Student Loans Company (SLC)

4. Mrs R complains SLC did not make the right decision when reviewing her evidence of payment to her childcare provider (CCG) in February 2024.

5. Mrs R tells us she was unable to graduate from her degree. The university is now requesting her to pay for her unpaid tuition, which is causing her financial hardship and distress.

6. Mrs R is deeply unhappy with the SLC’s actions and would like financial compensation totalling £25, 000 which represents one year’s tuition fees and her maintenance loan.

7. Mrs R applied for student support including Childcare Grant (CCG) and was awarded CCG for the academic year 2022-2023.

8. Claims for CCG are made via the Childcare Grant Payment Services (CCGPS). This requires the student and Childcare Provider (CCP) to agree the costs and hours incurred with the requirement for the student to pay at least 15% of the weekly costs directly to the CCP.

9. SLC’s Customer Financial Crime Prevention Unit (FCPU) reviewed Mrs R’s account to determine whether the claims submitted through the CCGPS accurately reflected the childcare that had taken place and the costs incurred.

10. On 9 November 2023 the FCPU advised Mrs R it was satisfied she had claimed CCG for childcare that did not take place the way she had described. It decided she was not eligible to receive CCG from 1 January 2023 and for the student support from 17 January 2023.

11. Mrs R appealed the decision of the FCPU through Student Finance England (SFE). SFE wrote to Mrs R on 7 February 2024 to inform her the appeal was unsuccessful.

12. An independent Assessor (IA) produced a report on 16 July 2024 which did not uphold any part of Mrs R’s appeal. It states the SLC was entitled to recover any overpayment from Mrs R.

13. Mrs R was not satisfied with the outcome and so wrote to her MP on 5 August 2024. She brought her complaint to us with her MP’s signature in April 2025.

16. SLC (and its operating arm Student Finance England) is a public body and is bound to administer the Student Support Scheme in accordance with the legislation laid out by Parliament.

17. Mrs R complains that SLC decided she was unfit for the childcare grant (CCG) following its Customer Financial Crime Prevention Unit (FCPU)’s review into her claim. Before coming to us, SLC’s decision about Mrs R’s complaint has been reviewed by the IA.

18. We also asked Mrs R why she felt the SLC’s decision was wrong. She said it was wrong as it accused her of committing fraud. Mrs R did not provide any new information or evidence, to us. She also did not specifically dispute any aspects of the SLC’s or IA’s work.

19. We considered the evidence that was relevant to the case. This included Mrs R’s complaint correspondence with SLC and her appeals as well as relevant standards and guidance. We also reviewed at the IA’s report where it listened to the telephone interviews the FCPU carried out with Mrs R.

20. Having done this, we can see Mrs R has provided inconsistent explanations of where she says she obtained the cash to pay her CCP. We appreciate Mrs R feels she has provided adequate evidence through the receipts. We, agree with the IA’s determination that receipts are not sound evidence of payment because they can be generated when no payment has been made.

21. We looked at the relevant regulations, which are Education (Student Support) Regulations, 2011 (the Regulations). These state that SLC is able to terminate student finance or a person’s eligibility where they have not acted in a fit manner, such as committing fraud. 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.

22. The SLC did not have the evidence available to it to allow it to conclude the childcare for Mrs R’s thirteen-year-old child was happening at the level advised or for the costs submitted through the CCGPS. As such, we feel the SLC has acted appropriately and in line with the Regulations in its decision to remove Mrs R’s entitlement for support and ask her to repay the CCG she had received.

23. The SLC also raised concerns into the legitimacy of the CCP as the CCP would have been making a 132-mile round trip to provide this childcare. We appreciate Mrs R’s comments that whilst there is no requirement that a CCP must be local, a claim to use a CCP from such a distance is not reasonable in the absence of compelling reasons for why it was necessary.

24. Mrs R did not provide any evidence to support her claim that she could not find a more local CCP and as such SLT were not persuaded that she could not find alternative CCP in her local area for her thirteen-year-old child. On a balance of probability, and in the absence of sufficient evidence, it is more likely the childcare did not take place at the level advised or for the costs submitted through the CCGPS.

25. As such, we do not find it inappropriate for the SLC’s to recover any overpayment made to Mrs R. It clearly considered the evidence and the relevant guidance when making its decision and that is what we would have expected it to do.

26. In line with our Principles of Good Administration, the SLC should have properly balanced the evidence and considered everything that was relevant to the case. We agree it did this as it considered and appropriately interpreted the relevant guidance and the timeline of when the events occurred in this case. It was from this that the SLC based its decision.

27. Overall, it does not appear the SLC acted incorrectly in its decision making. We cannot see any indication of wrongdoing from the SLC. We feel its decision was in line with our principles and were based on the evidence available at the time. We will therefore not take any further action on this complaint.

28. We appreciate this is not the news Mrs R was hoping for from our office. We are sorry we have been unable to help her in the way she would have liked. We wish to thank her for her efforts in bringing this matter to our attention.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs R’s complaint about the Student Loans Company (SLC). We can see Mrs R is unhappy with the decision and we are sorry to hear of the financial strain and the stress this issue has caused her.

2. Having considered the evidence available to us, and the guidance and legislation that sets out how the SLC should carry out its work, we have decided to take no further action. This is because we cannot see any indications of wrongdoing by the SLC.

3. We appreciate Mrs R feels strongly about her complaint. The complaints we receive give us valuable insight into the organisations we investigate, so we would like to thank Mrs R for sharing her experience with us. Our statement below sets out the reasons for our decision.