Student Loans Company (SLC)

3. Mr X complains that Student Loans Company (SLC) changed the stated basis for its decision regarding his suitability to receive student support. He says SLC initially relied on the number of children claimed for childcare purposes, before maintaining the decision on the basis that he had not paid his share of childcare fees. Mr X further complains that SLC recorded him on the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System (CIFAS) and did not take the IA’s report into account.

4. Mr X says that the situation has caused him stress and affected his work performance, jeopardised his ability to continue with his studies and a report submitted to CIFAS. Mr X also says that this has had a detrimental impact on his financial circumstances.

5. By bringing his complaint to us, Mr X is seeking for SLC to reconsider its decision, an apology and financial remedy.

The Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 (as amended)

24. Regulation 4. — Eligible Students

(3) A person (“A”) is not an eligible student if— (f) A has, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, shown by A's conduct that A is unfitted to receive support.

25. Regulation 6. – Period of Eligibility

(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.

26. Overpayments of support payable under Part 5 or Part 6

119.— (1) A 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.

SLC’s reason for changing its decision

27. We understand this situation has been difficult for Mr X. It is clear that SLC’s original decision (that Mr X was not suitable to receive support) was made on the wrong basis. However, being asked to review a decision does not automatically mean the outcome must change. It means the decision must be looked at again, using the correct information. From the evidence we have seen, that is what happened here.

28. After the IA’s report, SLC reconsidered the case and identified issues that were not clearly set out in its original decision. For example, SLC noted a total of 27 weekly claims were submitted in August 2022, backdated to February 2022 which was over six months after childcare had taken place). It also noted that further claims for the same academic year were submitted between September and December 2022.

29. SLC also noted a difference in the information about where childcare took place. Whilst Mr X had indicated in July 2023, that childcare had taken place at the childcare provider’s address, the contract he submitted (dated February 2023) stated that childcare would occur at his home address. Considering these discrepancies, SLC concluded that the childcare had not taken place, and consequently, deemed Mr X ineligible for student finance, under Regulation 4(3)(f) confirming its original decision remained unchanged.

30. In other words, SLC made a fresh decision. Although it reached the same overall outcome as the original decision, it did so based on different evidence that it considered relevant. This approach is consistent with our Principles of Good Administration – getting it right, which expect organisations to consider all relevant information, disregard irrelevant information, and weigh the evidence fairly. We recognise it may have been helpful if these points had been highlighted to Mr X earlier, but we cannot say this would have made a difference to the decision’s outcome.

31. If Mr X disagrees with SLC’s new decision, he can challenge it through SLC’s appeals process. This can include escalation to the IA, where appropriate. We appreciate this may feel like another hurdle for Mr X, but we are not able to support him through the appeals process.

SLC did not take the IA’s report and recommendations into account.

32. Following the IA’s report which recommended that SLC reconsiders and reverses its decision that Mr X was ineligible for support and offers a payment of £250 to reflect the avoidable stress caused, the Department for Education (DfE) considered those recommendations.

33. The evidence indicates that, the DfE reviewed the IA's report alongside additional information provided by the SLC’s Financial Crime Prevention Unit. After considering this information, the DfE decided not to accept the IA's recommendations and provided reasons for not doing so.

34. Although the recommendations were not implemented, the evidence indicates that they were considered as part of the DfE’s decision making process.

35. Our role in these circumstances is not to substitute our own decision for that of the DfE’s, or to require the DfE to implement the IA’s recommendations. Rather, our remit is to consider whether the recommendations were considered and whether the DfE’s decision to not accept them was reasonable, based on the information available at that time.

36. We recognise that, because the IA recommended that the decision be reconsidered and compensation paid, it is understandable that Mr X would expect those recommendations to be followed.

37. The information available shows the DfE reviewed all relevant information, including the IA’s report and recommendations, and the information provided by the Financial Crime Prevention Unit, before deciding not to accept the recommendations.

38. Whilst we appreciate why Mr X may feel the recommendations were not considered, the evidence shows the DfE considered them and provided its reasons for reaching a different conclusion.

39. This is in line with Our Principles of Good Administration – being open and accountable, where we expect organisations to be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions, by explaining the basis of their decisions and the reasons for them.

SLC Recorded Mr X on the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System (CIFAS).

40. As part of its fraud prevention responsibilities, the SLC is a member of CIFAS and reports individuals where it identifies concerns that meet the relevant thresholds for potential fraud or irregularity.

41. In this case, SLC determined that such concerns were present and, in line with its public sanctions model and data-sharing arrangements under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, recorded Mr X’s details with CIFAS.

42. This recording does not represent a finding of criminal liability, rather, it reflects that SLC considered that the available information met the criteria for referral.

43. This is in line with its responsibility to safeguard public funds, under which it is entitled to record and share information it deems relevant, through recognised fraud prevention mechanisms, to help prevent further financial loss and protect the integrity of the student finance system.

44. This action also aligns with Our Principles of Good Administration - getting it right, under which we expect organisations to manage public money with due care and propriety.

45. We recognise that this has been a challenging time for Mr X and sympathise with the impact this situation has had.

46. In summary, we have decided to take no further action on this complaint. This is because the DfE (on behalf of the SLC) considered the IA’s recommendations and clearly explained its reason for not implementing them, and correctly recorded Mr X’s details with CIFAS in line with its policies. We would not have expected the SLC (or DfE) to have done anything further.

47. We thank Mr X for bringing his concerns to our attention and wish him well for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mr X’s complaint about Student Loans Company (SLC). We are sorry to hear how much distress the whole situation has caused Mr X.

2. Having looked carefully at the evidence, we have not identified any failings in the circumstances which led to Mr X approaching us. For that reason, although we recognise how difficult the situation has been for Mr X, we have decided to take no further action on this complaint. We will explain the reasons below in more detail.