Student Loans Company (SLC)

5.Mr A complains to us about the actions of the SLC. Mr A tells us he received a student finance grant in 2016 for the 2016/2017 academic year on the grounds that his stepfather had recently been made redundant. He says he was contacted by the SLC in 2023, and it asked his stepfather to provide financial information for the 2016/2017 academic year.

6.He says that his stepfather provided the relevant financial information on three separate occasions in 2016 and that, due to the time that has passed, his stepfather is no longer able to obtain the information requested. Mr A says he is unhappy that the SLC did not contact him earlier for this information because it is now difficult to provide the evidence requested, which means he may have no option but to repay the grant.

7.Mr A says this situation has been very stressful for him and he feels that the SLC is using ‘bully tactics’ against him, particularly as the information the SLC is asking for is no longer readily available.

8.Mr A would like an apology, acknowledgement of failings and £3,000 in financial compensation.

9.Mr A is complaining to us about the actions of the SLC and its decision to request the repayment of a grant. He tells us that he received a student finance grant in 2016 for the 2016/2017 academic year as his stepfather had been made redundant. We will refer to Mr A’s stepfather and his mother as Mr and Mrs B.

10.Mr A says that in 2023 the SLC contacted him to ask for financial information from Mr B for the 2015/2016 financial year. Mr A tells us that Mr B had provided the information requested to the SLC several times in 2016. However, due to the time that has passed, Mr A says Mr B no longer possesses the evidence that had previously been submitted to the SLC.

11.He has described to us the frustration he has experienced at the SLC’s request for information because of the difficulties he now faces in providing it. In his contact with us he has told us that he is no longer able to provide the evidence requested, and he is concerned he will therefore be asked to repay the grant in full.

12.Mr A received student finance for the academic years from 2013/2014 through to 2016/2017. For the first three years he was in receipt of a tuition fee loan and a maintenance loan. For the 2016/2017 academic year, Mr A’s maintenance element was assessed on a Current Year Income (CYI) basis, and he was subsequently awarded a maintenance loan of £4,553 and a maintenance grant of £2,005.

13.The SLC’s decision to award funding, and how much funding to award, is based on the household income of a student’s parents or spouse. The SLC refers to those providing that household income as their ‘sponsors’. The sponsors are expected to provide information detailing their income before the application is assessed by the SLC, and this information is verified by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which uses the relevant figures for the two tax years prior to the application.

14.In cases where the sponsors anticipate their income may be lower than the previous tax year, the SLC may process it under a CYI assessment. As explained above, Mr B had been made redundant and Mr A advised that therefore his stepfather’s income going forward would be lower than the income provided for Mr A’s previous SLC applications. The SLC website has more information on how this process works.

15.Mr A’s CYI assessment was not finalised as Student Finance England (SFE), which is the service provided by the SLC for students in England, said it had not received the relevant forms and evidence from the sponsor. The form used in such cases is the PR2 form. In September 2017, the SLC reassessed Mr A’s 2016/2017 maintenance entitlement, which led to a reduction in his maintenance loan, and his maintenance grant reduced to zero.

16.The SLC wrote to Mr A on 12 September 2017 to let him know about these changes and informed him that, based on these reassessments, he had received an overpayment of both the maintenance loan and maintenance grant of £1000 and £2005 respectively. The maintenance loan overpayment was added to his outstanding balance, which students repay via deductions from their salary post-graduation. Mr A was advised to contact the SLC in respect of the overpaid maintenance grant so that a suitable repayment arrangement could be made.

17.The SLC called Mr A on 21 September 2017, 6 November 2017, 22 February 2018 and 25 April 2018 about the maintenance grant overpayment. In the September 2017 call, Mr A informed the SLC he would contact SFE to find out what information it needed. During the three further calls, Mr A said his sponsor had sent the forms and accompanying evidence to the SLC. The records indicated that the call handler told Mr A during each of these three calls that the information had not been received and uploaded to the file, and Mr A would need to contact the SFE.

18.The overpayment of maintenance grant was passed to a third-party debt recovery agent in August 2018 as no arrangement had been made with Mr A in respect of repayment. The debt recovery agents attempted to contact Mr A for approximately twelve months without success. Ultimately, the recovery of the maintenance grant was passed back to the SLC in September 2019.

19.The SLC contacted Mr A in July 2022 and August 2022, via email and text message, about the overpayment and asked him to get in touch. Mr A called the SLC in January 2023 and said he had received a message asking him to get in touch. He advised the person he spoke with that he had previously provided the SLC with all the relevant financial information requested on several occasions and that it was not outstanding.

20.During the call Mr A described how he had communicated this information to the SLC and said he had even visited one of the SLC’s offices to personally hand-deliver documents. The records indicate he informed the call handler he had not heard anything from the SLC about this matter for four years. The SLC call handler said they would send Mr A’s sponsors a copy of the PR2 form, referenced above, which they should then return to the SLC so the entitlement to the maintenance grant could be reassessed.

21.Mr B called the SLC in March 2023 and said that he had sent the PR2 with the relevant P60 for the relevant tax year in June 2017. Mr B said the first set of documents had not been received, so he had sent them a second time via recorded delivery, and stated that as far as he could remember, in total, he had sent the requested documents three times.

22.Mr B made it clear he was unhappy to learn these none of these submissions had been received and recorded. He said that, due to the time that had passed, he was concerned he would not be able to accurately provide the information requested by the SLC. During the call the SLC adviser told Mr B that she could see a PR2 form for Mr B, but it was incomplete and did not include the relevant information for Mrs B.

23.Mr A submitted a formal complaint to the SLC via phone on 31 July 2023, following a text message from the SLC asking him to call. Mr A’s complaint was passed to the Complaints Team for its consideration. A Customer Relations Officer responded on 11 August 2023 and said support had been awarded to Mr A based on the estimated income. The SLC said the PR2 form that had been returned had not been completely fully’ It said it had not received a PR2 for Mrs B, nor had it received any financial information for her for the 2016/2017 tax year.

24.As Mr A had told the SLC he had submitted the information at the time, via recorded delivery, the SLC asked for a copy of the Royal Mail receipt, so it could try and trace the receipt and the letter. The SLC also said that there was no note on Mr A’s file to show he had delivered the documents at the SLC’s offices in person.

25.The SLC reiterated its past comments, that Mr and Mrs B would need to provide a completed PR2 form for the 2016/2017 tax year, so the SLC could review Mr A’s entitlement to the maintenance grant. In addition, the SLC said it had placed a hold on Mr A’s account for a period of four weeks, which would stop any attempts to collect the overpayment of the maintenance grant. The SLC advised Mr A that if Mr and Mrs B no longer possessed the evidence requested, they should be able to obtain it via HMRC or their employers.

26.The SLC sent a reminder letter to Mr A in October 2023 saying that he had an outstanding maintenance grant overpayment. In response, Mr A contacted the SLC via email on 17 October 2023 and said he was unhappy with the complaint response he had received thus far, and he wished to escalate the matter. He expressed his concern that the information requested was more than five years old, making it difficult to obtain.

27.The SLC acknowledged Mr A’s request to escalate on 25 October 2023 and said it would be referred to the Independent Assessor (IA) for review. The IA received Mr A’s complaint on 14 February 2024 and provided its response to Mr A on 4 March 2024.

28.The IA did not uphold Mr A’s complaint regarding the overpayment of the maintenance grant and Mr A’s concerns that he should not have to repay it. However, it did find that the SLC did not contact Mr A as swiftly as possible about the overpayment. Mr A remained unhappy with the response from the IA and decided to bring his complaint to our Office in July 2024.

Our view

30.Mr A has approached our Office after completing the SLC’s complaints process as he remains unhappy and disappointed with the outcome of his complaint. In bringing his complaint to our Office, Mr A has outlined his frustration with the SLC and its requests for financial evidence.

31.He tells us he provided this information to the SLC already and he feels it is unfair for the SLC to request the same information after a considerable number of years. The maintenance grant in question relates to the 2016/2017 academic year, and Mr A tells us that the SLC has not proactively pursued the repayment in the years since it was granted. We can appreciate that he is unhappy with the SLC’s information requests several years later.

32.We have reviewed the correspondence Mr A has provided to us and the information we requested from the SLC. That evidence indicates the SLC does not have a fully completed PR2 form for Mr B and does not have a PR2 for Mrs B on file at all.

33.The IA report explains that for the SLC to carry out the CYI assessment, it needs both documents, and the relevant supporting evidence from Mr B and Mrs B. Until such information has been passed to the SLC, and the necessary CYI assessment has been completed, it cannot determine that Mr A is entitled to a maintenance grant.

34.There are two matters for consideration here. The first is whether the SLC is acting in line with applicable guidance and standards when advising that it cannot conclude Mr A is entitled to the maintenance grant and therefore is requesting repayment. The second consideration is whether it should have done more at an earlier date to request this information from Mr A, Mr B and Mrs B.

35.The SLC and the IA have both considered SLC’s obligations as set out in The Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 (the Regulations). The Regulations outline the legal powers under which the SLC operates. When a student agrees to accept financial assistance from the SLC, whether it be in the form of a student loan or a grant, they are entering into a legal contract with the SLC.

36.The SLC does not have the evidence available to it to allow it to conclude Mr A is entitled to the maintenance grant, given that it does not have the completed forms and income information from Mr and Mrs B. As such, we have not seen any indications of maladministration in it advising Mr A that, based on the evidence available to it at this time, it cannot confirm that he is entitled to the maintenance grant.

37.What we have seen indicates SLC has acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, which say ‘In their decision making, public bodies should have regard to the relevant legislation. Decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately’.

38.The obligations for the SLC in determining therefore whether an amount to which someone cannot show they are entitled should be repaid are outlined in the Regulations, section 119 (found in Chapter 5). This sets out the steps the SLC must follow.

39.Section 119 states that,

119.—(1) An eligible student must, if so required by the Secretary of State, repay any amount paid to the student under Part 5 or 6 which for whatever reason exceeds the amount of support to which the student is entitled under Part 5 or 6.

(2) The Secretary of State must recover an overpayment of any grant for living and other costs unless the Secretary of State considers it is not appropriate to do so.

40.The Regulations show there is a clear requirement for the SLC to collect repayment where an applicant has received public funds to which they were not entitled.

41.This means that ultimately there is an obligation on the SLC to collect any overpayment from Mr A. Therefore, we cannot see any indications of failings by the SLC in its explanation to Mr A that the maintenance grant must be repaid.

42.However, as has been explained in the SLC responses and the IA report, it is possible that this matter may yet be resolved, with a positive outcome for Mr A, if Mr and Mrs B submit the information requested by the SLC. This would be the PR2 form and the relevant P60, which would then make it possible for the SLC to undertake the CYI assessment. If that CYI assessment supports Mr A’s application for the maintenance loan, the SLC may then be able to remove the overpayment as it would no longer apply.

43.We appreciate that this may be a daunting prospect due to the time that has passed. However, we can see from the IA report that the SLC is willing to provide Mr B with the original copy of his P60 if this will assist him in submitting the documents.

44.We understand that HMRC can share Mr B’s income information for previous years with him, so the fact that a number of years has passed should not be a barrier to him providing this information.

45.As part of our consideration of Mr A’s complaint we asked the SLC if there is a time limit for requesting evidence or information. One of Mr A’s primary concerns is that it will now be much more difficult to obtain all of the information requested by the SLC due to the time that has passed. The SLC confirmed that there are no time limits for requesting information and that when any evidence is received, the application can be reassessed and any maintenance grant entitlement reinstated by the SLC.

46.We have reviewed the Regulations and, in doing so, we can see that there is no time limit for such a request. This means that the SLC is allowed to request this information until it has conducted the CYI assessment and reached a decision regarding MG entitlement. Although we go on to consider below whether this was good customer service, in line with applicable standards.

47.Mr A has expressed his unhappiness at the significant length of time that passed before SLC contacted him about these matters. He tells us the SLC has not actively pursued him for the evidence, and its more recent attempts at recovering the repayment are unfair because it is now much more difficult for him to obtain the evidence, than several years ago.

48.Although Mr A tells us that the SLC did not pursue him for the overpayment for several years, we can see that SLC made multiple attempts to contact Mr A from 2017 through to 2019. This included attempts by both the SLC directly and a debt recovery agency. Both organisations tried to contact Mr A on several occasions to discuss the matter of repayment.

49.The IA report acknowledged that from 2019 until 2022 there was a three-year gap where there do not seem to have been any attempts to contact Mr A. Some of this period covers the COVID-19 pandemic, during which time the SLC ceased all attempts to contact people with outstanding overpayments. This pause was in place from April 2020 until January 2021. Mr A was contacted by the SLC in July 2022 via email, and shortly after via text message in August 2022.

50.The IA report acknowledged that from 2019 until July 2022 the SLC did not make any attempts to contact Mr A. This is not in dispute by either party. The IA gave a view that this three-year lack of contact by the SLC to Mr A constituted a ‘service issue’. As a result, the IA recommended an ex-gratia payment of £100 to Mr A in recognition of the SLC’s failure to contact him promptly.

51.Having considered the above timeframe, we agree that there are indications of maladministration here. Setting aside the period of the pause in contact due to COVID-19, there were a number of months on either side of that pause where the SLC was able to contact Mr A about these matters.

52.We have not seen any good reason from SLC for the delay during those times. As such, we cannot see that the SLC acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, which say organisations should ‘behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales’.

53.We have also considered that Mr A’s last contact with the SLC, before the three-year delay in contacting him, was a telephone call on 24 April 2018. During this call, Mr A was advised that the PR2 form and financial evidence requested, were not on file and he needed to make contact to discuss this issue.

54.Therefore, prior to the three-year gap in communication by the SLC, it was open to Mr A to contact the SLC to resolve the matter at that time. We have thought about the above carefully in considering the impact of the poor service and an appropriate remedy.

55.This payment recommended by the IA is an acknowledgement of the frustration the SLC’s delay in contact caused Mr A. We agree that the impact caused to Mr A is the avoidable frustration and distress of learning the information and evidence needed to reassess his entitlement to the maintenance grant is still outstanding.

56.We have not seen any other, additional impact, including any financial loss, and we recognise that Mr A had the benefit of receiving and using the maintenance grant, even though he was naturally very disappointed to later learn it may need to be repaid.

57.Having considered our ‘Principles for Remedy’, which say that organisations should either return individuals to the position they were in before the error occurred, or compensate them appropriately, and our ‘Guidance on Financial Remedy’, we can see the SLC has taken appropriate action to put things right.

58.With the above in mind, we will take no further action. We know that Mr A remains worried about the pressures of repaying the grant, so we hope that Mr and Mrs B are able to resubmit the documentation requested and that Mr A will therefore have the opportunity for a further reconsideration.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about the Student Loans Company Ltd. (the SLC). It is clear to us that these events have been frustrating for him and we were sorry to learn of the reasons for his complaint.

2. Having considered the evidence available to us, and the guidance and standards that set out how SLC should carry out its work, we have decided to take no further action. This is because although there were delays in the SLC’s contact with Mr A, we can see it has already taken steps to put things right. We have not seen anything to indicate the SLC made any mistakes in reaching its decision that it cannot set the request for repayment of funds aside.

3. The complaints we receive give us valuable insight into the organisations we investigate, so we would like to thank Mr A for sharing his experiences with us. It is important to acknowledge that where we have not identified service failings in relation to his concerns, or where we consider the SLC has put right the impact of mistakes, it does not detract from his experience, or the distress he feels.

4. We appreciate Mr A feels strongly about this matter, and our statement below sets out the reasons for our decision in more detail.