Transparency data

SLC Board meeting minutes 31 October 2022

Updated 3 March 2023

1. Attendees

1.1 Present

• Peter Lauener (PL) - Chair (by videoconference)

• Paula Sussex (PS) - Chief Executive Officer

• Mary Curnock Cook (MCC) - Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)

• Gary Page (GP) - Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)

• Charlotte Moar (CM)- Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)

• Rona Ruthen (RR) - Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)

• Stephen Tetlow (ST) - Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)

• Andrew Wathey (AW) – Non-Executive Director (by videoconference)

• David Wallace (DW) – Deputy Chief Executive Officer

• Audrey McColl (AMC) - CFO

• Gary Womersley (GW) - Company Secretary

1.2 Also in attendance

• Ailsa Harris (AH) - DfE (by videoconference)

• Lauren McNamara (LMC) – Scottish Government (by videoconference)

• Chris Williams (CW) - Welsh Government (by videoconference)

• Chris Larmer (CL) – Executive Director, Business Operations

• Bernice McNaught (BMC) – Executive Director, Repayments & Customer Compliance

• Derek Ross (DR) - Executive Director, Programme Director HE/LE Reform (by videoconference)

• Helen Bogan (HB) – Head of Governance and Planning (by videoconference)

• Stuart Brydson (SB) - Board Secretary (Secretariat)

• Nathan Glancy (NG) - Business Manager to the Office of the CEO (for Item 5.1 and 5.3 only) (by videoconference)

• Adam Treslove (AT) - Head of Corporate Affairs (for Item 5.1 only) (by videoconference)

• Steven Darling (DS) – Director of Customer Experience (for item 5.1 only)

• Margaret McMullen (MMC) – Director of Finance (for item 5.2 only) (by videoconference)

• Stephen Baker (SB) – Director of Policy Design and Change (for items 7.2 and 7.3 only) (by videoconference)

• Madeleine Firth (MF) – Senior Manager External Affairs (for items 7.2 and 7.3 only) (by videoconference)

• Peter Wrench (PW) – Independent Assessor (by videoconference)

• Don Campbell (DC) – Head of Data Centre of Excellence (for item 7.4 only) (by videoconference)

1.3 Apologies

• Stephen Campbell (SLC)

• Morven Spalding (SLC)

• Paul Kett (DfE)

• Anne Spinali (DfE)

• Sinead Gallagher (Welsh Government)

• Laura Irvine (NI)

2. FOI Notice

Where asterisks (*) appear, these sections have been excluded from the minutes before placing on the website as the subject under discussion falls within one or more of the exemptions contained in Part II of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and can be reasonably withheld.

3. Chairman’s Opening Remarks / Directors’ Matters / Declarations of Interest

PL welcomed everyone to the meeting, especially PW who was attending as an observer and to deliver the Independent Assessor Annual Report.

Apologies were noted from SC, MS, PK, AS, SG, and LI.

There were no declarations of interest.

PL noted the recent changes in Government, including Gillian Keegan who had been appointed as the new Secretary of State for Education, and new Education Ministers Robert Halfon and Nick Gibb, whose briefs were yet to confirmed.

PL noted that CL’s appointment as CEO and the continuity it represented was critically important at a time of change. PL also highlighted the announcement that BMC would leave SLC at the end of the year. PL commended BMC for her work on the Change Programme, and as SRO for Evolve, as well as her business as usual Repayments work.

4. Strategic items

4.1 CEO Report

AT and NG joined the meeting.

PS introduced the CEO Report, noting her key areas of focus.

*

*

*

*

*

*

4.2 PCS Potential Action

PS highlighted that PCS was currently balloting its members nationally on industrial action. SLC was comfortable that the continuity plan in place would address any actual action.

4.3 Executive Leadership Changes

PS noted that approval for actions relating to the impending changes at Executive level fell within RemCo’s remit. In the absence of the Executive Director, People, PS was currently leading the People Directorate, and additionally, CL and PS were working closely and considering options to replace BMC and to backfill Chris himself.

4.4 Operational Update

CL explained that application processing activity remained higher than at the same point last year but that resources were being deployed to ensure that queues were managed. Key priorities were to keep payments on track and to start the next academic cycle in a strong position.

MCC noted that on the Corporate Performance Dashboard, processing quality appeared to be trending down as were Operations CSAT scores. CL explained that he was always concerned by a downward trend in processing quality, but noted the reasons behind this trend as there was an element of seasonality to it. CL assured MCC that Operations was reviewing and evolving the QA process to be more aligned to risk which would then drive the numbers down.

In terms of CSAT scores, CL highlighted this this was a success story for SLC, with scores overall higher than previous years. The dip in A2P was most likely linked to customers getting used to the new systems. DW noted that at this time of year, receipt of late applicants which had a greater need for immediacy were also having an adverse effect on the scoring.

PL noted an uptick in the processing queues. CL explained that queues would trend downwards now that resource had been allocated. The peak had been flattened this year and so Operations would hit the cycle in the right place for next year.

4.5 Evolve Update

PS highlighted that the Evolve Programme had been shortlisted for the Project Delivery category in the Civil Service Awards and that the winner would be announced on 8 December.

BMC explained that Evolve work fell into three categories. The first was projects which were going to plan such as extending the Salesforce platform to post graduate customers, the second was projects impacted by shortfalls of resource, such as DSA and sponsors redesign, and the third was projects that had not yet been started. BMC noted that it was not clear if the third category could be progressed as SLC lacked capacity, and it was most likely that projects in this category would move into FY23-24.

BMC noted that while FY22-23 forecasted DfE cashable benefits had reduced from £33.1m to £26.3m in year, the HMT cashable benefits had increased, overall, from £27.1m to £53.9m. This increase was attributable to additional yield derived from Repayments initiatives such as this year’s Elsewhere Rate campaign and RPA Data Quality.

PL asked if benefits rephasing meant that recording of those benefits would be permanently lost or if they would be recorded in the next FY. BMC explained that although the benefits would continue to be counted internally, the reporting for Evolve would cease five years from the start of the programme, and so any benefits delayed outwith that timeframe would not be counted. PL suggested that it would be helpful to see cumulative benefits reported to the Board.

ACTION – CPD to show cumulative benefits realisation going forward

4.6 DSA Procurement

DW explained that the DSA procurement scoring and moderation process was now complete but that the highest scoring suppliers/partners had not yet been announced. DW and AH would attend the Investment Committee on 29 November to seek approval of the full final business case.

PL noted that the Board took assurance that the matters reported in the CEO Report were being well managed.

*

PL commended the CEO transition which PS and CL were implementing, as well as the work across SLC to flatten the peak. Finally, he recorded the Board’s congratulations to BMC and her team for their shortlisting in the Civil Service Awards and wished them well for the ceremony.

AT and NG left the meeting.

4.7 CFO Report

MMC joined the meeting.

AMC introduced the CFO Report noting some changes since the paper was written. The Government mini budget would now be a full Autumn Statement, with an expectation that savings targets would be applied. The financial planning guidance was now due in mid-November, rather than December. Additionally, DfE had confirmed that HE/FE Reform funding was not formally ring-fenced.

AMC highlighted that the current year forecast position had remained relatively stable, although there had been some movements within spend categories.

AMC explained that a working group had been reviewing the timetable process for the outline budget for FY23-24. To support strategic alignment and the effective allocation of resources, the ELT would prioritise and agree financial planning parameters for all expenditure, ahead of a detailed budget setting exercise. The budget setting exercise would be an iterative process to ensure that a robust baseline was agreed. Further details on the processes would be in the November CFO Report.

GP noted that that the Admin position for September showed a further deterioration. AMC agreed that a cautious approach was required but highlighted that there was confidence that the Admin savings targets laid out in the paper would be achieved.

GP noted that inflation may influence the extent of the exposure on the Glasgow City Centre office move.

ST welcomed the pipeline approach, outlined in the paper, for the following year. He urged transparency around budget allocation and prioritisation. PS noted that it was standard for the Executive team to have to juggle priorities and that prioritisation was a huge undertaking. Prioritisation criteria had been brought to Board before and this level of transparency would continue, with the criteria applied by the Executive being set out in the November CFO paper.

ACTION: Prioritisation criteria to be included in the November CFO paper.

CM highlighted that it would be useful to understand how the DfE timeline on the FY23-24 budget aligned with the SLC timetable. AMC noted that the DfE budget timetable had put pressure on the SLC team but that they would make financial planning a priority.

PL noted his assurance that the additional £20 million that had been secured from DfE would be spent this FY and was keen to understand the case to secure an additional £20 million in SLC’s baseline going forward. AMC noted that SLC was making the case for this

PL summarised by noting that the robust in-year management and forward thinking on the budget gave the Board assurance.

MMC left the meeting.

5. Reports from Committees

5.1 ARC Chair Report

CM introduced the ARC Chair Report noting that the Annual Report and Accounts was yet to be approved by Ministers.

CM noted that there would be a deep dive on risk management to enable Non-Executive Directors to understand how risks that are not reported to ARC are managed.

CM highlighted that Internal Audit (IA) was planning for 2023-24 and there was an opportunity for CL to consider the plan and provide a steer as to where IA could add value to SLC.

CM explained that the Committee had also reviewed items on Cyber Security, DPO and Information Security and had taken assurance that these topics were being well managed. CM also highlighted that the Annual Loan Sale Audit had no exceptions and commended the team for this.

Finally, CM noted that the ARC Independent Member (IM) had stepped down after four years with the Committee and that plans to recruit a new IM were well underway. PL noted thanks to Douglas Griffin for his time with Student Loans Company.

PL noted that it was important to manage the loan sale effectively as this gave SLC credibility and it was encouraging therefore to hear about the continuing good performance. He also noted that the Board took assurance from the ARC Chair Report.

6. Directors’ Reports

6.1 Customer Experience Biannual Update

SD joined the meeting.

DW introduced the biannual CX Update noting that this update focused on the interventions SLC had made and SLC’s reflections on those.  DW also noted that as technology change starts to be implemented in Repayments, future updates should start to show the clear benefits that CX has brought to A2P improving SLC’s Repay services.

SD then set out the three areas of focus in the paper – vulnerable customers (VC), channel shift and customer satisfaction.  SD noted that the Vulnerable Customer Charter (VCC) focused on defining vulnerable groups, determining the tools and technology for colleagues to support VC and, as a statement, set out SLC’s longer term aspirations in this important area.  SLC was building on existing good practice in areas such as DSA, migrant worker and estrangement and was strengthening relationships with the voluntary and charitable sector to keep improving. The VCC was therefore a build and consolidation and was not all new in terms of an approach.  SD noted that the VCC was aspirational and was not a fully costed programme of work.  Initial investment had been identified for customer indicators which would be enabled by CEM and would allow SLC to tailor services to VC.  SD noted he would welcome Board views on developing a shorter more consumable VCC.

On channel shift, SD confirmed that the fundamentals had not changed since the Board endorsed the channel strategy a year ago.  SLC was keen for customers to self-serve but to provided assisted service where help was required.  Live Chat option had proved popular with customers and had proven to be successful, however, secure messaging, whilst also very popular, had proven to be challenging as the channel was easily overwhelmed at peak times. It was also noted that the Chatbot needed to mature in terms of the number of queries it can answer. Due to budget and other CEM priorities, it currently only ‘offered’ responses to 4 queries.

SD noted that there would be a CSAT deep dive in November for interested Non-Executive Directors but in the meantime highlighted that of the 11 primary customer experience journeys that had been considered, ten of them had reported improved scores since May 2021.

RR, ST and MCC all welcomed the very good progress that had been made and suggested that aa roadmap would be useful, to understand if the VC vision was 1 or 5 years from full realisation. DW noted that SD was scoping the VC project with flagging embedded as an important first step. DW confirmed that a roadmap would be incorporated into the next CX update, and welcomed input on this from RR.

ACTION – Next CX Update to include a roadmap for delivery of VC provision

RR noted VC training and the interface between fraud, abusive customers and vulnerability, noting that agents need to be able to tell the difference. She also asked if SLC had reviewed the recent FCA guidance on vulnerable customers. On the matter of Chatbots, RR noted that this channel was worth the effort, if it provided a solution.

ST noted that the VCC was something to be proud of and that an abridged, user friendly version would be useful. PL noted that the Charter should come back to a future meeting to be endorsed by the Board.

ACTION: Vulnerable Customer Charter to come back to a future meeting to be endorsed by the Board.

MCC highlighted the improvement in authentication, suggesting that this had saved significant people hours and would contribute towards benefits. MCC also noted the perception of SLC as an organisation which ‘cranks the handle’ and the VCC was an opportunity to present SLC as a compassionate organisation

GP noted that in terms of vulnerable customers, flagging was key as it would help minimise the number of times that customers had to tell their story. He also reflected that the move from telephone to email-based surveying, and the consequent drop in CSAT, may actually highlight a more accurate view of satisfaction as customers had longer to consider their response.

AW noted SLC’s customer response to the cost of living crisis, outlining that this was an endemic issue. DW noted that while there was a limit to what SLC could do, it was important to signal that SLC was alive to the issue and aware of the customer impact, and was, in come cases, able to make payments earlier to ease hardship.

DW welcomed the valuable comments from the Board which he would reflect on for the purposes of future Board updates.

PL summed up by noting that the depth of discussion was a tribute to the progress made, the quality of preparation, and that the Board offered strong support for the VCC. PL also looked ahead to the Operations Forward look in early 2023, noting that this paper would no doubt move forward the progress on the channel strategy.

SD left the meeting.

6.2 Complaints and Appeals Biannual Report

SBA and MF joined the meeting.

DW introduced the Complaints and Appeals Biannual Report noting that the CX item offered a good segue into this and the subsequent item.

SBA explained that following increases to both complaints and appeals during FY2021-22, the current year had seen a small decrease in complaints volumes but a continuing increase in the number of appeals, and the trend was a challenged to the fixed resourcing model. Response times had been within the published SLAs throughout the majority of the reporting period, with average response time for appeals being reduced by 47%, and those for complaints reduced by 26%. During peak, performance had slipped from meeting SLAs as anticipated, although they were better than previous years for appeals.

SBA highlighted that the team continued to undertake regular analysis of the causes of complaints to inform Service Owners and Operational Teams with the intention of driving improvements. He also outlined that steps had been taken to improve the time taken to escalate complaints to the IAs, and that while there were some recent improvements, this may require further resources to be sustained.

SBA noted that SLC had recently joined a cross-government network of ‘trailblazer’ organisations which were testing out approaches and materials in the handling of complaints and appeals, as well as sharing best practice.

GP noted that the paper outlined time of response but that it would be useful to understand more on quality of response. DW agreed to include this in future updates.

ACTION – future Complaints and Appeals Update to cover quality of response alongside timeliness.

RR noted that it would be helpful to understand more about the causes of complaints and what could be done to fix the root causes. MCC noted that it would be useful to see the number of complaints as a proportion of customers.

MCC highlighted that more information of what constituted a complaint would be helpful, as would a sense of the numbers of issues that are resolved before they are recorded as formal complaints. CM noted that 50% of complaints are not about SLC and asked about feedback to other organisations.

DW explained that a complaint was an expression of dissatisfaction with the service a customer had received, but not necessarily service provided by SLC. An appeal was where a customer was unhappy with the outcome of an assessment and was therefore usually related to policy. Complaints often arose from inconsistent advice or, less frequently, tone used. The recorded numbers of complaints would not include all expressions of dissatisfaction as they were not routinely captured within Operations or Repayments.

PL summed up the discussion noting the good progress made and that SLC was substantially back within SLA. He noted the Board’s desire to consider quality of response in future updates.

6.3 Independent Assessors Annual Report

DW noted the good work being done here and without further comment, invited MF to introduce the Independent Assessors Annual Report (IA Report) noting that the IA Liaison Office had been moved from Legal and Compliance to the Corporate Affairs team. MF noted that a new process had been established for tracking progress against the recommendations of IA case reports, aligned to the new CX Service Owner model. MF noted that there was a good level of buy-in to this model and that the process was working well. DW echoed this, noting that SLC both takes IA recommendations seriously and seeks to act on them wherever possible.

PW introduced the IA Report noting that he had been in role for seven years and over that time, more recently he observed “less of a sense of intractability” as SLC modernised its operating model. PW drew out some of the themes of the IA Report including complex cases with repeated calls, inaccurate advice and auto-generated requests for evidence. PW welcomed that SLC had brought the Complaints and Appeals teams together as he saw this as increased SLC’s knowledge and ability to handle complaints and appeals well. He also echoed DW’s comments, reflecting that the IAs do feel their concerns are taken seriously.

PW noted the CX focus on unfair customer outcomes and the potential for this to link to policy simplification work. The worst cases, in his opinion, were when customers are wrongly given funding which was not flagged until after they have made life-changing adjustments based on the funding. PW noted that such cases were exceptional.

PW noted that the IAs do need to work with the student finance regulations as they are, but noted that discretion to deal with issues more kindly is always beneficial.

PL noted that SLC’s response to the IA recommendations were set out fully in the papers.

MCC asked if the IA Report would be published. MF confirmed that the IA Report had not traditionally been published, but SLC had considered this and determined that it would be useful to do so.

DW highlighted that SLC was keen to publish the IA Report but that as the recommendations were also for DfE, publication would require SLC and DfE responses being included. AH noted that DfE work on the basis of the IA recommendations but cautioned that greater discretion can lead to a sense of entitlement.

ACTION: SLC and DfE responses to be included with the IA Report before being published.

PL summed up the discussion noting the very thoughtful comments from PW and noting the Board’s thanks to all IAs. PL also noted the work SBA ha outlined to speed up escalation time to the IAs.

PL noted the Board’s support for the IA Report to be published and underlined that this would need to be managed with DfE.

SBA and MF left the meeting.

6.4 Data Centre of Excellence (DCoE) Update

DC joined the meeting.

BMC introduced the Data Centre of Excellence (Data CoE) Update noting the progress that had been made.

DC talked to the slides highlighting that the Data CoE had been implementing changes across the five key pillars. In addition to the planned deliveries the Data CoE had been supporting other functions across SLC, including People with the RemCo dashboard, and the CX team to develop a proof of concept model on the data and analysis of the customer contact journeys across SLC channels.

DC highlighted that as with all demands within SLC, data initiatives were subject to prioritisation and affordability.

MCC noted that, in her opinion, good quality data was foundational. She questioned whether there was good visibility of interdependencies with the Data CoE and other projects. BMC confirmed that there was and DC had a list of data issues that needed to be addressed as a priority.

ST noted that it would be beneficial to hear if the spending on Data CoE was appropriate in terms of meeting SLC’s strategic outcomes. AW noted that it would be good to crystalise medium- and long-term strategic benefits and PL asked for clarity on whether securing budget for Data CoE work would give further returns to HMT through better management of the loan book.

BMC explained that SLC was adopting a number of tactical fixes but had not tackled data issues in the way that had been hoped. The budget ask for next year had been prepared and AMC confirmed that the budget for Data CoE would be subject to prioritisation and that in flight carry over work would also have an impact. AMC confirmed that benefits would be considered as part of the evaluation process.

DC left the meeting.

7. Governance

7.1 Minutes of meeting held on 29 September

The minutes of the SLC Board meeting held on 29 September 2022 were approved as a true and accurate record.

7.2 Matters arising from previous meeting

The matters arising document was approved as accurate

7.3 Any other business

PL noted the dinner that would take place following the Strategy Day meeting and that this was also a chance to bid farewell to PS and BMC.

PL asked PW for his thoughts on the meeting today. PW reflected that all Boards managed BAU and change, which is challenging. He noted that it was good to see the level of ambition for improvement and the determination to make it happen

7.4 Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting was confirmed as being at 9:00 am on Thursday 1 December 2022 in the Glasgow Boardroom.

There being no other business the meeting ended at 1:15 pm.

.