CNCD Form - Extremely Aggressive and Patronising Form - justification for

The request was partially successful.

Student Loans Company Limited,

This request relates to a letter (which I understand to be a standard text that is sent out to hundreds of thousands rather than custom-written as I have seen several of these) requesting completion of CNCD form which I found extremely aggressive, patronising and humiliating – even though I was not the recipient but just assisting the recipient with it. I therefore request you for any information you hold that makes you believe that you are entitled to adopt such an approach. I break the request into several sections of which c2, c3 and f are the most important as they deal with what I regard as the most outrageous parts of your request.

a) In the first paragraph of the letter there is a sentence "In order for us to determine if you are eligible to make repayments ....please provide....". From my understanding the recipient is entitled to repay in full at any time and does not need you to calculate how much he is entitled to repay. Surely, what you are trying to calculate is how much he is required (rather than entitled) to repay. Could you provide any documents that support the reasoning for, in my view, the incorrect and patronizing language that you have chosen?

b) On the second page you have put a sentence: "If you do not respond to this letter you may have to pay a penalty". Given that penalties are not allowed by English Contract Law and since Magna Carta are supposed to be imposed by Courts rather than even the Government, yet alone some company, I would like you:
b1. Provide any reasoning that make you believe that you are entitled to charge a penalty (including references to any legislation and Case Law on that matter that was taken into account in your reasoning)
b2. Policy on the collection of such penalties.
b3. Number and amounts of such penalties collected in the last year.

c) On the CNCD form recipient provides his employment or self employment details which I understand you might need to work out repayments due. However for those who are not in employment or self employment there is a detailed requirement to specify which benefits they receive or who they are supported by. This appears to be undue invasions given that you are not entitled to demand repayments from these people without income. In the light of the above I would like you:
c1. To provide justification for demanding detailed benefits information and demanding supporting information that people are receiving benefits. In particular given that even HMRC yet alone other creditors would not dare to request such an information for a person with no taxable income I would like to know why you believe you are entitled to demand such information.
c2. To provide justification for demanding that people supported by Third Parties provide details of the third party, confirmation from third party as well as banks statements proving the support received. Your request demands that details of personal relationships are disclosed that are not immediately relevant to the level of any repayments due, and, for example, even HMRC would not dare to demand that people disclose such information just because they have no taxable income. Such requests are violating privacy and are likely to cause alarm and distress and therefore, in particular, please provide your reasoning why you believe demanding such information does not violate/is not a criminal offence under i) Human Rights Act - in particular the right to family life and the right to privacy, ii) S40 of the Justice administration Act, and iii) The Protection from Harassment Act.
c3. For people supported by third parties you demand not only details of the third party and written confirmation from the third party. You also demand further evidence such as bank statements. Given that many people supported by Third Parties are supported by their parents/husband/wives/partners and the support is provided by means of food, lodgings and cash rather than bank transfers your demand (the aggressiveness of the tone of your letter makes it clear it is a demand rather than a request) is likely to cause further, totally unnecessary anxiety alarm and distress. I therefore request that you provide justification for providing such additional evidence. In particular, please provide your reasoning why you believe demanding such information does not violate/is not a criminal offence under i) Human Rights Act - in particular the right to family life and the right to privacy, ii) S40 of the Justice administration Act, and iii) The Protection from Harassment Act.

d) At the bottom of the form you put a statement “Any information found to be false may be regarded as fraudulent”. This is a form of a statement not seen on any similar forms by other bodies – public or private. It is usually stated that providing a knowingly(!) false information might constitute an offence. In the light of the above I would like you:
d1. Provide your justification for including that statement in that form that appears to enable you to treat genuine mistakes as fraud.
d2. Clarify whether the principle works both ways thus enabling your customers to bring criminal charges for incorrect statements, incorrect debits to their accounts and incorrect credits, etc. If it does not work both ways why do you believe it does not fall under the Unfair Terms in Consumer contracts and other relevant consumer protection legislation as it creates a gross inequality between the parties where one party is free to provide false and incorrect information with impunity while the other would be criminally liable for any error.

e) At the bottom of the form you put a statement that any person filling the form is forced to accept “I understand that SLC reserves the right to request additional information and/or verify the information provided”. Please clarify whether this is a statement of the existing entitlement and therefore does not represent any additional contractual commitment or whether it is designed to legalise any such requests in the future where no legal basis would otherwise exist.

f) At the bottom of the form you put a statement that any person filling the form is forced to accept “I authorise the organisations and person detailed in this form to provide SLC with confirmation and further information that they request”. Thus any person unfortunate enough to have to sign this gives you the right not only to confirm the information provided but also to make other enquiries, potentially even less relevant (or even totally irrelevant) to their dealings with you. What are the justifications for your belief that you are entitled to demand, under a threat of penalty, that such rights be signed away to you? For the purpose of this request it is not relevant what you actually used the authority so granted in the past – as the person signing the form under a threat of penalty is forced to give you the right to request ANY information whatsoever and hence I request your justification for the demand that such an authority is granted to you.

End of Request

FOI Publication Scheme, Student Loans Company Limited

Dear O. Smith

Thank you for your email dated 15/03/2016 requesting information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your request has been logged under
reference 39-16 . Please quote this reference in future communications.

A response will be issued in due course.

Yours sincerely

Dona Marie Steele
Legal Executive
Student Loans Company Limited
100 Bothwell Street
Glasgow
G2 7JD

show quoted sections

FOI Publication Scheme, Student Loans Company Limited

Dear Mr Smith
I refer to your email dated 15/03/2016 requesting certain information under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”).

Response

The FOIA provides public access to recorded information that is held by a
public authority. This response is issued for information we hold which
will answer your questions. In addition, I have throughout the response
provided additional information or a further explanation, where it was
possible, from a customer service perspective.

Your request is related to the cover letter which is sent by the Student
Loans Company Limited (“SLC”) as part of the Confirmation of Customer
Details (“COCD”) pack. The purpose of the cover letter is to advise
customers that the repayment of their loan(s) is or was due to commence,
however, SLC requires confirmation of their details. I can confirm that
there are nine versions of the cover letter and it is tailored to the
customer’s loan type and the status of the loan.

a) I can confirm there are no documents held which prescribe the wording of
the letters but SLC undertakes thorough testing of our communications to
ensure that they address the needs of our customers. The Evidence
Information Sheet which is contained in the COCD pack is designed to
provide guidance on the information and evidence SLC require to process the
form.

The wording used in the COCD pack was reviewed in 2013, in consultation
with the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (“BIS”). The
recommendations from that exercise have been retained in the current
version, which was re-evaluated last year after further customer testing.

By way of further explanation, all customers become liable to repay their
loan on the statutory repayment due date (“SRDD”) which is the April after
they leave or complete their course. The information provided from the
customer, in response to the COCD pack, is used to determine their
eligibility to repay e.g. if the customer is working and earning over the
repayment threshold but SLC have been unable to match them to records held
by HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”).

b1) In respect of your query SLC is a statutory authority whose powers are
delegated by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and
the Devolved Administrations.

The statutory powers are detailed in the Education (Student Loans)
(Repayment) Regulations 2009 (as amended). The original regulations are
available online from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/... and any
amendments thereto are detailed online separately and are available from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/changes/af....

The regulations detail the penalties which SLC may charge. In regards to
the COCD pack which is a request for information and the penalties which we
can charge, these are detailed from regulation 22 through to regulation 27.

b2) Apart from the regulations detailed above there is no policy held on
the collection of these penalties.

b3) SLC has the option to apply a penalty, however, has not done so in the
last year.

c1) As detailed above, SLC’s powers are derived from legislation. SLC is
permitted to request any information it requires to determine a customer’s
income. This is detailed in regulation 23(2)(g):

“such other information about the borrower's financial position as
may be required to determine whether the borrower is in receipt of
any income.”

To allow SLC to determine whether repayments are due, SLC needs to
calculate taxable income. Certain benefits are taxable and while it is
unlikely that an individual receiving state benefits will receive income
exceeding the repayment threshold, SLC must receive this information to
accurately calculate their income and update the account. Until a customer
returns their form and evidence SLC does not know their current employment
status or the income they receive.

c2 and c3) As detailed above, SLC’s powers are derived from legislation and
we are requesting information required to determine if the borrower is in
receipt of any income.

The third party declaration is required because without it the customer
would be self certifying their third party support and SLC would be unable
to check the accuracy of the information provided.

The form only asks basic information of the third party. SLC does not
explicitly request bank statements - if you refer to the Evidence
Information Sheet, providing bank statements is one example given of
evidence to show the support a customer receives from a third party.

d1) The customer declaration advises that “any information found to be
false may be regarded as fraudulent”. Please note, the wording allows for
genuine mistakes which are honestly made.

d2) Your question is not a request for recorded information. If a mistake
occurs on a customer’s account which is not rectified when it is brought to
our attention, the customer can seek resolution through the statutory
complaints process or otherwise at law.

e and f) As referred to above many of SLC’s powers derive from statute.
There will also be some contractual elements too. The customer declaration
will be affirmatory in part (considered to be good practice/transparent)
and also create a contractual position that may not otherwise exist, in
respect of those areas not covered in statute.

In the event that SLC cannot verify the information provided with HMRC we
may seek to confirm this directly using the information detailed on the
form.

Finally, SLC has a duty to collect loan repayments in the best interests of
the taxpayer. SLC must strike the balance between having sufficient
information to collect repayments while being sympathetic to our customer’s
difficulties at the same time.

Internal review process

I trust that my answer to you is satisfactory; however, if you are unhappy
with the decisions made by me in relation to your freedom of information
request, you may ask SLC for an internal review.

Any such review would be conducted by the Company Secretary and Head of
Legal & Corporate Services, 100 Bothwell Street, Glasgow, G2 7JD. You may
request a review by writing to the Company Secretary and Head of Legal &
Corporate Services or by emailing the FOI Office
([SLC request email]). In the event that the Company
Secretary and Head of Legal & Corporate Services took part in the original
decision, then the Executive Director of Finance, Strategy and Corporate
Services, will conduct the review. SLC will only consider requests for
internal reviews which are made within 3 months of the date of our original
response (except in exceptional circumstances).

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision.
The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

Dona Marie Steele
Legal Executive
Student Loans Company Limited
100 Bothwell Street
Glasgow
G2 7JD

Email: [SLC request email]

show quoted sections

Jules Mason left an annotation ()

The response from SLC only gives reference to the pure legislation however what they don't direct you towards is the point that the legislation is created by Statutory Instrument, arching back to 1998 legislation which has very specific meaning as to what the creation of new powers is in relation to. i.e they are only in apposition to ask for information with regards to the solely the borrower's income, not wealth, not savings and certainly no third party's details.
The very introduction of the 2014 legislation when it went through the Joint Select committee explicitly confirms this interpretation that the SLC does NOT have the power to request anything beyond the borrower's income and they raised the concern that the SLC cannot enforce such a requirement without the extension of the classes of information listed in Section 22 of the 2009 Act. They point out that there is no power to delegate the extension to the SLC. The evidence form that the SLC refers to is therefore ultra vires and renders the 2014 Act regulation 3 as invalid.

In a nutshell....
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/p...
suggests that
http://www.slc.co.uk/students-and-custom...
is ultra vires which then makes
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/...
invalid.

Jules Mason left an annotation ()

Parliament would have to introduce new primary legislation, fully debated, impact assessed, and implemented in order to create the power that makes the evidence list SLC distributes legal. Note that the 2014 regulation was not assessed by the department of BIS in terms of human rights, nor equality, and did not consult. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/...

It is worth noting that both this and the previous annotation are interpretations and have not been tested in a court of law.
The ultimate decision for legality lies with the courts.

Jules Mason left an annotation ()

If anyone is interested in setting up legal action and creating a crowd-funded campaign, then a place to start would be to add an annotation below with a link to the campaign. As far as I'm aware there is no such effort for this issue at present.