The SLC’s eligibility decision for the 2023/2024 academic year
20. Ms W complains the SLC decided on 25 August 2023 that she was ineligible for student finance after it had already awarded her funding for the 2023/2024 academic year. Ms W says this affected her financially as she signed a lease and paid a deposit for student accommodation once she received notification of the award. Ms W says without student finance she was unable to afford to pay her accommodation costs and was bound by her lease.
21. The SLC’s initial complaint response dated 6 December 2023 acknowledged Ms W’s frustrations about her application for funding. It said she had applied as a new student for the 2023/2024 academic year and approved her application based on the evidence she provided at the time. It said her application for the 2021/2022 academic year had been declined and this made her ineligible for the 2023/2024 academic year. The SLC apologised for not reviewing her previous application history when assessing her application.
22. The IA’s report dated 15 April 2024 said Ms W used an application form for a new student instead of an application form for a returning student. It said she had applied as a new student and there was nothing in her application to suggest she should not be awarded funding. It said the SLC’s system automatically granted the application. The IA said if Ms W has used the correct form, she would not have been automatically granted funding. The report said that while there had been an error by the SLC in granting the application, it could not say it was wholly due to the SLC and could not therefore recommend it reimburse the cost of her rent.
23. Student Finance England’s PN1 Notes set out its guidance on completing an application for student finance. It says:
‘Who should complete the application form?
A student starting: • A full-time course of higher education.’
24. Schedule 1 Part 2 of the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 set out the residency conditions which must be met before financial support can be awarded to a student. The regulations specify that one of the listed conditions must be met by the first day of the first academic year of the course. Ms W’s application for funding for her first academic year was unsuccessful as she did not meet any of these conditions. Ms W would not be eligible for any subsequent academic years for the same course, irrespective of any changes to her residency, as she did not meet any of the conditions prior to the start of her course.
25. After Ms W appealed the SLC’s 2021/2022 decision, its appeal response dated 15 November 2022 said:
‘Please be aware that should you be granted British citizenship this would not make you eligible for support for a course you had already commenced. Becoming a British citizen does not fall under any provisions within the regulations which allow a student to become eligible for support where that person’s status changes during the course of their studies. You will therefore remain ineligible for support for the duration of any course commenced in the 2021/22 academic year.’
26. We can see Ms W was made aware in 2022 that she would not become eligible for funding for subsequent academic years for the same course, regardless of any changes to her residency. Ms W still attempted to apply for funding for the 2023/2024 academic year. Due to using a new student application form and the COBC she had received by the time of her second application, the SLC assessed her to be eligible for the 2023/2024 academic year.
27. We consider Ms W applied for funding in good faith and arranged accommodation once the SLC formally awarded her funding. Ultimately, Ms W was responsible for checking her application was correct and that she had used the correct form. The guidance notes for the form she used state it was for students starting a full-time course. We have seen that during a telephone call on 31 May 2023, the SLC advised her she would be considered a returning student. We also consider Ms W was made aware in 2022 that she would never be eligible for funding for the same course.
28. We consider the SLC acted in line with the relevant legislation in awarding the funding based on the information in Ms W’s application. We can see the SLC should not have awarded funding based on Ms W’s previous applications as it was clear that she did not meet the residency requirements at the start of her course. We cannot say this error was due to maladministration by the SLC as it acted on the information it received in Ms W’s application. We do not uphold this part of Ms W’s complaint.
29. During the course of our investigation, Ms W told us she should have been eligible for funding for her first academic year, and this would have meant she was eligible for her second academic year. She told us of her difficulties at the time, that her estrangement from her father had left her vulnerable, and she was unaware she was not in the UK lawfully after having lived here for over 15 years. Specifically, in her email to us of 7 December 2025, Ms W said:
‘At 17 years old, I contacted Student Finance England while homeless, estranged from my entire family, and escaping an abusive household. Despite being a minor in obvious need of safeguarding, no support, advice, or signposting was provided to me. This represents a serious failure of duty of care.’
30. Ms W told us the SLC should have taken this into account when assessing her eligibility for her first academic year. We have therefore considered her correspondence with the SLC more closely to see whether there was more it should have done.
31. Ms W’s initial application stated she was living with her father. Ms W’s application included a supporting letter she sent to the SLC on 23 August 2021. In this letter she said she had a challenging childhood and her relationship with her father had broken down. Ms W’s letter made no mention of being homeless or a victim of abuse.
32. Ms W sent us a copy of her letter to the SLC regarding her long residency in the UK. She says she sent this to the SLC in 2021. This letter contains more detail about the difficulties Ms W says she experienced and that her father had become emotionally and physically abusive.
33. Based on the SLC’s records, we can see Ms W sent this letter in July 2023 following a telephone call she had with the SLC on 28 July 2023. There is no evidence Ms W sent this to the SLC in 2021.
34. We were sorry to learn about the difficulties Ms W says she has experienced. We can see her actions have been motivated by her desire to obtain an education in challenging circumstances. We have carefully considered the information she has provided. We have seen no evidence that the SLC should have handled her application in 2021 differently or raise safeguarding concerns about her wellbeing. The SLC has limited discretion in its application of the regulations, and safeguarding concerns do not change a person’s eligibility under the law. We have found no failings on this part of Ms W’s complaint.
Service issues
35. Ms W complains the SLC gave her incorrect advice on a number of occasions and did not call her back when promised. Ms W says the poor service she received caused her frustration and concern.
36. In its complaint response of 6 December 2023, the SLC acknowledged it had given misleading advice and a poor service. It offered Ms W £200 to address its poor service.
37. The IA’s report dated 15 April 2024 identified additional failings by the SLC. It said during a call on 31 May 2023, the SLC missed an opportunity to identify that Ms W would not be eligible for funding for the 2023/2024 academic year. The IA said Ms W did not receive promised call backs and had to call the SLC herself on a number of occasions to chase them up. The IA also said the SLC was unclear with Ms W regarding whether it would consider reimbursing her rent or refer the matter to the IA. The IA recommended the SLC increase the financial remedy it offered to £300 based on the additional failings identified.
38. We do not consider there is any dispute regarding the service failings Ms W experienced. We have therefore considered their impact on Ms W and whether the SLC and the IA have done enough to address them.
39. Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling set out our view on how public bodies should seek to handle complaints, including providing remedies for injustice or hardship resulting from maladministration. They say:
Putting things right
When deciding the level of financial compensation, public bodies should consider:
• the nature of the complaint • the impact on the complainant • how long it took to resolve the complaint • the trouble the complainant was put to in pursuing it.
40. We were sorry to learn about the service Ms W received. We can see this will have caused her frustration and concern during an already difficult time. We consider the increased financial remedy of £300 recommended by the IA appropriately addressed the SLC’s service failings. This is based on the relatively short duration of the frustration and concern and the original incorrect decision that she was entitled to funding being corrected in a matter of weeks.
41. We acknowledge Ms W feels strongly that she has suffered a significant financial impact due to the SLC’s actions and the lease she signed. We can only consider a remedy in relation to the failings identified. We do recognise there was a missed opportunity to provide further information to Ms W which may have helped her to make a correct application in the second year of her course, although this would not have changed her eligibility. Ultimately, the responsibility was on Ms W to provide SLC with accurate information in her application. We cannot link these service failings to how Ms W has been affected financially. We do not uphold Ms W’s complaint.