Student Loans discussion
Options
Comments
-
soolin - just wanted to say congrats to your son. is this the mathsy one (that's not even a word!)? it's easy to forget how stressful this time of year can be and i wouldn't want to repeat it! i guess you'll be breathing out now!
:happyhear0 -
I'll have £16k to pay back when I finish uni next year, wahay!0
-
the thing is, i think they are told everything.... at least the T&Cs are there if they choose to read them. i think 'i was only 18, i didn't think it was important' is the worst kind of excuse!!The_One_Who wrote: »Why do some students need to be told everything? Why can't they do it for themselves? There is a wealth of literature available about student loans, all you have to do is read it. If there is something you don't understand either try and find out about it or ask someone.:happyhear0 -
rambojones wrote: »Just like me! I am pursuing it with SLC and Financial Ombudsman. I was 39 in 1991 when I was 'advised' by SLC not to worry about paying it back because if i never earned enough it was written off at age 50 anyway. So taking this advice on board I took the loans. Never did earn enough to pay it back, in fact was unemployed for 2 years after graduating. Got to age 50 and I was informed I had been given wrong info; that because I was over 40 when the last loan was taken out in 1994/95, it was now aged 60!! I nearly fainted to say the least and have been worried ever since. All these years of interest piling up. Trained as a teacher 4 years ago and next month will be over the threshold, aged 56 and having to pay this bl***y loan back. So yes I think you were misled, mis-sold, given bad advice
Even assuming you're not just a figment of someone's imagination...
You think *you* were missold, you can't think the OP was - they've given *no* such reasons (like yours, however imaginary) as to *why they think they were mis-sold*...
In your case, clearly
a) They did kinda mislead you with the advice - but your complaint is against whoever gave you the wrong info, not the SLC
b) It's completely morally bankrupt to take a loan you have no intention of repaying.
c) If you're just over the threshold, you'll be paying back *a tiny* amount each month...in exchange for your studies...Seems fair to me...
If you are imaginary, you're a pretty weird example to pick...0 -
The_One_Who wrote: »Why do some students need to be told everything? Why can't they do it for themselves? There is a wealth of literature available about student loans, all you have to do is read it. If there is something you don't understand either try and find out about it or ask someone.
I have taken out a student loan and am well aware that I will have to pay it back, but if by some chance I haven't managed to in 35 years it will be written off. It is not debt in the sense that you will be chased up for it or that it will have an effect on your credit score.
Now let me re-write the above for all those 'morons' who think they have been given bad advice in the past:
Why do some people with Mortgages/Pensions/Endowments/Critical Illness Polices/Health Polices/Loans/Savings Accounts/Investments/Bank Accounts, need to be told everything? Why can't they do it for themselves? There is a wealth of literature available about Mortgages/Pensions/Endowments/Critical Illness Policies/Health Polices/Loans/Savings Accounts/Investments/Bank Accounts, all you have to do is read it. If there is something you don't understand either try and find out about it or ask someone.
I have taken out a student loan and am well aware that I will have to pay it back, but if by some chance I haven't managed to in 35 years it will be written off. It is not debt in the sense that you will be chased up for it or that it will have an effect on your credit score.
(Then you are obviously one of the luckier Borrowers who were given 'good' advice. I on the other hand was given 'bad' advice. In 1991 there was not a 'wealth' of literature around my friend, in fact I recieved no paperwork along with my loan. All I did was sign an application; I did not even recieve a copy of it. I 'trusted' the information that I was given. Unfortunately it was the wrong information. Why do you think the SLC is now under the umberella of the Financial Ombudsman? Because it has been whiter than white? Doubt it. And I guarantee you, 'they' will be chasing you all over the place if you do not pay back the loan. It is a debt and it has to be repaid. I have been chased for the last 17 years to repay it!!0 -
Idiophreak wrote: »Even assuming you're not just a figment of someone's imagination...
You think *you* were missold, you can't think the OP was - they've given *no* such reasons (like yours, however imaginary) as to *why they think they were mis-sold*...
In your case, clearly
a) They did kinda mislead you with the advice - but your complaint is against whoever gave you the wrong info, not the SLC
b) It's completely morally bankrupt to take a loan you have no intention of repaying.
c) If you're just over the threshold, you'll be paying back *a tiny* amount each month...in exchange for your studies...Seems fair to me...
If you are imaginary, you're a pretty weird example to pick...
a) I was misled; complaint is against the SLC as the person who gave me the wrong/bad advice was/is a representative of that company.
b) I had every intention of repaying the loan, assuming I earned enough to do so and that it would be written off if I reached 50 (as I was advised it would be) if I had not been able to repay it.
c) My loan is the old 'mortgage' type; re-payable over 5 years and a 'bunch' of money per month for a repayment. Not the 'new' loan type like you obviously have.
Bad advice is 'bad' advice. We can only make decisions based on the information given to us by the professionals we seek it from. If companies are not held to account for such bad advice think for a moment what would be the repercussions for ALL of us in almost every aspect of our lives. It is a frightening scenario to contemplate. Thank God for the Ombudsmen/women.0 -
rambojones wrote: »Now let me re-write the above for all those 'morons' who think they have been given bad advice in the past:
Why do some people with Mortgages/Pensions/Endowments/Critical Illness Polices/Health Polices/Loans/Savings Accounts/Investments/Bank Accounts, need to be told everything? Why can't they do it for themselves? There is a wealth of literature available about Mortgages/Pensions/Endowments/Critical Illness Policies/Health Polices/Loans/Savings Accounts/Investments/Bank Accounts, all you have to do is read it. If there is something you don't understand either try and find out about it or ask someone.
I have taken out a student loan and am well aware that I will have to pay it back, but if by some chance I haven't managed to in 35 years it will be written off. It is not debt in the sense that you will be chased up for it or that it will have an effect on your credit score.
(Then you are obviously one of the luckier Borrowers who were given 'good' advice. I on the other hand was given 'bad' advice. In 1991 there was not a 'wealth' of literature around my friend, in fact I recieved no paperwork along with my loan. All I did was sign an application; I did not even recieve a copy of it. I 'trusted' the information that I was given. Unfortunately it was the wrong information. Why do you think the SLC is now under the umberella of the Financial Ombudsman? Because it has been whiter than white? Doubt it. And I guarantee you, 'they' will be chasing you all over the place if you do not pay back the loan. It is a debt and it has to be repaid. I have been chased for the last 17 years to repay it!!
I never called anyone a 'moron'.
And yes, if you don't request and read the terms and conditions of something you are agreeing to, then on your own head be it.
As long as I am earning over the threshold and am paying back the minimum required I will not be chased up by the SLC. I fully expect to have paid it off by the time my 35 years are up, even if I am only paying back the minimum.0 -
piefacerecords wrote: »I haven't read this entire thread so massive apologies if this has been said or is totally irrelevant! I symathise with you on this, and when you ask "what was the alternative", I only hope that the government acknowledges the alternative soon which is to provide grants or free tuition for higher education, as with further education.
I know this isn't black and white and plenty of people will start shouting about taxpayers money in a minute, but it is a sad sad fact that if, say, you go to the medical school in any uni then 99% of the students come from an extremely priveleged background. And why? Because the longer the course is, the fewer people can do it who are from a working class background. I think it's so sad, and it really takes opportunities away from people.
You are right that in this instance (like many) debt is a necessary evil. And hopefully for most it will pay off! Although I know people with good degrees who are working in Tesco...
I agree with you 100%. We should not be fighting each other; we should be fighting against those that condemn society to a life of debt. We are a debt ridden society, just like the US and call me cynical if you will but what better way to 'control' the masses than to have the majority of us in some kind of debt. Be it student debt, mortgage debt, car debt, credit card debt and so on; you don't need to do anything to keep power because who is going to rise up against you? No one; we are all too busy working to repay all the debt we have, while worrying about cost of livng increases, interest rate hikes, job losses, house repossessions etc. Debt is not a necessary evil; it is just EVIL! Tell me the name of one MP who took out a student loan to get through Uni? Not one of them. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown? Don't be daft! And neither will their kids!0 -
i've never ever met a 'representative' of the SLC (nor has anyone i know with a student loan).... how did you meet them and talk to them? did they come to your school or was this on the phone?!:happyhear0
-
The_One_Who wrote: »I never called anyone a 'moron'.
And yes, if you don't request and read the terms and conditions of something you are agreeing to, then on your own head be it.
As long as I am earning over the threshold and am paying back the minimum required I will not be chased up by the SLC. I fully expect to have paid it off by the time my 35 years are up, even if I am only paying back the minimum.
I was being 'facetious' calling others, like myself, 'morons' for claiming to have been misled/given bad advice. You really do need to come down to earth a bit though. Reading 'T & C's? Sure but I guess I would have had to have been given them first (I wasn't), had to have known about them (I didn't), had to have suspected SLC might not be entirely 'kosher' (I didn't); so there you are - guilty as charged; gullible, that's me. How I wish I knew then what I know now! I would have demanded the T & C's, because I would have known that the person advising me about the loan, did not know what they were talking about. I could have tightened my belt a bit and survived without the loans (yes, I really could have and now I could kick myself for getting into this mess; hindsight and all that).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 450K Spending & Discounts
- 235.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 609K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.4K Life & Family
- 248.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards