To think 'household income' is extremely unfair when assessing student finance.

[fontofnoknowledge]

Thought this when eldest DD first went to Uni however just accepted that this was how it is. Now Dss2 who lives with us has been at Uni since September - has bought a friend Home for the long weekend and talking to him has made me realise just how terrible this system is and how it makes some kids especially from hard Home lives, struggle even more. It is a system designed to make the poor even poorer.

Dss2's friend 'Tom', lived with his mum since he was 2. Dad not in his life. Never paid maintenance doesn't even know where he lives or if he's even alive. When he was 15 his mum met a new man. For whatever reason Tom doesn't like his mums bf. Nevertheless, he moved in when Tom was 16. He says it didn't really bother him as by then he was living his own life , good social life etc, so to be fair he just doesn't really 'know' this man. Tom gets to 18 and gets a place at Uni. Applies for student finance. The application wants 'household income'. Mums boyfriend refuses. Says his finances are none of anyone's business. Sf write to him three times requesting the information. He refuses saying he doesn't even know the boy properly. Has 3 kids of his own he is paying CM for and wants nothing to do with Toms student loan.
Even if it was provided, because he is a high rate tax payer Tom would get the minimum loan.
Because his mums bf didn't supply the info. Tom gets minimum loan and a letter telling his 'parents' (!) how much they must contribute to his finance.

Mother was a TA on tax credits before meeting partner. Now she just has her income. No tc. Boyfriend is tight with money and expects mum to contribute half bills leaving her very little for the month and nothing for son at Uni. Boyfriend will not pay Tom anything. He is working two jobs in order to pay rent. His Uni work is suffering and he is thinking of chucking it in as so stressful. He has had some help from student welfare, but it's still very tough.

AIBU to think that either children are Adults at 18 and should ALL be entitled to a full loan and not have it based on the earnings of your mothers boyfriend ??
As Adults their entitlements should be judged on their own finances, no one else's. Regardless of their resident parents household income ? The loan is repaid anyway so where is the loss ?

Conversely DDs best friend has a maximum loan as her mum lives on spousal maintenance. However non resident dad is very wealthy and sends her £500a month. She doesn't need a job as very well off.

SodTheGreenfly The state don't have to pay. It's a loan system and the students pay it back along with a shit load of interest. So anyone who doesn't go to a Russell Group university is not uni material? Who are you to decide that? Sounds like a typical Tory meme to me - struggling financially at university? You probably aren't university material anyway!
I call bullshit.

If parents have to make up the difference in the loan payment it would be a lot fairer if the assessment was based on the earnings of the actual parents of the student. The current position allows one high earning separated parent to not to have to contribute anything if they choose not to and that can’t be right.

They do if the loans aren't repaid after 30 years and that's a high proportion. So actually in many cases it will be the state paying. The state pays the fees anyway on a non means tested basis. Students can also elect to stay at home to reduce living costs. If their parents can suffer their adult 18 year olds staying in their homes.

And you're right, I wasn't uni material. Didn't stop me achieving high earnings and being able to support my DC through uni though. and pay their fees My DC have been my priority even before they were born.

Bevelino- that might be better than the current system, but the fairest system would be to offer the same loan to all students. It’s not like it’s fair at the moment for children whose biological parents are still together. You can have a situation where a parent chooses not to work, or works only very part time, even though their ‘child’ is adult age, and they could then be entitled to more loan than a ‘child’ whose parents both work. Those working parents may have other children in university simultaneously. Minimum maintenance loan is around £3000. Therefore to top up to the £10000 that the govt believes is necessary, and which ‘poorer’ students get, a family with 2 adult children at university are having to find £14000 per year. Over a grand each month out of taxed income.
In what universe is that equitable?

@bevelino

If parents have to make up the difference in the loan repayment it would be a lot fairer if the assessment was based on the earnings of the actual parents of the student. The current position allows one high earning separated parent to not to have to contribute anything if they choose not to and that can’t be right.

WTF?

Why, on any planet, should the parents of adults who choose to go to university, have to be responsible for paying back that adult's student debt? As a few people here have said, some families have 2 or 3 or more children - so are they meant to have a huge chunk out of their wages taken every sodding month until they die, to cover the university debts of their 2 or 3 (or more) adult offspring? Do me a favour!

That would just create a race to the bottom with people not wanting to better themselves because much of their earnings will be taken straight off them. And what about people (with children about to go to university,) who have their own student debt?

Under the current system, if you have kids close in age, and have 2 in university at the same time, (or even 3,) it costs a shit load to try and support them. (Unless you are on a very low income, as they will get much more financial support from the state, as some posters have said.)

As has been observed by a number of posters, the students will get a lot of financial help if the parents are on a very low income.

I agree with the majority on here, that there is no way any parents should be having to fund their adult offspring through university, and no way that the parents income should make any difference to anything. Every student should get the same help, no matter what their parent earns.

Like with many things, in this country, you are only OK if you are very rich, or very poor so you get many handouts. Sad really.

My DC1 went to university in 2004. Sounds like the situation hasn't improved since then and has actually got worse.

DD and her BF both came from families of 4 children, with at least 2 in each with SEN. Me and DH both worked FT. BF's DM had chosen not to work (qualified in a profession that pays many times over what we could ever earn between us.) BF's DF had buggered off years ago.

BF got everything going. Full grant, maximum loan, as a child from a "poor" family. DD got means-tested minimum loan as the child of "wealthy" (Haha - read stayed together and gone out to work) parents.

We were assessed as able to pay her some ridiculous sum in the order of hundreds of £ per month. Had we had that sort of "spare" money we wouldn't have both had to work FT . Our bills with 3 other DC at home did not magically reduce by £££ because she was off to university. But because she was 18 and legally an adult, her CHB stopped, our tax credits for her stopped, and we had no say in what she did or where she went.

They can't have it both ways. Either you are an adult and therefore should be assessed on your own income, or you are a child and your parents should still get money for you if they are supposed to support you.

@Weaselsrising

EXACTLY. Like I said, it just creates a race to the bottom.

People will think 'what is the point in me working hard/bettering myself etc, if a huge chunk of my earnings are going to be taken away to fund my ADULT childrens university fees?!

They can't have it both ways. Either you are an adult and therefore should be assessed on your own income, or you are a child and your parents should still get money for you if they are supposed to support you.

I do 100% agree with this.

It is a fucked up system through and through........

“but the fairest system would be to offer the same loan to all”...

Momo, I entirely agree with you. However, the state is unable to fund that arrangement upfront. There might also be a public debate about the state providing full loans to students from wealthy backgrounds, whose parents are able to pay.

And don't even get me fucking STARTED on unscrupulous letting agents and landlords trying to force PARENTS of ADULT children into being a fucking GUARANTOR for the adult child's house share (with 4 or 5 other adult students who they barely know!)

That is fucking bullshit too.

@belevino How much do people have to be earning to be classed as WEALTHY?

Because to someone on £13K, someone earning £50K is 'wealthy....' But in actual fact, the person on £50K may be struggling just a much financially (for various reasons.....)

UserV I agree with you. I will shortly have 4dc’s at university at the same time and would like to see a change.

UserV I have just had to do this. My son will be living with six other boys. There is no chance of us getting our deposit back - £300 (I paid), they send in inspectors termly then bill you for cleaning. This is Bristol and it's 'no guarantor - no accommodation'. I'm worried sick.

but op how did it work before?
there were grants for poorer students? and what about the rest? it was cheaper I guess, there were just living expenses? who paid then?

There were no tuition fees so the grant was for living costs. Still unfair, even back when I was at University in early 1980s, because it was means tested by parental income. I had a few fellow student friends who were from wealthy enough families (as in, had been at fee paying schools) yet because their parents were divorced they got the full grant.

So the system wasn’t fair back then, but I think the difference now is we’re talking such higher living costs, and on a larger scale

I am the guarantor for both my sons at uni too....im not thrilled with it either but if i didnt do it they would not have got a property..
A couple of years ago the letting agent in Canterbury insisted that i guarantor my son and his housemates too along with the other parents....we were all liable should one of them default....at least this iffy practice seems to have stopped.

I and all 5 parents are guarantors for dd and her flat mates, we had no choice, other than paying upfront

Agree. The system assumes you have parents who are willing to contribute financially and this certainly wasn’t the case for me.

In fact we don't earn enough to be dd guarantor so my dm pension has to be taken into consideration

You are right. I have a dd at uni and a new partner. He pays child maintenance for his 3 kids and we receive nothing from dds dad by way of maintenance. Yet it is his income that is considered by student finance not her dad's. So he's supposed to support his dsd as well. Fucking bizarre ....

What happens to students whose parents cannot act as guarantors for rent, can they remain in halls?

I think that if they’re going to continue with the current system then they need to do something about parents that won’t contribute, so either the parents need to prove that their out goings are so high that they can’t contribute, and the student is allowed to borrow more or they take the contribution out of the parents pay, like a tax.

What they should do is lend everyone enough to cover average rent, utilities and food for their area (so someone in London would borrow more than someone in Newcastle) and then you either have to get a part time job or your parents contribute what they can afford to pay for the extras, keep the interest rate in line with inflation and stop writing off the loan after 30 years, take it out of people’s estate when they’re dead if necessary.

The system was always unfair to some though.

Back in the 1980s, dh’s parents, in spite of being high earners, refused to pay dh’s student grant. There were no student loans in those days so he had to borrow from Barclays to pay for accommodation etc.

I received a full grant, and my parents were very generous, too.

There are always winners and losers.

and is the price of accommodation linked to the reputation of the uni or is this far too cynical of me

From what I've seen uni accommodation is linked to the cost of accommodation in that area..so a student mediocre uni in London will still have to pay £180pw, where as a student at a Russel Group uni will pay the going rate wherever...DS course is at a uni in the north and their accommodation is um....basic and therefore cheap.