Student Loans Company (SLC)

3. Miss E says SLC refused to consider her appeal of September 2024.

4. As a result, she suffered significant distress and has been contacted by a debt recovery agency.

5. By bringing her complaint to us Miss E would like SLC to apologise and recover what is owed through its normal channel. She would also like it to make service improvements.

6. Miss E says she was eligible for funding to cover tuition fees, a maintenance loan and childcare grant before she withdrew from university in 2017.

7. In 2024 a debt collection agency contacted Miss E on behalf of the university seeking to recover the tuition fee of £9000. She queried the debt and the agency advised her to contact student finance, it also said she could log on to her student loan account to view letters and communications.

10. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong with SLC’s decision not to accept the appeal.

11. SLC’s counter fraud service wrote to Miss E on 11 October 2018 requesting documents it needed to verify information she had provided with her application for student finance. It gave her 14 days from the date of the letter to do so.

12. SLC sent Miss E its provisional decision on 25 October as it had not received the requested documents. It decided she was no longer eligible to receive any student finance for 2017/18. SLC said any overpayments would be collected in accordance with regulations. It asked her to send in information it needed to investigate her account.

13. On 13 November SLC sent Miss E its final decision. It had not received the documents it requested so it decided she was not eligible for student finance for 2017/18 and may need to repay any overpayments.

14. SLC says the university returned Miss E’s fees on 3 May 2019. This would have left the fees she owed for the year unpaid.

15. Miss E queried her ineligibility for funds with SLC on 13 September 2019. It re-sent her the evidence request letter of 11 October 2018.

16. On 29 May 2024 SLC emailed Miss E the overpayment and final decision letters after she called in following contact from the agency. She says SLC told her she could send in the information it had requested.

17. Miss E says she chased progress on several occasions in June and July.

18. In August SLC arranged a telephone interview. We are sorry to see it took a longer time than expected for Miss E to receive a response from SLC. We consider the frustration this caused was resolved when SLC apologised to her on the phone and arranged an interview.

19. The interview took place on 19 September, Miss E says during this interview she realised the SLC were accusing her of fraud.

20. On 23 September SLC wrote to Miss E it said there was some discrepancy in the figures for childcare. SLC said it received communications from the childcare provider during the investigation that highlighted alterations to claims she submitted. It said during the interview she was unable to provide a reasonable explanation therefore it concluded the documents submitted for payments were false. Miss E was ineligible for funding for the whole year and the overpayment would be due and recovered through the original channel. This refers to collection through the agency as the debt was to the university.

21. On 24 September Miss E called SLC to clarify its decision. She says it first told her she was eligible for funding and she would pay back what was owed through her wages when she met the threshold. She says she was then put on hold by the agent who later confirmed she remained ineligible for funding which meant collection could not be made through her wage.

22. We are sorry there was some confusion which we can see SLC was able to clarify on the call.

23. Miss E appealed the decision.

24. SLC’s response detailed the events in Miss E’s case and said appeals must be submitted within 12 months of a decision. As it was satisfied that she was fully aware of the decision in 2019 the case was not considered under appeal.

25. Miss E asked SLC to escalate the case to the Independent Assessor (IA) in October 2024.

26. SLC did not refer her complaint to an IA as an appeal had not been heard. It said she was within her rights to seek legal advice.

27. Our principles say public bodies must comply with the law and have regard for the rights of those concerned. They should act according to their statutory powers and duties and any other rules governing the service they provide. They should follow their own policy and procedural guidance, whether published or internal.

28. Student Finance England’s Appeal Procedure, March 2023, says if an appeal is made more than 12 months after their decision it will only consider it if: • It believes there were good reasons for not making an appeal within the 12 months • It is still possible to properly consider the appeal.

29. In line with procedure SLC considered whether it should accept an appeal from Miss E. It did not accept Miss E had not known about its decision until 2024. It also said due to the passage of time it did not deem it appropriate to adopt an appeal. We appreciate it must have been disappointing for Miss E to find out SLC would not accept an appeal. It is at SLC’s discretion to decide whether it should accept an appeal after 12 months, we cannot replace its judgement with our own.

30. SLC Guidance – Independent Assessors for SLC terms of reference, October 2024, section 5 (d) says an IA will not investigate where the SLC internal procedures have not been invoked or has not been exhausted. However, in exceptional circumstances this procedure may be cut short, and a case ‘fast-tracked’ to an Independent Assessor, if specifically requested by SLC, DfE or DECWL.

31. As internal procedures (appeal) were not invoked, in line with guidance, SLC could not forward Miss E’s concerns to an IA.

32. We have found SLC has acted in line with its own procedure and guidelines and can therefore not say anything has gone seriously wrong with its decision about the appeal and referral to an IA. For this reason, we cannot take Miss E’s concerns any further.

33. We hope we have been able to reassure Miss E SLC has acted appropriately in the steps it took to consider her case. We appreciate this may not be the outcome she had hoped for. It remains open to her to seek legal advice as SLC advised if she wishes to pursue this further.

1. We have carefully considered Miss E’s complaint about SLC. We are sorry to hear about the distress she suffered when she was contacted by a debt collection agency.

2. We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong with SLC’s decision about the appeal.