Withdrawal of funding
18. Ms Y complains that SLC has not offered the appropriate remedy to her complaint and did not adequately consider her circumstances when asking her to repay some of the fees.
19. We can see from the detailed investigation carried out by SLC and further investigation carried out by the IA that Ms Y disputed the way that SLC dealt with her application for student finance for the academic year 22/23. It is not disputed that SLC originally advised Ms Y that she was eligible for funding and that this was an error. Ms Y was not entitled to any funding at all.
20. Whilst SLC did wrongly advise Ms Y that she was entitled to funding when it issued a notice of entitlement in August 2022 Ms Y was not eligible and did not meet the criteria for funding. Our investigation is not focused on the decision itself as this was dealt with under SLC’s appeal process. As per the terms of the SLC’s appeal process Ms Y’s only recourse to challenge the decision regarding her eligibility following the formal appeal would be through the courts.
21. We have not reinvestigated the aspects of the complaint where SLC has already acknowledged things went wrong. It is not in doubt that SLC wrongly told Ms Y that she was entitled to funding. We acknowledge that SLC, and the IA recognise that this was an error which should not have happened. Our investigation is to consider the impact of this maladministration and whether SLC has done enough to put this right.
22. SLC, in its complaint response dated 27 February 2023 acknowledged that it provided Ms Y with incorrect advice regarding the evidence requirements for of her application and that SLC awarded her financial support in error.
23. It acknowledged that there had been service failings and said that as Ms Y had made a formal appeal in relation to her entitlement it would only consider an ex-gratia payment to address the impact of its mistake once she had received the outcome from the appeals team.
24. The IA’s report, dated September 2023, found that Ms Y was not disputing her eligibility but that her complaint centred around the fact that she was told she could have funding and relied upon that notification when making decisions about her future and her finances.
25. It said that whilst it was regrettable that SLC did in fact provide incorrect advice it remained the fact that Ms Y was not eligible for student finance under any of the routes she applied for. As Ms Y received a payment of maintenance loan this payment was now deemed to be an overpayment and pursuant to the relevant regulations, SLC are obliged to seek recovery of it.
26. The IA acknowledged that Ms Y had incurred expenses as a direct result of acting on an award which she may have not otherwise incurred and that it was reasonable for SLC to reimburse these. It invited Ms Y to provide any evidence of her direct losses.
27. The IA also recommended that SLC should offer Ms Y an ex-gratia payment of £450 to reflect the poor service she received. It also recommended it reimburse £50 for her postage costs.
28. The IA later provided an addendum to the report in relation to the direct losses Ms Y incurred following receipt of her evidence. The IA concluded that Ms Y sustained the following losses and recommended SLC reimburse her for the following with interest at the rate of 5% ;
University tuition fee £9,250.00 (reflective of 1 year’s tuition) Loss of earnings £6,242.67 Transportation costs £111.60 Total £15,604.27
29. The IA stated that the 5% should not be applied to the tuition fee portion of her claim as she had not been charged any interest from the university. The 5% was only to be applied to the loss of earnings and transportation cost which totalled to £6354.27 and suggested that the interest should start to run from the mid-point between September and June, thus 15 January 2023, and should run until the date of payment.
30. In regard to the tuition fee, the IA said that although the liability to pay the outstanding fees to the university, it would recommend a direct payment from SLC to her university to clear the debt. Otherwise, payment should be made to Ms Y.
31. Miss Y also claimed for the cost of her accommodation whilst she was at university and moving costs. In weighing the evidence the IA noted that Ms Y would have likely had to move out of her mother’s home where she was living prior to starting her course, because her mother moved to a smaller house in November 2022. The IA therefore made no recommendation in terms of Ms Y’s housing costs.
32. The Department for Education (DfE), the government department which oversees the work of the SLC, wrote to Ms Y on 5 August 2024. Having considered the recommendations made by the IA, DfE concluded that Ms Y should be reimbursed her tuition fee for only the first term of her course.
33. It did not consider that she should be reimbursed for other losses, including loss of earnings, for the rest of the academic year. It said this was because she was found ineligible for student finance by SLC on 5 December 2022 and therefore aware that no funding would be available after that date. It said despite this, Ms Y continued with her course for the following terms and she could have taken steps to mitigate her losses at this point.
34. DfE said SLC should not repay direct losses for transport as these expenses were covered by the maintenance loan.
35. DfE instructed SLC to reimburse the following amounts:
University tuition fee £2312.50 (covering the period September-December) Ex-gratia payment £450 Postage costs £50 Total £2812.50
36. It also agreed that in addition to the above that the maintenance loan overpayment should be reduced by £2080.66 to reflect the loss of earnings. These are earnings DfE say that Ms Y may have been expected to receive between September-December, had she been working full time instead of part time.
37. The remainder of the maintenance loan of £1,122.32 would then need be repaid by Ms Y through its income contingent repayment scheme. This means that Ms Y would only repay the loan through her wages when she was earning enough to meet the income threshold required for making loan repayments.
38. The DFE said there was no basis for paying interest on the amount to be reimbursed to Ms Y.
39. The Independent Assessors for SLC Terms of Reference, under section 1 ‘Independent Assessor Student Finance Appeals and Complaints’ says it is the IA’s role to provide the customer with an impartial view of their case and make recommendations for redress where this is appropriate. It says the final decision on redress rests with the Secretary of State for Education. Under this Terms of Reference, the SLC will abide by the IA’s recommendations unless directed to do otherwise by DfE.
40. We have therefore focused our consideration on the impact to Ms Y following SLC’s mistake and whether the remedy offered to Ms Y, based on the DFE’s instructions to SLC, is adequate in line with our own Principles for Remedy. These state that when things go wrong organisations should offer an appropriate and proportionate remedy. They should:
• ideally, return complainants and, where appropriate, others who have suffered injustice or hardship as a result of the same maladministration or poor service, to the position they were in before the maladministration or poor service took place • if that is not possible, compensate them appropriately.
41. Ms Y disputes DfE’s consideration of her claim for financial redress and feels she should be reimbursed the full year’s tuition fee and other losses. She does not agree with its consideration of her decision to continue and complete the first year of her course once she became aware that she had been awarded funding incorrectly.
42. In order to consider whether it is reasonable to attribute any ongoing impact to Ms Y beyond December 2022, we have looked at the communication between Ms Y and SLC regarding her application and the decision that she was not eligible. We looked at written communication in the form of emails from SLC to Ms Y.
43. Ms Y first received an email from SLC on 5 December 2022 which requested evidence for her student finance application. SLC said as Ms Y was a ‘rest of the world’ national, she was not eligible for migrant worker support in her own right. However, as she was a family member of an EU national, she may be eligible for support as a child of a migrant worker.
44. The email said that her application had been ‘zero assessed’ awaiting the evidence it outlined in the email. It then advised Ms Y that SLC would review her evidence and if it had everything it required it would confirm her funding. It said if it needed anything further, it would be in touch with her.
45. On 12 January 2023 SLC emailed Ms Y again stating ‘further action required- how to keep your funding as a migrant worker’. It gave Ms Y as list of documents to send in. The email said there was a temporary pause to her funding while SLC was waiting for that evidence. It said that it had temporarily paused her maintenance loan funding, and it would be reinstated as soon as possible once she sent everything in.
46. The email went on to say, if she was unable to send the evidence required, the pause to the maintenance loan will become permanent which means she will only be able to get tuition fee support, and she would have to repay any maintenance loan already received.
47. SLC emailed Ms Y on 31 January 2023 telling her she was ineligible for student finance in the academic year 2022/23. It said the evidence she provided did not confirm that she had maintained dependency on her mother while living in the UK and so was not eligible as a child of a migrant worker. It sent her a formal notice of entitlement dated 1 February 2023 to confirm she was not eligible for any financial help.
48. We spoke to Ms Y to understand her decision making at this time. Ms Y tells us she continued into her second term because as far as she was concerned, although she was not eligible under the original route she applied for, she assumed that as the emails asked for further evidence she would qualify under the route SLC was assessing her for i.e. as a child of a migrant worker.
49. Ms Y tells us that although she was aware in the second term that she was ineligible for funding, she continued into her third term as she had made an appeal against the original decision with the hope of it being overturned and working out in her favour.
50. She received an email from the appeals team dated 3 April 2023 which thanked her for contacting the appeals department and confirmed that the appeal had been adopted and was under the review stage 1 of the formal appeal process.
51. The email said in order to ensure all relevant information could be taken into account Ms Y should confirm whether she had applied for indefinite leave to remain under the EU Settlement Scheme. It asked her to provide documentation confirming the date of the application and whether she had received an outcome. It said the appeal would be on hold until it received this information from her.
52. Ms Y responded to the email on 19 April 2023 advising that she had not yet applied for indefinite leave to remain as she was not eligible to do so until May 2024. She advised that she currently held pre-settled status as a family member of an EU citizen living in the UK.
53. Ms Y told us she is aware that there was no guarantee mentioned in the email, but she felt the appeal team was actively looking into options and trying to get the decision overturned. As it was the first time she was going through this experience, she believed it would work out in her favour.
54. We have no reason to doubt what Ms Y tells us; she began her course in the incorrect, but reasonable, belief that she qualified for funding. Based on what we have seen in SLC’s communications with her around the time her eligibility for funding came into doubt, SLC was not entirely clear that her funding would be withdrawn. In our view the wording was ambiguous and gave the impression that her funding was on hold or paused, pending further information from her. As SLC did not confirm that she was eligible for no funding at all until she received the notice of entitlement on 1 February, we can see why she did not withdraw from her course in December as she was unclear about what her entitlement was at that point. From her perspective, based on what SLC told her, it was still possible that she would have been entitled to some funding as a child of a migrant worker until this was later confirmed.
55. Whilst we agree that it was reasonable for Ms Y to continue into the second term, we cannot say that this is the case once she received a formal notification from SLC that she was not entitled to the funding. There is no ambiguity in the emails from the appeals team that would suggest that the decision would be overturned or that it was trying to find a way to do so. At this point we consider that it was Ms Y’s own personal decision to continue into the third term. While we can understand that she was hopeful at this point that the decision would be reversed, continuing on the basis that she hoped it would work out in her favour was a decision she took in the knowledge that her appeal could be unsuccessful. We do not doubt this was a difficult decision for her to make and in reaching this view we are not judging her choices, only whether it is reasonable to attribute any financial impact arising from them to SLC’s mistake.
56. Ms Y provided us with the university’s withdrawal form which is applicable to all students. We can see from the form that it clearly states that if the withdrawal date is during term 2 of the academic year, then 50% of the full year tuition fee is due to be paid. If the withdrawal is during term 3 then 100% of the full year tuition fee is due.
57. Ms Y did not formally find out she was not eligible until 1 February 2023 which was during term 2. She would have been liable for the 50% of the tuition fees whether she withdrew at the start or at the end of the term.
58. We cannot say that SLC should consider making payment to cover Ms Y’s maintenance loan overpayment as its decision to recover this payment is correct and in line with the regulations that SLC must follow. Neither we nor SLC have the powers to set aside regulations. We note that SLC is not seeking immediate repayment of the overpaid amount and Ms Y can repay this under the income contingent arrangements in place for student finance repayments.
59. Ms Y also said that she incurred unnecessary travel fees and that this was a direct losses for travel to attend university however while we would consider these to have been covered by the maintenance loan at the time Ms Y was then asked to pay this loan back. Ms Y would have not attended University and incurred these costs had she been aware from the outset she was not eligible for funding
60. We can see that the IA has considered Ms Y’s request for reimbursement of rental costs and found that on the balance of probabilities Ms Y would have likely had to move out of the family home as her mother downsized, and this would have been from the end of November 2022. We find the IA’s position on this point reasonable and agree that SLC should not be required to reimburse rent on the basis that Ms Y would have eventually had to move out and pay rent even if she did not attend university.
61. Ms Y also claims loss of earnings as, had she have been able to make an informed decision not to start the course, she would have been in full time, rather than part time employment for the academic year.
62. We agree that there was a loss of opportunity for Ms Y to continue her full time employment when she was given incorrect notification that she was eligible for student finance. SLC accepts that, but for its mistake, Ms Y would have continued in her full-time employment. Ms Y has provided significant evidence of her income before and after she started the course and it is clear that, had she continued in her full time role, she would have earnt more. As we have set out above, we do not think Ms Y could have reasonably taken steps to mitigate this loss before receiving confirmation that she was not eligible for funding under any route.
63. Having considered what SLC has already done to put things right, we found that the remedy it has offered to Ms Y does not go far enough in putting her back in the position she would have been in, but for its mistake. This is because the evidence we have seen so far shows that Ms Y started the second term as at this point the status of her funding was somewhat ambiguous and she did not receive official notice that she was not entitled to any funding until after the start date of the term. We found that she could not have reasonably taken steps to mitigate incurring any further unnecessary fees or other expenses or losses until she received this confirmation.
64. Ms Y also said she suffered from stress which affected her mental health which arose from her dealings with SLC once she found out she was no longer eligible for funding and went through the complaint process. We agree that finding out she was no longer eligible for funding, having already been granted this and making decisions about her life based on that advice, would have been very upsetting and resolving the situation was clearly stressful. This would have been avoided, but for SLC’s mistake. We can see that SLC has already agreed to pay Miss Y £450 to reflect ‘poor service’. We note that the maximum ex-gratia payment the IA can recommend, in line with its terms of reference, is £500.
65. Ms Y told us how she felt when she found out her funding had been withdrawn. She said it had been a hard decision to leave her home, family and friends to attend university in a different city and that it was devastating to learn that this had been ‘for nothing’. She also told us this took a toll on her mental health. She told us she became very depressed and felt embarrassed at having to ask friends and family to loan her money to help support herself while she continued with her course.
66. We are left in no doubt that this was a very upsetting time for Ms Y. She was left in a position where she had to make difficult decisions about her finances and her future which she would not have had to make, but for SLC’s mistakes.
67. In considering whether SLC has done enough to address the emotional impact to Ms Y, we considered our Principles for Remedy, our own guidance on financial remedy and scale of injustice. £450 sits within level 2 of our scale of injustice. This relates to cases where what has gone wrong has had a relatively low impact on the person affected. This will often result in a degree of distress, inconvenience or minor pain. This could also include instances where an injustice was more serious but only took place once, or was of short duration.
68. It is our view that the emotional impact Ms Y told us about goes beyond the relatively low impact described within a level 2 injustice, as there was a period of uncertainty for around two months in regards to her eligibility for funding and considering that the final decision about funding had significant impact on her emotional wellbeing during this time.
69. We consider that the impact Ms Y suffered is in line with level 3 of our scale of injustice which says level 3 cases would have a moderate impact on the person affected (for example, in terms of distress, worry or inconvenience.) A case may also be level three if the impact on the person affected was significant but was only sustained for a short period of time and in line with this we recommend SLC increase its ex-gratia payment to £1000 to remedy the distress Ms Y suffered.
70. We have gone on below to consider our findings on how SLC dealt with Ms Y’s complaint.
Complaint handling
71. Ms Y told us she was unhappy with the delays in dealing with her complaint and that this led to additional stress and frustration.
72. Ms Y first contacted SLC complaints team on 31 January 2023 after receiving the outcome from the appeal. She called SLC on 6 February 2023 and we have listened to a recording of this call as part of our investigation. During this call Ms Y informed the call handler that she had raised a complaint. She said it had been five working days and she had not had any acknowledgment. She said she just needed someone to look at her complaint due to the urgent nature of her circumstances.
73. The call handler referred to her appeal that was ongoing and had been lodged, but Ms Y explained that her call was not in relation to the appeal itself but a complaint that she had raised about the issues she had with SLC.
74. Ms Y confirmed that she raised her complaint by email and provided the date that this was done, she explained she had the automated response to say that she would get an acknowledgement in 5 working days. The call handler advised her she still had one working day to go and advised her to check her account the next day to see if there was an acknowledgment or update. The call handler also advised she would then have a full review within 15 days following the acknowledgement. Ms Y was advised to call back the next day if she still had not received anything.
75. Ms Y then contacted SLC on 22 February 2023 to raise a complaint over the phone as she had not received a response to her email dated 31 January 2023, she was advised during this call that the complaint procedure can take up to 30 plus days and was told she could register another complaint.
76. SLC provided a response to Ms Y’s complaint on 27 February 2023 and apologised for the delay in responding to her email ad that this was due to an administrative error. It provided a detailed response to her complaint and also acknowledged that SLC had also registered her formal appeal in relation to the decision made.
77. Ms Y then responded on 27 February 2023 to say he was unhappy with the response and asked when she would have a final response in order to be able to go to the ombudsman.
78. SLC responded to Ms Y on 2 March 2023 and acknowledged her dissatisfaction with its complaint response. It explained to her that for the ombudsman to consider her complaint it would require her to have exhausted SLC’s process. It said that as she had a formal appeal still outstanding, she would need to allow time for this to be reviewed and a final decision to be made regarding her funding.
79. It said that once she had received the outcome of the appeal, if she still remained unhappy with its services, she could contact SLC and it would look to escalate her complaint to the Independent Assessor for review.
80. Ms Y then wrote to SLC on 3 June 2023 to advise SLC that the outcome of her appeal had been decided and that nothing different had been said or decided, she was still found to be ineligible for funding. She then requested for her complaint to be escalated to the Independent Assessor.
81. SLC responded on 9 June 2023 acknowledging her request to refer to the Independent Assessor and advised that the current wait time for referral is up to three months.
82. The Independent Assessor report was completed on 21 September 2023 and a further addendum provided on 12 February 2024.
83. The complaint procedure that was in place on the gov.uk website at the time of Ms Y raising her complaint says that SLC aim to fully investigate and resolve all complaints in its first response.
84. It says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receiving it. It then will get allocated to a Customer Relations Officer to investigate and that the comprehensive response can be expected within 15 working days from receipt of the complaint.
85. The guidance says that SLC aims to complete all complaints within these timescales and that sometimes complaints can be complex and SLC may need to extend the time beyond 15 working days and if this is the case SLC would notify the complainant.
86. If a complainant remains unsatisfied with the response there is an escalation process available where the complaint is then escalated to the Independent Assessor’s office. The Independent Assessors are appointed by Ministers and not employed by SLC. The guidance explains that the Independent Assessors conduct an impartial review but have no legal powers to overturn correctly made decisions.
87. We can see from the complaint file and evidence provided that Ms Y did not receive an acknowledgment to her complaint within the 5 working days.
88. The final response was provided within 19 working days following her initial complaint on the 31 January 2023, this is 4 days outside of the 15 days stated in the guidance.
89. We can then see that there was a delay in referring to the IA office due to the ongoing appeal and that once this was escalated to the IA office a response was provided within the three months as advised in SLC’s email to Ms Y.
90. Whilst we accept that the delays overall would have caused Ms Y additional stress, the delays between SLC’s final response and referring to the IA to complete the complaints process were unavoidable. This is because SLC was correct in advising that whilst an appeal was ongoing the IA could not consider the complaint, this is because it would not have been appropriate for the IA to complete a review while the outcome of the appeal was still unknown.
91. We can see that this is outlined in the Independent Assessors for SLC Terms of Reference under Section 5. Exclusion from Investigation which says the Independent Assessor shall not investigate where the SLC internal procedures have not been exhausted. This then also goes on to say that the internal procedure shall not be treated as having been exhausted until the appeal and or/complaint has been made to SLC’s office and SLC has communicated the final decision on the appeal/complaint to the complainant.
92. We reviewed the delay in Ms Y's complaint. In our view the four-day wait for her final response was a minor, isolated issue. As the appeal was ongoing, the complaint could not have been referred to the Independent Assessor any sooner, since SLC could only make the referral once the appeal had been concluded in accordance with the IA’s terms of reference, therefore we cannot see that SLC did anything wrong in the way it handled Ms Y’s complaint.
93. We do understand that Ms Y would have suffered from stress while dealing with SLC during the complaint process and the length of time taken. As we have not found any failings in how SLC dealt with Miss Y’s complaint, we do not expect it to take further action to address this.