Corporate report

Independent Assessors’ Annual Report 2023-24

Published 15 November 2024

1. 1. Introduction

The Independent Assessors (IAs) are appointed by the UK and Welsh Governments to consider appeals and complaints by customers who are not satisfied with the responses they have received from the Student Loans Company Limited (SLC).  This is our annual report for the financial year 2023-24 and covers cases on which we have reported in the twelve months to 31 March 2024.  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 SLC cases and concludes with some recommendations.

2. 2. Background

There are presently nine IAs, as there were at the start of the year.  Our appointments are statutory and are made under section 23(6) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998.  Student finance customers are able to escalate to an IA if they remain dissatisfied after a single stage complaint or appeal process within the SLC.  Customers with mortgage style loans (MSL), which have now been transferred to the private sector, have to seek redress through the debt owner to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

Responsibility for the SLC and for our appointments lies with the Department for Education (DfE) within the UK Government and the Welsh Government. Our recommendations are binding on the SLC unless it is otherwise directed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education and/or relevant Welsh Minister.

As far as Welsh cases are concerned the Welsh Government will decide at what level whether those recommendations should be implemented, with complex cases being passed to the relevant Welsh Minister for a decision.

Each report is the responsibility of an individual IA, but we operate a system of peer review to provide comments on emerging findings and encourage a broad consistency of approach.  If the relevant Departmental official disagrees with our recommendations to the SLC, they advise Ministers accordingly.  In England, the Director General for Skills Group (who has delegated authority) makes the decision whether to accept a recommendation from an IA.  Complex cases are passed up for Ministerial approval.   As far as Welsh cases are concerned the Higher Education Division will decide at what level whether those recommendations should be implemented, with complex cases being passed to the Minister for Education and Welsh Language for a decision.

We routinely explain the provisional status of our recommendations in our reports.  During 2023-24 recommendations by IAs were rejected in this way by the DfE on    three occasions.  No Welsh recommendations were rejected. 

In our reports we may make recommendations to address the specific circumstances of the case and may highlight more general issues arising from our analysis.  We meet regularly with departmental staff at the SLC, DfE and DESJWL to review the complaints and appeals caseload and how our reports have been managed.  We are briefed on relevant administrative developments, policy proposals and legislative updates. Our remit does not extend to the policy behind the regulations.  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.

We have continued to receive excellent support throughout the year from the SLC’s Senior IA Liaison Officer, her team and SLC colleagues.  We wish to express our thanks for their input and help. 

3. 3. Caseload

The SLC has separate channels for handling appeals and complaints involving different teams of staff although these teams are being increasingly integrated. An appeal is a formal request for a review of a decision in relation to entitlement and/or eligibility to student finance support or regarding the level of funding awarded. It will usually involve a contention that the student support regulations have not been applied correctly.  A complaint is any expression of dissatisfaction with the service the SLC has provided.  On occasion we review matters that consist of both a complaint and appeal relating to the same matter.

The time taken for appeals and complaints to be escalated to IAs and resolved by us has varied over time with the number of IAs in post and the SLC’s capacity to collate cases for us.  As at the end of March 2023 there were 17 appeals and 45 complaints awaiting allocation to an IA, with a waiting time of two months and four months, respectively. One year later, at the end of March 2024, the figures were 40 appeals and 47 complaints awaiting allocation to an IA, with a waiting time of three months and four months, respectively.  There is an increase in the backlog of cases awaiting allocation and in terms of appeals the time to compile a case before sending to an IA for review has increased. 

We are eager for the SLC to reduce the waiting time for escalation to no longer than eight weeks from request for escalation to the case reaching an IA.  As each IA aims to complete their report within four weeks of receipt of instructions, this would take the overall time across both complaints and appeals to no more than three months. 

We noted in our report last year that the SLC had confirmed its intention to reduce the time for escalation and had agreed internally to put in place dedicated resource for case compilation as this work is primarily done by Complaints and Appeals officers alongside their substantive roles.   As IAs we are conscious that the number of appeals lodged during 2023-24 has increased compared to the previous year.  In light of this it is even more important that the SLC continues to explore opportunities to reduce the time taken to escalate a case.  We continue to stress that not escalating complaints or appeals in accordance with process and within target timescales impacts the customer’s experience and results in disappointment and dissatisfaction. 

4. 4. Appeals

During the year we reviewed 122 appeals.  A comparison with the preceding four years may be seen in the table below in relation to Student Finance England (SFE) and Student Finance Wales (SFW):

Year	SLC Decision Upheld	Appeal upheld	Total
	SFE	SFW	SFE	SFW
2023-24	101	5	16	0	122*
2022-23	72	4	8	0	84
2021-22	55		5		60
2020-21	58		2		60
2019-20	86		19		105

*It is worth noting one of the SFE appeals was reviewed as part of a complaint case.

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

Subject matter	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24
	SFE	SFW	SFE	SFW	SFE	SFW	SFE	SFW	SFE	SFW
Unfitted (Fraud)	40		6		9		13		16	1
Previous study/ ELQ	11		7		11		11	1	21	1
Residency	30		26		28		29	1	48	1
Overpayment/Repayment	5		4		1		4	1	3
Funding entitlement	8		4		3		4	1	13
Migrant Worker	4		4		2		4		2
Postgraduate loan	3		1		2		1		8	2
Other	4		8		4		14		7
Total	105		60		60		80	4	118	5

In considering an appeal IAs will sometimes also address service issues which have arisen in the handling of a case.  During 2023-24 recommendations of an ex-gratia payment were made in 20 cases, (18 SFE and 2 SFW). The total amount recommended for payment in these cases was £3860.00 (SFE - £3735.00 and SFW £125.00).

5. 5. Complaints

This year we reported on 189 complaints. The table below shows the comparative numbers of complaints reported on each year:

Year	SFE	SFW	Total
2023-24	177	12*	189
2022-23	171	14	185
2021-22	148		148
2020-21	124		124
2019-20	142		142

*It is worth noting one of the SFW complaints was reviewed as part of an appeal case.

Many complaints contain a range of issues.  A report in such cases will therefore review a number of issues and may contain findings adverse to the SLC on only some of them. 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 the SLC when the complaint is first registered:

Subject matter	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24
	SFE	SFW	SFE	SFW	SFE	SFW	SFE	SFW	SFE	SFW
Processing	58		35		83		78	7	89	7
Grant overpayment	N/A		2		3		1		0
Advice given	38		29		20		33	4	33	2
ICR	22		20		16		23	1	23	1
Other	24		38		26		36	2	32	2
Total	142		124		148		171	14	177*	12*

It is worth noting that 12 of the complaints (11 SFE and 1 SFW) were reviewed as part of an appeal case.

In 2023-24 recommendations were made in 122 cases (SFE 116 and SFW 6) for the offer of an ex-gratia payment. The total amount recommended for payment in these cases was £28,782.72 (SFE £27,682.72 and SFW £1100.00). However, we are aware that there is an additional recommendation (and addendum report) for £15,604.27 which is being considered.  Therefore it is not included in the quoted figures. 

As IAs we are conscious that we see an unrepresentative sample of some of the most difficult 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 which in general show the SLC are committed to continually delivering for its customers and to improve the customer’s journey. Given that this is at the heart of the SLC’s vision and strategic goals it should be the case that the SLC treat its customers fairly and impartially and staff interact with customers with professionalism.

As noted, the SLC are moving in the right direction, and the dedication of many staff to help remains unquestioned.  However our review of cases have identified several themes which we would like to highlight:

5.1 Allocation of additional resource in known peak periods

There is an ongoing need for the SLC to get to the heart of the complaint and/or appeal and to respond to matters quickly and efficiently.  The SLC’s appeal and complaint responses frequently contain an apology for a delay in responding ascribing the delay to it being their ‘peak period’. It is imperative that there are no inconsistencies in the priority or quality of services.  We recognise that the SLC as a whole will inevitably be under more pressure at certain times of the year. Given that the SLC’s peak period is not unknown to them we would hope that additional experienced staff could be allocated to their appeal and complaint function at peak times to reduce the waiting times and maintain service standards for customers.

5.2 Delays in escalation to an IA

In response to our comments in our 2021-22 annual report the SLC told us they were eager to reduce the wait time for escalation of cases to an IA. They expected their actions during 2021-22 to bring together the complaint and appeal functions would positively impact wait times.  They anticipated that their work to combine the teams would be completed by the end of March 2023.

In our 2022-23 annual report we noted that the benefits of the organisational review and any other approaches to reducing case escalation had not yet been fully realised. We said we would wish to see the SLC continue with its aim for a waiting time no longer than eight weeks from request for escalation to the case reaching an IA.  As each IA aims to complete their report within four weeks of receipt of instruction this would take the overall time across both complaints and appeals to no more than three months.

Unfortunately there does not appear to have been any improvement in the wait times for escalation to an IA.  A comparison of the wait times since March 2021 may be seen in the table below:

Year	Appeals	Complaints
As at 31/3/2021	6 weeks	3 months
As at 31/3/2022	4 months	3 months
As at 31/3/2023	2 months	4 months
As at 31/3/2024	3 months	4 months

Thus, it can be seen this year there has been a deterioration in the wait time for escalation to an IA for both appeals and complaints. We bear in mind that this year has seen an increase in the number of both appeals and complaints (2022-2023:  84 appeals and 185 complaints compared to 2023-2024: 122 appeals and 189 complaints). However, it is disappointing that despite the SLC’s efforts the wait time has in fact increased.

We have noted an inconsistency in how long customers are told the matter will take to reach an IA, some are told up to two months and others up to three months. In our view whatever length of time a customer is told the estimate should be realistic and consistent. If a customer is told up to three months and that transpires not to be achievable we would like to see updates being provided to customers so they are kept informed and their expectations managed.

5.3 The use of standard letters

In our 2022-23 annual report we noted that the use of standard letters remained an issue.  For example, standard letters frequently request evidence but when the customer forwards insufficient evidence the SLC often simply send the same letter again to the customer asking for the same evidence without explaining why the evidence the customer produced was insufficient. This can cause customers confusion and lead to delay.  We appreciate standard letters are necessary and are, in most circumstances appropriate, but this is not always the case.  We have noted that the use of standard letters sometimes causes the customer to feel that communication is ineffective and the SLC have not dealt with them as an individual. Accordingly, when the SLC request evidence, insofar as possible it should be tailored so that the customer feels they understand what is required of them.  This in turn avoids any wider implications such as delay. 

5.4 Inaccurate advice in relation to funding for second courses

We note that there is still an issue with inaccurate advice given on the telephone particularly in relation to second degrees and “exception courses”. Inaccurate advice may result in customers making financial commitments they are unable to meet.  It is critical that all information available to call handlers is accurate to ensure a consistent approach to any advice given.  It is also key to the customer feeling that the call handler has the required skill and/or knowledge to understand and provide advice on a particular matter. 

6. 6. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (PSOW), Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) and Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO)

PHSO, PSOW, SPSO and NIPSO provide an opportunity for customers who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the SLC’s internal complaints or appeals process to seek a review via the Ombudsman scheme.  The PHSO require that the referral is made via the customer’s Member of Parliament.  It is worth noting, contrary to some customers’ expectations, that the FOS does not have jurisdiction in relation to the SLC’s caseload, save with respect to a narrow area of complaints between 01/4/2007 and 30/3/2015 in relation to MSLs.

At the start of the financial year there were ten PHSO cases that remained open. Of these, three progressed to investigation and the outcome is awaited on seven cases. Of the three that progressed to investigation, one was upheld in full, one was upheld in part and one complaint is still being considered.

During the year the PHSO requested information from the SLC in 23 cases, of which seven were closed without investigation, one is being investigated, and the SLC awaits the outcome of the remaining 15.

The PSOW requested information from the SLC in eight cases in 2023-24, none of which proceeded to an investigation.  However, in one case the PSOW recommended a resolution prior to investigation which was accepted.

The SPSO has requested information from the SLC in one case during the year, and the outcome on whether this will be investigated is awaited. 

7. 7. Recommendations

Based on our experience this year, our recommendations are as follows:

• We recommend that the SLC discuss with the DfE the resourcing of the complaint and appeal function, recognising the particular issue of maintaining quality services during peak period and that delays will inevitably lead to dissatisfied customers and further complaints.

• We recommend that renewed effort is made to achieve and maintain a waiting of no more than eight weeks from request for escalation to the case reaching an IA.

• We would like to see the SLC explore whether staff are able to add relevant information or delete irrelevant information from standard letters to tailor the communication to meet the needs of the customer.

• There should be a continuing focus to ensure information which is available to call handlers is monitored for accuracy to allow them to provide better quality advice to customers.

• As part of their commitment to improve customer service experience  we would like the SLC to consider whether further training for front line staff is needed in relation to second degrees and exception courses.

Susan Bradford                 Abdul Elghedafi                 Akbar Khan                      

Michaela Jones                 Naseem Malik                  Joanne Smith

Victoria Smith                    Jonathan Willis                  Peter Wrench

Independent Assessors

May 2024