Student Loan: is applying without Mum possible?

lillyofthevalley

My son is now 21 and lives mostly outside the home, since he decided to study for his degree course in a different city (and county alltogether) .
He could not get through the 1st year, so he had to re-take a couple of modules and he hopes to be in 2nd year in September 2008.
However, he has applied for student finance but I must fill out the Assessment of financial circumstance for year 2008/2009.

I don't understand, why I must be involved with his finances, thus complete the PFF2 form, if he does not live with us. I did so for the past 2 years but should he not apply in his own right? Can he apply for the student maintainance loan in his own right, without any involvement on my part?
After all, he does not wish any involvement on my part in his education ( or life) at all (fair enough!). Then I want to be free of further responsibilities and get on with my own life. Also, since he works a little, if our combined income reaches £15,000 per year does he not risk to loose help with his loan, hence it would be better for him to apply by himself?

dmg24

To be assessed as an independent student, your son needs to have been financially independent from you for three years (there are other circumstances, but these will not apply either) before starting his studies. As he has not, then he is still assessed on your income.

Why is it done this way? I don't know if anybody has told you this, but parental responsibility rarely finishes at 18. :rolleyes:

lillyofthevalley

dmg24 wrote: »

To be assessed as an independent student, your son needs to have been financially independent from you for three years (there are other circumstances, but these will not apply either) before starting his studies. As he has not, then he is still assessed on your income.

Why is it done this way? I don't know if anybody has told you this, but parental responsibility rarely finishes at 18. :rolleyes:

What worries me, though, is the fact that he works part-time (which is very good :-) ), BUT I must keep my income very low so that my daughter will be able to receive her EMA, and my son can then receive his maintainance loan.
Unless, my son's annual income (and eventually my daughter's who wants a Summer job--which is great too :-) ) is not taken into consideration then I don't need to worry. Is it, though?
I really need to get some career going, because at the end of the day, my daughter will be gone too (she'll be 18 in 2 years--touch wood! ) , and living as a super-poor is not a long term solution.

BruceyBonus

Only your son's unearned income is taken into account (e.g. savings interest, shares, etc.)

Idiophreak

Don't worry about it - just get on with your life.

It doesn't sound like he's going to starve to death if the means testing loses him a couple of hundred quid per year. He'll cope.

Oldernotwiser

lillyofthevalley wrote: »

BUT I must keep my income very low so that my daughter will be able to receive her EMA, and my son can then receive his maintainance loan.

I'm afraid that this seems just daft reasoning. If you're able to get a much better paid job then surely it's worth doing this and then giving your son and daughter the same money she'd get on EMA and and he'd get on the income assessed part of the loan. Off the top of my head you're only talking about a couple of grand a year. They'd then be in the same financial situation as they are now, you'd be a bit better off in the short term and considerably better off in the long term. deliberately keeping your income low so that they can claim a few extra quid seems like madness!!

lillyofthevalley

BruceyBonus wrote: »

Only your son's unearned income is taken into account (e.g. savings interest, shares, etc.)

I see. Is there a max yearly amount?
Thanks for that :-)

Idiophreak wrote: »

Don't worry about it - just get on with your life.
It doesn't sound like he's going to starve to death if the means testing loses him a couple of hundred quid per year. He'll cope.

Yes, I must try to focus on my life, since my daughter too will be gone in a couple of years and I must get some career path going.

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I'm afraid that this seems just daft reasoning. If you're able to get a much better paid job then surely it's worth doing this and then giving your son and daughter the same money she'd get on EMA and and he'd get on the income assessed part of the loan. Off the top of my head you're only talking about a couple of grand a year. They'd then be in the same financial situation as they are now, you'd be a bit better off in the short term and considerably better off in the long term. deliberately keeping your income low so that they can claim a few extra quid seems like madness!!

Madness? Maybe.
As a disabled single-parent who's been trying to stay off benefits for the past 6 years by working on a self-employed basis in whatever I'm capable of (I provide IT support and teach Computer Skills -- hardly stayed off working after my accident), earning less can be the most reasonable solution. Bare in mind, that children need a parent who is present often, not outside the home for 35+ hours a week, thus decreasing the chances of finding work within a company.
A note to anyone who's reading this and thinks that all disabled people don't want to work: the disabled section of the Job Center are still trying to find me work (so far, they found me none as I've always had to find it by myself). We would be starving or on the full pletora of benefits if I had to depend on the Job Center (they're laugh!!! ) I called them again last monthy to be told to call back in 2 weeks because of some contract changes. It's now week 5 and apparently the guy in question is still trying to sort out I don't know exactly what. What a joke!

dmg24

I agree with Oldernotwiser, and you have said nothing to justify why earning less is a sensible choice?

Oldernotwiser

lillyofthevalley wrote: »

Madness? Maybe.
As a disabled single-parent who's been trying to stay off benefits for the past 6 years by working on a self-employed basis in whatever I'm capable of (I provide IT support and teach Computer Skills -- hardly stayed off working after my accident), earning less can be the most reasonable solution. Bare in mind, that children need a parent who is present often, not outside the home for 35+ hours a week, thus decreasing the chances of finding work within a company.

I can quite understand this but it's not what you've been saying in your earlier posts where you said you must keep your income low so that your daughter will get EMA. This makes it sound as if you have the option of earning a much higher salary which doesn't now seem to be the case. I also don't see why you couldn't work full time from the point of view of having only a 16 year old at home although perhaps this isn't a possibility with your disability.

lillyofthevalley

dmg24 wrote: »

I agree with Oldernotwiser, and you have said nothing to justify why earning less is a sensible choice?

Justify what?

lillyofthevalley

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I can quite understand this but it's not what you've been saying in your earlier posts where you said you must keep your income low so that your daughter will get EMA. This makes it sound as if you have the option of earning a much higher salary which doesn't now seem to be the case. I also don't see why you couldn't work full time from the point of view of having only a 16 year old at home although perhaps this isn't a possibility with your disability.

No, I do not have that option at the moment.