SLC (Student Loans Company)

[johnofgwent]

Why would a credit card ay 8% interest to you on a balance that you owed them? I don't understand that.

Okay maybe I didn't make its wrong doings clear. About three weeks before the first day on which we were supposed to depart with no deal, the date May got an extension for, the Irish Bank providing the credit facility for Saga wrote to each card holder demanding a full repayment of any monies owed on the card. No ifs. No buts. Pay up you British Unionist Scum. This was a violation of the credit licence under which that Republic of Ireland Bank was allowed to operate in the UK. First, its commercial arrangement with SAGA required all communications to customers to go out under SAGA branding. The commercial agreement (which SAGA sent in full in an email to me and I assume also every other customer, which shows how pissed THEY were) made it clear if the bank wished to divest itself if this arrangement with SAGA it was supposed to let SAGA have time to explore arrangements with other financial firms. The way the Irish Bank actually went about withdrawing was found a gross violation if that commercial arrangement. But that only meant SAGA could sue. But this wasn't all. The credit licence granted to this Irish Bank required that if they chose to terminate its contract with SAGA, there were certain things it HAD to openly state and put up with. First, and foremost, it should have stated categorically that although it would not honour any further use of it's cards beyond the cut off date, NO ONE was being forced to make immediate repayment. EVERYONE was permitted IN LAW to pay any amount between the minimum payment and the full amount every month until the card balance was repaid and wouid be charged no more than the paltry (ok half the APR of its competitors) interest rate in force when I got the letter. But the company refused point blank to admit this and demanded immediate full repayment. THIS was the essence of my own individual complaint to the ombudsman which was added to the weight of the class action taken by the ombudsman. IN ADDITION the closure notice SHOULD have made it clear any customer was free to approach ANY other credit card company and seek a new card offering a balance transfer. IT DIDN'T. The Ombudsman ruled the Irish Bank in breach of it's contracts and the UK banking regulations. Because every cardholder with an outstanding balance payable was misled into thinking the amount owed was fully and immediately payable, the ombudsman ruled that as part of the penalty for their misconduct the bank had to make a payment to every cardholder of one years interest at the official rate of 8% (the same rate the inland revenue slap on you for accidental tax underpayment) of the balance outstanding on the card, AND if any customer could prove they had been charged MORE than that by any financial arrangement they entered into after receiving that letter, the bank had to pay every penny to the customer concerned. In reality of course as soon as I got that snotty gram I wrote a stinker of a letter to SAGA, a similar missive to the ombudsman highlighting the Consumer Credit Act Conduct Rules Failures i felt a victim of, and demanded statutory compensation. And equally, I was straight away on compare the meerkat finding a balance transfer deal to repay these scum.  I found one of course but the point was I should have been assisted in doing so, and told I had no need to.

[Nick]

The story details seem pretty damning, in that a statement is made that changes were made to HMRC updates to the Student Loan Company and errors were clearly made in leaving some people hung out to dry. Even if there was no intent to deceive, the financial ombudsman has come down pretty hard on some people and rightly so in my view. A few years ago Allied Irish Banks told me they were terminating my credit card. They were later found to have done so unfairly, and were forced to pay every customer 8% compound on the card balance the day before they sent the letter AND agree to repay any greater amount customers could prove they were stiffed with in their rush to find an alternative credit source to accept their card debt. A month ago I had a letter telling me my pension provider had messed up their calculation of a pension transfer they chose to force on me by closing the business, and here was a cheque for every penny of that miscalculation plus interest from the date of their fuckup at that same official rate. The fact is between HMRC and the SLC a sum of money has not returned to its owner. Under current legal requirements imposed on the private sector that error regardless if cause and without proof of malice would attract a serious sum in penalty interest. I see no reason why the public sector should escape that penalty.

Why would a credit card company pay 8% interest to you on a balance that you owed them? I don't understand that. 

[johnofgwent]

Who says they've hung on to it? That implies that HMRC knew that it should have been paid and didn't. That may not be the case.

The story details seem pretty damning, in that a statement is made that changes were made to HMRC updates to the Student Loan Company and errors were clearly made in leaving some people hung out to dry. Even if there was no intent to deceive, the financial ombudsman has come down pretty hard on some people and rightly so in my view. A few years ago Allied Irish Banks told me they were terminating my credit card. They were later found to have done so unfairly, and were forced to pay every customer 8% compound on the card balance the day before they sent the letter AND agree to repay any greater amount customers could prove they were stiffed with in their rush to find an alternative credit source to accept their card debt. A month ago I had a letter telling me my pension provider had messed up their calculation of a pension transfer they chose to force on me by closing the business, and here was a cheque for every penny of that miscalculation plus interest from the date of their fuckup at that same official rate. The fact is between HMRC and the SLC a sum of money has not returned to its owner. Under current legal requirements imposed on the private sector that error regardless if cause and without proof of malice would attract a serious sum in penalty interest. I see no reason why the public sector should escape that penalty.

[patman post]

Who says they've hung on to it? That implies that HMRC knew that it should have been paid and didn't. That may not be the case.

Which point are you querying? I've had money repaid with interest for the years since HMRC overcharged me — which HMRC identified later, not me. I doubt my money was held in one of the HMRC's accounts, but had been transferred quite quickly into govt coffers soon after it had been mistakenly collected from me.      As for the report about the overpayment to SLC not being repaid for six years — that money had been in use during that time. And it seems HMRC (which collected the payments) did not inform SLC  that more had been collected than was due. Reimbursing the overpayment at the end of that financial year seems OK, but six years later? Some recompense seem in order...

[Nick]

^^^.  Good point. I've had HMRC pay interest if it hangs on to money it's collected by over charging or by mistake.      And it seems HMRC should take some share of the blame. However, I don't take the attitude that because someone can afford a couple of grand a month on mortgage and childcare they shouldn't kick up a fuss if overpayments are held onto for six years. I hope she gets some compensation...

Who says they've hung on to it? That implies that HMRC knew that it should have been paid and didn't. That may not be the case. 

[patman post]

^^^.  Good point. I've had HMRC pay interest if it hangs on to money it's collected by over charging or by mistake.      And it seems HMRC should take some share of the blame. However, I don't take the attitude that because someone can afford a couple of grand a month on mortgage and childcare they shouldn't kick up a fuss if overpayments are held onto for six years. I hope she gets some compensation...

[johnofgwent]

"We're not talking about the difference between me putting food on the table or clothing my children but £1,100 is still a month's mortgage paid off, that's a month's nursery costs or £1,100 worth of credit debt I could have paid off. If you've got a £1100 mortgage and £1100 worth of child care fees you are not skint, and the fact she is playing the I'm upset they've had my money for 6 years card frankly doesn't wash. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59011232

The law, fortunately, has a very different idea.  I wonder what five years compound interest at the legal official interest rate (8%) applicable to any type of failure to transfer funds in the financial sector looks like. And why is the SLC exempt ?

[Nalaar]

It seems like a perfectly reasonable grievance to have, the fact that she isn't "skint" is and independent factor that doesn't impact on SLC holding money they should not of, for years.

[Nick]

"We're not talking about the difference between me putting food on the table or clothing my children but £1,100 is still a month's mortgage paid off, that's a month's nursery costs or £1,100 worth of credit debt I could have paid off.

If you've got a £1100 mortgage and £1100 worth of child care fees you are not skint, and the fact she is playing the I'm upset they've had my money for 6 years card frankly doesn't wash.




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59011232