Student Loans Company (SLC)

3. Ms X complains that the Student Loans Company (SLC) deemed her ineligible for student support following its decision that the childcare she had claimed for did not take place. She further complains that the SLC demanded immediate repayment of all previously issued loans and recorded her details on the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System (CIFAS).

4. Ms X says she is being unfairly penalised for the alleged actions of another individual and says that, as a single parent, the situation has caused her stress and anxiety. She is also concerned about the potential impact it may have on her future employment opportunities and life prospects.

5. By bringing her complaint to us, Ms X is seeking for the SLC to reinstate payment of her tuition fees for the first academic year, cease requests for immediate repayment, and remove her details from CIFAS.

21. The SLC is a non-profit making government-owned organisation that administers loans and grants to students in colleges and universities in the UK. It provides financial services (in the form of loans and grants) to over 2 million new and returning students annually, in colleges and universities across the UK.

22. The SLC has shared responsibilities; including to ‘pay the right amount of support to the right people at the right time.’

23. The SLC can only award student finance in accordance with The Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 (as amended).

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— (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.

Childcare Grant Funding

26. CCG is no longer paid directly to students. Claims for childcare payments are submitted through the Childcare Grant Payment Service (CCGPS). The CCG is paid by the SLC into a CCGPS account. The Childcare Provider sends a request for payment to the CCGPS which the student approves through the account. The Childcare Provider is then paid directly from the money in the account. A student and their Childcare Provider have to agree on the costs and hours incurred. A student is obliged to pay at least 15% of the weekly costs directly to the Childcare Provider.

Ms X says that the SLC deemed her ineligible for student support following its decision that the childcare she had claimed for did not take place and demanded immediate repayment of all previously issued loans.

27. The evidence indicates that Ms X claimed for student support for the academic years 2021/2022 and 2022/2023, which included a claim for Childcare Grant funding (CCG).

28. In May 2023, the SLC’s Financial Crime Prevention Unit (FCPU) conducted checks on students accounts, to confirm eligibility for student finance and CCG funding. Ms X’s account was selected, as part of a wider investigation into the childcare provider she was using at that time, and she was requested to provide support evidence for her CCG claim. The FCPU had concerns regarding the numbers of children the childcare provider was reportedly caring for, the distance between the childcare provider and customers’ addresses and the high cost involved.

29. Ms X provided the SLC with a childcare agreement which stated that childcare would be provided from 28 March 2022, at a cost of £220 per week. The agreement did not specify the days or hours of childcare to be provided. Ms X also provided an invoice dated 6 October 2022, stating that £425.68 was due for childcare that was provided to [Child A] between 28 March and 16 May 2022, and that this had been paid in cash. The SLC noted the invoice was issued several months after the childcare period, and that the name recorded on the invoice did not match the name of [Child A].

30. Ms X was invited to a telephone interview and given the opportunity to provide explanations regarding the delay between the commencement of childcare, the delayed submission of payment requests through the CCGPS in October 2022, as well as the distance between her address and her childcare provider.

31. Following consideration of the evidence, the SLC confirmed its decision on 9 October 2023, that Ms X was ineligible to receive CCG from the start of 2021/2022 academic year, and ineligible to receive all support with effect from 4 October 2022, in accordance with Regulations 4(3)(f), 6(5) and 6(6)(b) and (c) of the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011, as amended.

32. Its decision was based on concerns arising from the information and evidence provided. Ms X was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation to the SLC for the delay between the start of childcare, and the submission of CCG payment requests. The SLC noted that childcare had been approved on her application, prior to those payment requests being submitted. In addition, Ms X was unable to provide evidence of payments made to the childcare provider, and the distance between her address and the childcare provider was considered further than would ordinarily be expected for such an arrangement.

33. Taken together, these concerns inconsistencies led the SLC to conclude that it was unlikely that the childcare had taken place.

34. We recognise that being notified of an overpayment decision and requirement to repay a large sum may understandably cause concern. We also understand that Ms X considers this may have implications for her financial stability and future planning.

35. Following the decision, Ms X provided two signed declarations from the childcare provider. She also stated that her CCG application had been submitted at the time childcare was being provided, but was not approved until later, and that payment could only be made following approval. Ms X also disputed the concern regarding the invoice, stating the name recorded was a variation of her own name.

36. In considering the appeal the SLC reviewed the additional evidence and representations. It confirmed that her CCG application had been approved on 18 May 2022, and that claims through the CCGPS were not submitted until 4 October 2022, approximately 139 days after funding became available.

37. Although Ms X may not have controlled when claims were submitted by the childcare provider, this was only one factor considered alongside other concerns regarding the credibility of the arrangement. The SLC identified further concerns in relation to the two signed declarations dated 20 October and 23 October 2023, which contained conflicting information regarding the childcare arrangements.

38. Having considered all evidence, the SLC concluded that its decision remained unchanged and that it could not be satisfied that the childcare had taken place.

39. Under Our Principles of Good Administration - being open and accountable –organisations are expected to clearly set out the reasons for their decisions. The evidence indicates that the SLC clearly explained the basis for its decision to revoke Ms X’s student support.

40. Upon receipt of further evidence provided, the SLC considered this through its appeal process. This is consistent with Our Principles - getting it right, where organisations are expected to ensure that decisions are based on a full and accurate understanding of all relevant facts, and to properly consider all available evidence before reaching a conclusion.

41. The SLC acted in line with Our Principles, by reviewing the additional information provided, before confirming its original decision remained unchanged.

42. Ms X also stated that the SLC demanded immediate repayment of all previously issued loans. However, the evidence does not support that specific claim. Funding for the 2020/2021 academic year was not affected and has not been recovered by the SLC.

43. For the 2021/2022 academic year, only part of the funding was treated as overpaid, with tuition fee support remaining in place. For the 2022/2023 academic year, all funding was treated as an overpayment.

44. The SLC is seeking recovery of approximately £17,000. This reflects the overpayments it identified, rather than all previous student loans as suggested by Ms X.

The SLC Recorded Ms X’s details on the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System (CIFAS).

45. 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.

46. In this case, the 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 Ms X’s details with CIFAS.

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

48. Our role is not to decide whether fraud occurred. It is to consider whether the SLC had a reasonable basis for making the referral and whether it reached that view through a fair and reasonable process. In the circumstances, the evidence shows that the SLC identified concerns, considered Ms X’s explanations and further evidence, and decided the relevant criteria for referral were met.

49. On that basis, we have not seen evidence that the SLC acted outside its fraud prevention responsibilities or failed to act in line with Our Principles of Good Administration. In reaching this view, we are not making any finding of criminal liability.

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

51. In summary, we have decided to take no further action on this complaint. The evidence shows that the SLC considered the information available to it, explained the concerns that led to its decision, gave Ms X opportunities to provide further evidence, and reviewed the matter through the appropriate appeal route. We have not seen evidence that the SLC failed to follow the relevant regulations, its process, or Our Principles of Good Administration. For that reason, we would not expect the SLC to take any further action.

52. We thank Ms X for bringing her concerns to our attention and wish her well for the future.

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

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