Student Loans Company Agressive Letter

[Macro]

No, you've effectively paid your taxes like most normal people do.

Your standpoint sucks, for what its worth. And so does the OPs.

Agreed...

 

[Deleted member 66701]

No, you've effectively paid your taxes like most normal people do.

Your standpoint sucks, for what its worth. And so does the OPs.

You're right ofc. I'm going to give all the loan back right away.........

 

[Bear]

I've paid more tax in my working life than you probably ever will. I've effectively "paid it forward".

I'm happy with my stance from a moral standpoint.

Great another morally bankrupt faux socialist.

 

[Nitefly]

Which is really the crux of this entire thread. You dont want to give them your financial details because you are worried they will force you to pay back money that was lent to you in good faith and you don't want to. Thus you are making any excuse to avoid sending them the information which is amusingly ironic because not doing so will likely bring about the conclusion you are so intent on avoiding.

As I said many posts back - just send them the info and be done with it. They will say "thank you sir, we can see you do not make enough interest on your savings to make student loan repayments - please update us further should your circumstances change so that we can reassess your suitability to make repayments."

/thread

The one thing I would add to the consideration pot is that the feasible underhand tactics loan companies use to try to recoup funds. We've already heard of threats of fining the OP (without basis, from my quick skim read of the thread and not knowing much about the terms of the loan whatsoever!). I do hate the way companies bully individuals in that manner. But on the balance, yes, I agree.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Wasn't it like 25k before? I could have sworn it was...

I graduated like 6 years ago and a lot has changed since then.

I'm confused, uni loans right?

 

[Derek W]

I'm happy with my stance from a moral standpoint.

Moral Standpoint and the Internet!

 

[Bear]

The one thing I would add to the consideration pot is that the feasible underhand tactics loan companies use to try to recoup funds. We've already heard of threats of fining the OP (without basis, from my quick skim read of the thread and not knowing much about the terms of the loan whatsoever!). I do hate the way companies bully individuals in that manner. But on the balance, yes, I agree.

It's not really underhanded at all, all he needs to do is prove he doesn't gain enough interest/income on any savings/investments and then all is good. It's the refusal to prove his financial status which then kicks in the repayment of the remaining loan in full which was agreed to under the terms of the loan.

 

[Nitefly]

It's not really underhanded at all, all he needs to do is prove he doesn't gain enough interest/income on any savings/investments and then all is good. It's the refusal to prove his financial status which then kicks in the repayment of the remaining loan in full which was agreed to under the terms of the loan.

I was referring to the following passage.

They say I need to provide bank statements for all accounts and these must show the current balance of those accounts. I asked if I could blank out the balance (to just show transactions) and they said that would be rejected!! Apparently my bank balance is covered by the clause in the contract saying "I agree to keep the SLC updated with any changes in my circumstances". Can you believe that such a vague statement covers your bank balance?

If I don't provide full bank statements they will fine me £150 each time they request it until I comply.

I question the legitimacy of this! Is there any obligation for the OP to provide evidence that there is no change of circumstance...? I don't know, but just sayin'!

 

[Tefal]

I've paid more tax in my working life than you probably ever will. I've effectively "paid it forward".

I'm happy with my stance from a moral standpoint.

but the problem is that's not what it looks like as far as the statistics are concerned when it comes time for review you are just another person who took the loans and didn't pay them back.

which may help to decide that mature students shouldn't get them.

 

[Zethor]

Does anyone else find amigafan2003 and FoxEyes very open and public approach a little psychopathic ?

I mean what you are both saying is so far against the normal social convention. Playing the system in a very sly way.

It comes across as being a bit selfish. It was public tax money lent in good faith to enable an education to better yourself.

I'm playing devils advocate i guess.. I admire the way you can publicly stand up and say how much of a **** you are and not be phased by it.

I don't find the attitude psychopathic at all, I think it's quite common although many people don't like to admit it. There's not much of a difference between what these two are doing and minimizing tax payments. If what they are doing is immoral then the same can be said regarding most business owners, big or small.
The fact that they took loans has no bearing on the bottom line. A state's budget is affected in the same manner, whether we're discussing about loans that are not returded or taxes that are legally evaded.

 

[Tefal]

I
I question the legitimacy of this! Is there any obligation for the OP to provide evidence that there is no change of circumstance...? I don't know, but just sayin'!

by fine what he means is take standard repayment.

the repayment is assessed based on your income if you refuse to provide details of your income for assessment they just go to a default repayment plan.

 

[Tefal]

Same with the place I'm contracting at. They have an intake of youngsters for apprenticeships yearly and those who complete the apprenticeship and want to progress further can apply to do paid for degrees. Those that don't generally stay as technicians.

this one is "craft" you do the apprenticeship and go on to be a fitter" or "higher" you come in do some vocational work, try out the shop floor then on the side attend a local university with a course specifically designed by the company atthe end they have floor experience, and a degree.

the companmy found its direct entry grduates from university were usualy usles as they had no experence.

 

[Nitefly]

by fine what he means is take standard repayment.

the repayment is assessed based on your income if you refuse to provide details of your income for assessment they just go to a default repayment plan.

I see, but that's still incredibly underhand, is it not, if he is under no express obligation to report to them upon request? That is not the same as keeping "the SLC updated with any changes in my circumstances" as per the words used in FoxEye's post.

That is said on the basis that I do not know the actual terms of the agreement, of course.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I've paid more tax in my working life than you probably ever will. I've effectively "paid it forward".

I'm happy with my stance from a moral standpoint.

I'm not about to get into a debate on relative morality but as an argument "I've paid lots of tax (and more than you)" is a pretty terrible one because what you've paid in tax is what you've been required to pay at any given time, you almost certainly haven't chosen to overpay on your tax to give you the trump card in an argument. If you've had a high paying job then well done to you but having paid a commensurate amount of tax to your level of income doesn't put you in a morally superior position as far as I can tell.

Were you deliberately going down the Harry Enfield "considerably richer than yaow" route?

I question the legitimacy of this! Is there any obligation for the OP to provide evidence that there is no change of circumstance...? I don't know, but just sayin'!

It would be interesting if that was ever taken to court - £150 for a standard letter appears to be rather expensive and it's potentially questionable that the SLC should make a profit from administrative letters. Mind you if they charge £150 for a letter then what would my time be worth to write back to them - maybe there's an offset agreement that can be reached...

 

[Tefal]

I see, but that's still incredibly underhand, is it not, if he is under no express obligation to report to them upon request? That is not the same as keeping "the SLC updated with any changes in my circumstances" as per the words used in FoxEye's post.

That is said on the basis that I do not know the actual terms of the agreement, of course.

is it really underhanded to sy "we will take repayments as a % of your income over X amount, if you then decide to refuse to tell us your income we will just take a standard repayment"

that seems pretty fair otherwise everyone would just say "hahaha no im not telling you" and never pay it back.

 

[Nitefly]

It would be interesting if that was ever taken to court - £150 for a standard letter appears to be rather expensive and it's potentially questionable that the SLC should make a profit from administrative letters. Mind you if they charge £150 for a letter then what would my time be worth to write back to them - maybe there's an offset agreement that can be reached...

On the assumption we are discussion charging £150 for a letter (and disregarding Tefal's comments above), if that were to ever go to court I would promptly place a fat stack of money on the relevant court finding in favour of the borrower and slapping the lender's wrist

is it really underhanded to sy "we will take repayments as a % of your income over X amount, if you then decide to refuse to tell us your income we will just take a standard repayment"

Well, no, it isn't, but that is not the same as merely requiring the borrowing to update the lender when there is a change in circumstances.

That said, becoming redundant is a change of circumstances, I would say.

 

[Tefal]

On the assumption we are discussion charging £150 for a letter (and disregarding Tefal's comments above), if that were to ever go to court I would promptly place a fat stack of money on the relevant court finding in favour of the borrower and slapping the lender's wrist


Well, no, it isn't, but that is not the same as merely requiring the borrowing to update the lender when there is a change in circumstances.

That said, becoming redundant is a change of circumstances, I would say.

i think its probably cause its just been the start of the financial year so they're just asking for updates from those not paying in case they've forgotten

 

[BuffetSlayer]

I see, but that's still incredibly underhand, is it not, if he is under no express obligation to report to them upon request? That is not the same as keeping "the SLC updated with any changes in my circumstances" as per the words used in FoxEye's post.

I guess with the multitudes of freeloaders out there making the debt so toxic, the SLC is having to try and strong arm people into action.

Unfortunately, many people see their student loans as something they don't have to pay back. Technically, if they satisfy certain criteria within the T&C's that is correct. However, modifying your lifestyle to ensure you always fall below the repayment threshold is fraudulent in my opinion and not really any different to tax evasion.

Which is fine, if people don't have enough decency to pay back what they owe more power to them.

But whilst they are sticking two fingers up to the system now, all it means is their children and their childrens children have to pay more or may not get the chance of a university education at all.

In the end, many more people lose out. Be it their children, or the employers that have to import talent from abroad or the economy because lack of skilled people means investors invest elsewhere, or the overall populace that have to be taxed more to cover the cost of people going to uni on a jolly and deciding not to pay back their student loan.

As far as the bigger picture is concerned, it is particularly damaging long term.

Yet, as has already been mentioned, the people who stick their fingers up are often the first to moan about 'paying for other peoples lifestyles' or the blasted government bringing in XYZ policy or "them bloody immigrunts cummin ere' to takes all our jobz", which is why I find the irony of some peoples views amusing.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Great another morally bankrupt faux socialist.

Ahem, anarcho syndicalist thank you very much!

Yet, as has already been mentioned, the people who stick their fingers up are often the first to moan about 'paying for other peoples lifestyles' or the blasted government bringing in XYZ policy or "them bloody immigrunts cummin ere' to takes all our jobz", which is why I find the irony of some peoples views amusing.

You wont find one of those posts in my history.................

 

[CREATIVE!11]

modifying your lifestyle to ensure you always fall below the repayment threshold is fraudulent in my opinion and not really any different to tax evasion.

Kind of like most big businesses do anyway?

But be careful little citizen, if you do that you'll be shamed on OCUK for it.