Corporate report

Independent Assessors’ Annual Report for SLC 2019 to 2020

Published 21 October 2021

1. Introduction

There are currently nine Independent Assessors (IAs) appointed by the UK and Welsh Governments to consider appeals and complaints by student finance customers. This is our annual report to those Governments for the financial year 2019-20 and covers cases on which we have reported in the twelve months to 31 March 2020. It sets out the background to our work and the role we play, describes our caseload during the year, and draws out some themes from it. The report then refers to the role of ombudsmen in considering Student Loans Company (SLC) cases and concludes with some recommendations.

2. Background

Since our last report two IA appointments came to an end as they had served the maximum period allowed under our terms of appointment. Of the five additional appointments in August 2018 there has been one resignation. So as at the 31 March 2020 there were 9 IAs in total.

Our appointments are statutory and are made under s23(6) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. Complaints about the older mortgage style loans, which have now been transferred to the private sector, may be referred to us if they do not fall within the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service. Student finance customers have access to an IA if they remain dissatisfied after two formal stages of appeal or complaint within the SLC.

Our recommendations are binding on the SLC unless it is directed otherwise in the name of a Secretary of State or Welsh Minister. Responsibility for the SLC and for our appointments within the UK Government lays with the Department for Education (DfE) and Welsh Ministers.

Each report is the responsibility of an individual IA but we operate a routine system of peer review to provide comments on emerging findings and encourage a broad consistency of approach.

In the event that officials disagree with our recommendations to the SLC, they advise Ministers accordingly. In the vast majority of cases the Director General Higher Education and Further Education (who has delegated authority) decides whether or not those recommendations should be implemented. Complex cases are passed up for Ministerial approval. In so far as Welsh cases are concerned these are passed to a Welsh Minister for a decision.

We routinely explain the provisional status of our recommendations to every appellant and complainant. In 2019-20 recommendations by IAs were rejected in this way by the DfE on 8 occasions and none were overturned by the Welsh Ministers.

In our reports we make recommendations to address the specific circumstances of the case and also with respect to any more general issues arising from our analysis. We meet regularly with SLC and departmental staff to review the complaints and appeals caseload and how our reports have been handled, and are briefed on relevant administrative developments and policy proposals. Our remit does not extend to the policy behind the regulations and in deciding appeals we are bound to accept the provisions of the regulations as they stand. However, our reports may sometimes lead to reconsideration of the wording of the regulations or accompanying guidance, if, for example, a particular case highlights some ambiguity.

Once again, we have continued to receive excellent support throughout the year from the SLC Independent Assessors Liaison Officer. We wish to express our thanks for her consistent invaluable input and help, and likewise from her SLC colleagues.

3. Caseload

The SLC has separate channels for handling appeals and complaints. An appeal is a formal request for a review of a decision, as to entitlement to support or regarding the level of funding awarded. It will usually involve a contention that the regulations have not been applied correctly. A complaint is any expression of dissatisfaction with the service which the organisation has provided.

Historically the time taken for appeals and complaints to be escalated and resolved was rather longer than desired. That delay fell significantly in the last year to an almost acceptable and manageable level, although the Covid-19 Pandemic has resulted in some unavoidable deterioration to that time delay. We would wish to see the SLC continue with their aim in a delay of no longer than 8 weeks from a request for escalation to the case reaching an IA. Taking into account that each IA aims to complete their report within 4 weeks of receipt of instructions, this would take the overall time to no more than 3 months.

4. Appeals

During the year we have reviewed 105 appeals. A comparison with the preceding four years may be seen in the table below:

Year	SLC Decision Upheld	Appeal Upheld	Total
2019/20	86	19	105
2018/19	52	25	77
2017/18	81	28	110 (1 withdrawn)
2016/17	89	19	108
2015/16	47	15	62

The table below sets out the broad categories of appeal with comparable figures for previous years:

Subject matter	15/16	16/17	17/18	18/19	19/20
Unfitted (Fraud)	15	39	43	32	40
Previous study/ ELQ	10	14	9	5	11
Residency	17	26	24	14	30
Overpayment/Repayment	1	1	1	1	5
Funding entitlement	7	7	9	6	8
Migrant Worker	2	6	5	6	4
Postgraduate loan	n/a	6	9	4	3
Other	10	9	10	9	4
Total	62	108	110	77	105

In so far as Welsh Appeal cases were concerned there was 1 case in the Residency category which was not upheld.

In considering an appeal IAs will sometimes also address service issues which have arisen in the handling of a case. During 2019-20 recommendations were made in six cases for the offer of an ex gratia payment. The total amount recommended for payment in these cases was £900.

There are a number of issues which have arisen in appeals which we have considered this year which we would like to highlight:

a) The Child Care Grant (CCG). The SLC have introduced a new process for the award and assessment of the CCG. Historically CCG was paid to a student based on their estimates of likely childcare costs, adjusted periodically when confirmation of those costs was submitted and confirmed by the childcare provider (CCP). From the 2019-20 academic year payment of a CCP’s invoice is made directly to the CCP once the student has approved the invoice. We are hopeful that the introduction of this new system will see a reduction, if not an elimination, of the significant number of appeals and complaints in relation to CCG we have seen concerning findings of students being unfit for support by virtue of fraud.

b) Evidence Disclosure – this is an issue which has arisen previously. We have said before that a failure to disclose evidence upon which reliance is placed to make a decision, is likely to breach the basic principles of natural justice since the student will not have had the opportunity to make an informed response. We have seen examples of students specifically requesting that information and it taking some time before it is then provided to the student.

5. Complaints

This year we have reported on 142 complaints, including 11 from Wales. The table below shows the comparative numbers of complaints reported on each year:

2019/20	142
2018/19	168
2017/18	191
2016/17	174
2015/16	172

Many complaints have a range of issues within them. A report in such cases will therefore review a number of issues and may contain findings adverse to the SLC on only some of the issues raised. For this reason it is difficult to describe complaints as being upheld, either in full or in part. The table below shows the complaints by categories used by SLC when the complaint is first registered:

Subject matter	15/16	16/17	17/18	18/19	19/20
Processing	97	74	100	80	58
Grant overpayment	3	5	5	1	n/a
Advice given	37	23	29	34	38
ICR	18	47	36	25	22
Other	17	25	21	28	24
Total	172	174	191	168	142

Within the 2019/20 figures the 11 Welsh cases fell into the following categories: ‘Processing’ – 7, ‘ICR’ – 1, ‘advice given’ – 2, ‘other’ – 1.

In 2019-20 recommendations were made in 108 cases for the offer of an ex gratia payment. The total amount recommended for payment in these cases was £27,000.

As IAs we are conscious that we see an unrepresentative sample of some of the worst cases. Many millions of customers will have received a satisfactory service from the SLC. This obviously limits our ability to draw any general conclusions about customer experience. Having said that, we acknowledge that even within the range of cases which we see, there are often encouraging examples of good practice – from extremely patient call handlers attempting to help sometimes very difficult customers, to clear and open explanations from customer relations officers seeking to find a satisfactory remedy.

We note that for 2019/20 the vast majority of the very small proportion of customers who were moved to make a complaint were satisfied with the response they received at the first stage of the SLC’s internal system. We also note that the majority of those complaints which were escalated to the second stage also settled at that stage.

A number of the issues from complaints to which we want to refer this year have been raised in earlier annual reports, although we have identified others:

a) communication – This is an issue which is improving, but where concerns still remain. We now all live in an electronic communication age, yet we have seen examples of students being told they cannot communicate by email in certain situations. The goal should be ease of communication which must include an email facility in our view. We would once again encourage the SLC to focus on this issue, but do recognise that they are constantly looking at system improvements.

We have also considered that in keeping with other industries and professions, more use might be made of communication by way of YouTube, or the like, in the provision of tutorials or explanations as to certain processes which students might find more difficult than others – for example on how to interpret an annual statement, or perhaps how the overpayment recovery process works.

Finally, under this category, we would urge the SLC to consider adopting such platforms as Skype (or similar) which we feel might be of use in allowing better explanations of documentation on online information/applications to some students who might struggle with the same.

b) inaccurate telephone advice – we commented on this issue last year, and indeed in previous years. We do so again because we see this as a critical area for concern. This is an issue which is particularly acute for those students embarking on a career change and giving up paid employment in order to study. Whilst we recognise that recorded warnings are issued before callers are put through, making clear that it is only when a formal application is made, and assessed, that applicants can know for sure what they will receive, we consider this is not enough.

Although customers are encouraged to ring the SLC if they have issues or queries, it is often impossible to obtain definitive answers from the helplines. We see examples of call handlers trying very hard to be helpful but simply being out of their depth leading to them giving wrong advice.

Sadly, in far too many cases, we have seen customers relying on the telephone advice which, when it ultimately comes to light has been wrong, can lead to catastrophic consequences for the student. We have seen examples of students having left employment and moved home with their family, only to learn that they have no funding for their course.

Whilst we recognize the logistical task which might present itself, we do feel that some consideration ought to be given to the provision of a written communication (that telephone advice cannot be relied on and that the student should wait until a written confirmation is provided) being sent to each customer who has made a specific funding enquiry.

c) delayed escalation of complaints – we have previously commented on this issue, and have noted once more that there has, on a few occasions, been a request by the SLC to ask the customer to clarify the nature or extent of their complaint before it is escalated to stage 2 or 3. On these few occasions it is very obvious to us what the customer complained about or why he/she was unhappy with the response thus far, and a closer examination of the case file would have revealed that, and prevented further expressions of frustration and annoyance by the customer.

We have also noted that there remains a practice to sometimes issue a further response at stage 1 or 2, despite a request for escalation having been made. Whilst we understand that SLC are trying to be helpful in clarifying perhaps their earlier response, we consider this adds little, certainly in the cases we have seen, to resolving the issues, rather it is seen as the placement of another hurdle or delay in what can be a lengthy process.

d) discretion - the issue of whether the SLC do or do not have discretion in certain circumstances continues to raise its head. For example the SLC will sometimes tell customers that there is no discretion to put overpayments into Income Contingent Recovery, when in fact there is. We have previously recommended that where there is scope in the regulations for discretion, this should be made clear - even if the ability to exercise the discretion has not been delegated to the SLC by the Secretary of State or Welsh Government.

6. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (PSOW)

The PHSO provides an opportunity for customers who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the three stages of the complaints or appeals process to seek a review through referral by their MP. It is worth noting that, contrary to some customers’ expectations, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) does not have jurisdiction in relation to the SLC’s caseload save with respect to a narrow area of complaints between 1/4/2007 and 30/3/2015 in relation to Mortgage Style loans.

The PHSO has requested information from SLC in 13 cases in 2019/20, confirming full investigation of 7 cases. During the same period they have also reported, after investigation, on 3 cases, some of which began earlier. In these reports the complaints were not upheld in 2 cases, and upheld in 1. Where a complaint was upheld in full or in part the PHSO required SLC to take further steps in the form of providing additional explanation or offering a higher ex gratia or consolatory award than the IA had recommended. We have routinely been kept informed of the reports of the PHSO by the SLC in the past year.

The PSOW has requested information from the SLC in 5 cases in 2019-20. Of these, 4 have not progressed following information provided by SLC and 1 case is being investigated. A final report on 1 upheld case, which was raised in 2018-19, was issued in 2019-20.

7. Recommendations

On the basis of our experience this year, our recommendations are as follows:

a) further consideration be given to improving electronic communication for appellants and complainants

b) that any evidence upon which a decision is based is disclosed to an appellant/complainant routinely

c) further consideration should be given to a speedy escalation to the next stage of the process, rather than delaying by the provision of further explanation

d) consideration should be given to a strengthening of the warning that no telephone advice should be relied upon and that funding can only be taken as certain when written confirmation is received.