people and sell the loans to (not employ) private companies to use every trick in the book to try and get people to pay back money that they shouldn't be paying back due to the conditions they signed up to. Also once the loan is sold the taxpayer doesn't benefit places like Delaware and jersey do. Wouldn't you rather UK residents have money to spend here (and pay VAT) than have to pay money to be funneled into offshore bank accounts where the UK tax payer receives nothing?
Is it right that the loans can be promoted and sold to minors on the basis that it is a government loan but then sold off to a private enterprise? Private profit seeking enterprises aren't allowed to promote and sell loans to minors and quite rightly so.
Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 50 of that Act prohibits the sending of documents to minors with a view to financial gain, inviting them to borrow money or to apply for information or to get advice on borrowing money.

For point no. 3 refer to post #6
Someone being unable to open a "new" bank account is an extreme case but having loans registered as being on a "payment holiday" materialy effects people's ability to obtain credit.
Loans that were promoted as not going on credit records, not affecting ones ability to get a mortgage etc, then not put on records for twenty odd years are being threatened with being put on credit records so people pay when they are not contractually obliged to.

Pixie5740

One of my pre-1998 loans was sold to Thesis years and years ago. In fact it was the loan taken out when I was 17. I noticed absolutely no difference between repaying this loan to Thesis from repaying my other loans to SLC. The interest rates were exactly the same it's just that I had 2 different direct debits going out my account each month.

I repaid the Thesis one early and then my other loans were sold to Erudio. I did find Erudio pretty crap to deal with. I never received any documentation from them. I only new my loan had been sold to them through the news. I contacted them and was told they would send out a letter with my customer reference number on it....I'm still waiting. In the end I just took the money out my savings account and repaid my loans in full.

Like many people I deferred my loans for a few years with no good reason. Sure my earnings were under the threshold but my early 20s were the cheapest time of my life so with my 20/20 hindsight I should have started repaying them earlier. I am glad I no longer have this albatross around my neck but I wouldn't say I was mis-sold any of my loans, even the very first one I got at the age of 17.

Cyberman60

Why not take responsibility and pay back the loan rather than looking for a way out and blaming other people, as everybody seems to want to do nowadays.

Scotland allowed 16 year olds to vote and they are now considering it for the rest of the UK. Perhaps this is evidence that the vote should NOT be allowed for under 18s. :eek: