DH has asked me to start a thread in AIBU. He will go with the majority.

[Showy]

I am a SAHM. I have a handful of useless degrees. I am not paying back my student loan atm on account of my 'homemaker' status (SLC's term, not mine). They have all my relevant details. They know I have no income, am a 'homemaker' and they have my NI number, the fact I have two young children etc on record.

The Student Loan Company have written to tell me that DH must provide proof of the 'value of his support' in the form of 3 months of bank statements. They are very clear in their letter and on the phone that not providing his bank statements will be taken as me trying to get out of repaying my loan and they will 'take steps'.

DH wants to know if he IBU to...

Think his bank statements are none of their business.
Think his bank statements prove absolutely bog all in terms of my student loan.
Send a snippy letter accompanying his bank statements.
Object to the notion that he 'supports' me rather than being married to me in an equal partnership.

He is quite cross. I am not a bit cross and want to just send the statements (which he is right, prove nothing at all in terms of whether I have money I am hiding from them). I've told him he should not be sending snippy letters to people who are just doing their jobs. He is poised and about to lick his stamp.

So...

IHBU?

Agree with Dognado here. Do you intend to ever repay the loan?

As with the current system, whether or not it gets repaid is of almost no consequence.

If you do not earn X amount you don't repay the loan. It is a loan to an individual, not a married couple. SLC cannot change that.

Hell, even the government don't expect the majority of loans to be repaid. That's why the T+Cs are as they are.

JackShit the OP clearly stated that she made loan payments previously, when she met the conditions, has stopped now as she doesn't meet payment conditions, and will pay again when/if she meets conditions in future.

Therefore, I deduce she does intend to pay the loan and your question is moot.

Dog You are talking arguments and I am talking agreements. The agreements are legally binding while arguments are not. The agreements clearly state that repayment is based on the borrowers income only. They do not anywhere say that repayment is based on income from any third party (defined as anyone who is not the borrower).

So those of you outraged that the op hasn't gone out to work/taken the repayments from the housekeeping to pay back her loan, despite the T&Cs saying she doesn't have to do so - how much did you have to pay in university fees and did you get a grant?

And if you didn't go to university, do you expect all those who benefited from paid fees and grants to start paying them back despite there being no obligation for them to do so either?

Just curious :)

MovingOn

I left school at 16. Not a penny towards further education at any time from anyone else. I do not have a problem with anybody getting a grant. I prefer that to loans. Loans do not work in my opinion.

What troubles me is the attitude conveyed here by some to not communicate on the issue. The general 'stick two fingers up to the SLC' is wrong. It is not fair on the SLC employees, it is not fair on taxpayers who fund the loans.

Why is DH struggling with four different options? This suggests to me he doesn't know what to do - well research and bloody well find out, don't get into a hissy huff. Do the right thing.

And this was a IHBU not an AIBU.

The so-called moral arguments of whether one should voluntarily pay back student loans is neither here nor there.

The terms of the loan are the terms of the loan. And they sound e same as mine:

Borrow this money, and you will only ever have to pay it back if you earn over the threshold amount. You can defer as many times as you like, so long as you are not earning over the threshold. If you get to a certain age (iirc it was 50, but can't remember and have paid mine off (voluntarily!) so no longer have the info) then we will write off the loan. Only your earnings will be taken into account.

And that's it.

It doesn't matter whether you live in a multi-million pound house (as i did while deferring for a while) or sleep rough on a park bench.

ARoomwithaview Having dealt with the SLC now over a 12 year stretch I am tempted to just ignore them because engaging with them is futile. Their employees have been incompetent and rude on numerous occasions. They, as a company, have broken laws.

Trying to get anyone to help me has been impossible. My MP has been useless and suggested I offer to settle for 50% of the amount because I don't have proof of having paid! Heck no. I paid my way fair and square. If you can't find the proof and have a policy of not sending a letter to confirm the loan as being paid off then don't come after me. I have paid off numerous mortgages and every single time I get a letter from the bank confirming the mortgage is paid off in full.

There is no requirement for a spouse to say they are supporting you. The spousal income is irrelevant to the OPs loan. The DH is struggling with four different options to reply to the SLC because their request is illegal in the first place. I would be tempted to reply with a 'Ask an irrelevant question and you will get an irrelevant answer. This is my wife's loan and you need to speak to her regarding it, not me.'

And in regards to the moral argument, you are still treated like this if you withdraw from gainful employment, even if you ARE making payments.

As I said earlier in my post, I was issued the instruction that my husband MUST write in and confirm that he was supporting me. Despite my making voluntary payments.

Making payments is hardly the sign of someone trying to evade the debt.

And making empty threats of legal action that would be laughed out of their litigation office was a exercise in pointlessness too.

Of course I'm going to flipping well pay it back. When I meet the conditions that mean I have to.

Actually, not that it's anybody's business but DH has nearly finished paying off his and when I go back to work, I will continue my payments as I did before I had a break to bring up my family.

To get on in life I needed a degree. I had nobody to pay for that degree and there were no grants. Loans were the system in place.

I don't know why I'm defending myself here but when I did my MA and MSc, I worked two jobs and DH worked two jobs so that I didn't have to borrow any money. To get to where I did/am, I had to pay for my education using the only system available to me.

And 'affording' to stay at home is irrelevant. Whether I made the choice to go back to work or stay at home is absolutely nothing to do with whether the SLC has any rights to my DH's bank statements in regards to my student loan.

DH is not having a hissy fit over a loan. He is questioning whether his bank statements have any bearing on my student loan.

He is DNBU. It sounds as though the SLC are trying by roundabout means to attribute an "income" to you by wanting to place a value on DH's support (which is clearly complete nonsense). I am very cross on your behalf and if I were you I would be inclined to make a complaint as they have clearly overstepped the mark especially with their threats to 'take steps'

SLC are currently deducting twice what they should be via PAYE for DH's loans, so based on that they are idiots & your DH is certainly NBU.

I'm not touchy Moving, I responded in the same tone you spoke to me? Also, not 'outraged', just disagree with the majority.

Dognado
The contract that the OP signed is quite clear.
She is within its terms.
SLC are stepping outside them.
It really is that simple.

hides thread due to boring row

This is really awful. I had no idea this happened. Your husband is being asked to confirm that he is supporting you? Is his word better than yours? Jesus.

Also, I like the sound of his letter.

But people in this country can't live on fresh air. So they are receiving money from somebody. Morally speaking I think people who owe the money should pay it back. They can choose not to if they like. But don't be up in arms about hassle from a loans company. You took the money, you owe the money. You pay the money back. I think that's what the loan company is saying. And I agree. It's family money. It's a household income. I have seen that on those threads lots of times. So therefore a loan should be repaid from the household income and family money. Or it's double standards. IMHO.

Talkin, I made it clear that I'm aware of the loan terms but was speaking my feelings on the matter. Be careful as Moving might tell you to RTFT.

Honestly though, loan companies and collection companies are well known for behaving badly. Rightly or wrongly it's kind of par for the course.

Dh would happily make my student loan payments if we could have a "family" or "household" tax allowance.

Vivienne, morally speaking, I am doing the right thing. Do you think everybody who used the loans system to access education once grants were abolished should pay them back immediately regardless of personal circumstances? This isn't a loan in the traditional sense. It isn't counted as debt, it isn't part of a credit rating. It is the scheme by which you accessed higher education when I was finishing college. I am well within its terms.

DH is repaying his loan using his wages. I have repaid some of and will repay the rest using my wages. As you should do when you have a student loan.

It's irrelevant really when the question is whether dh's bank statements have any relevance to my loan. They don't want his money, they want him to prove what I have already told them and evidenced through my relationship with the inland revenue.

lol at Dognado.

Love, you asked a question about how was it sexist. I told you to RTFT because it had been adequately covered previously and you had asked that specific question.

I was perfectly aware of the other piffle you were spouting and anyone else posting their opinion will not be told to RTFT unless they also ask a specific question that has been specifically covered up thread. Assuming I can be arsed :)

vivienne
Do you think parents should have to pay off their children's loans?

Dognado
Feeling have no place in contract law.

You don't need to justify yourself Showy.

If people don't like the Student Loans system I'm sure they are very welcome to write to their MP about making changes to the current system. Unfortunately for them they could not legally be applied retrospectively without incurring significant costs when those of us with outstanding loans sued them for breach of contract.

I had to look into this recently and their own FAQs say that if you aren't working and being supported by someone else: "Please provide us with a signed letter from that person confirming they are supporting you financially. They do not need to specify any amounts, only that they are providing you with financial support.".

www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk/portal/page?_pageid=93,6678571&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL#section7

Talkin, really? OMG and I thought all contracts had random feeling clauses in. This is a discussion, not due diligence.

Movin, I asked why it was sexist as I thought all the explanations before were, erm, piffle.