Our view
13.Miss A complained to us about the actions of the SLC and its decision to strip her of her eligibility for student finance. In her correspondence with us she has made clear she is very unhappy with the SLC’s actions. In the interests of remaining concise and customer-focused we will not be producing a detailed timeline of these events as this would be repetitive and both parties involved are familiar with the background of this complaint. Instead, we will be focusing on the main concerns raised with us.
14.The SLC advised us in their response to our information request that the documents it had received from Miss A, and which we have also reviewed, constituted an appeal of a regulatory student finance decision, not an official complaint. This means that it was dealt with under Student Finance England’s (SFE) ‘Appeals Procedure’, which we will refer to as the Procedure. To ensure that we have fairly and objectively considered Miss A’s complaint to us we have reviewed the Procedure to verify for ourselves that it has been correctly applied.
15.The Procedure is available online for members of the public and explains that during this process the SFE will ‘review the decisions made about what and how much student finance you are entitled to’, particularly decisions regarding student entitlement. As explained in its Stage 1 response, Miss A was appealing the decision to strip her of her eligibility for student finance following an investigation by the FCPU.
16.This was done in line with the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011, which we will refer to as the Regulations. Specifically, s6(5) and s6(6) outlined what may occur if an applicant is deemed to be ineligible for funding. The Regulations state:
‘Period of eligibility 6. (5) The Secretary of State may terminate the period of eligibility where A has shown by A's conduct that A is unfitted to receive support.
(6) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that an eligible student has failed to comply with any requirement to provide information under these Regulations or has provided information which is inaccurate in a material particular, the Secretary of State may take such of the following actions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in the circumstances: (a) terminate the period of eligibility; (b) determine that the student no longer qualifies for any particular support or particular amount of support; (c) treat any support paid to the student as an overpayment which may be recovered under Chapter 5 of Part 9.’
17.Following an investigation by the FCPU it was decided that Miss A was ‘unfitted’ and therefore her eligibility for student finance was stripped. Both the Stage 1 appeal response, and the IA report indicate that the reason for removing her eligibility was because it was believed her applications were ‘not…accurate and genuine’. The Procedure explains that if an individual is unhappy with the Stage 1 appeal response and the IA response, which Miss A is, then they ‘may wish to seek legal advice on what options are available to you’.
18.The complaint Miss A has brought to us relates to an appeal for a regulatory appeal decision. Unfortunately, we do not have the authority to overturn the decisions reached by the Stage 1 appeal process and the IA. As we have noted in the paragraph above, Miss A may wish to seek independent legal advice to see what options are open to her. We have reviewed what the SLC has done, and we can see that it has acted in line with the Regulations.
19.We know this is very important to Miss A, particularly as she has told us about the SLC decision to place her on the CIFAS database. CIFAS is a fraud prevention service in the UK and allows organisations to exchange details of individuals or companies which may have undertaken fraudulent or suspicious activity. The IA report explained that Miss A had been placed on this database for a period of six years because the SLC concluded that her application for student finance had not been based on accurate facts. Miss A strongly disputes this.
20.As we have stated above, it may be that legal action is the best course of action for Miss A to challenge this going forward. While we appreciate this can be a stressful process, this is likely the only way Miss A can challenge the decision. We considered the decision reached by the SLC and cannot see any indications of maladministration as it followed the relevant guidance and legislation in this case.
21.In addition, Miss A is unhappy that the SLC has opted to try and recover the overpayment. We asked the SLC about this and it said that the recovery of previously paid student finance was undertaken as per the Regulations. In particular, the SLC said that Regulation 6 of the Regulations, which we have provided above, states that, ‘any support paid to the student as an overpayment which may be recovered’.
22.The SLC has investigated Miss A, and it has concluded that she is not eligible for student finance for the reasons above. As the Regulations indicate, any overpayments may also be recovered. We can see from reviewing the relevant documents that there was an overpayment which means the SLC can take steps to recover this.
23.We appreciate this will be very disappointing for Miss A to read. We are sorry to cause her further distress but after reviewing all the relevant information she sent us and the information the SLC provided to us we cannot see any indications of maladministration in the way the SLC has handled her appeal. We are satisfied it has acted in line with the relevant guidance and legislation. Therefore, we will not be taking any further action.
24.We wish her all the best for the future.