Uni fees may rise up to 20K

Retrospective interest rate hike? huh? Thats just stuff made up isn't it?

Read the bottom of page 3 (section 2) of the Terms and Conditions

http://www.sfengland.slc.co.uk/media/666045/sfe_t_c_guide_1415_d.pdf

Then read this

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/13/raise-interest-rate-student-loans-secret-report

Reply 81

Quady

20

Original post by kratos90

I think the raise was more specifically so they could make huge savings from the cuts to institutions' teaching budgets because as you say the loans don't actually make the government a profit.

Didn't say it wasn't.

I wasn't commenting on the motive for doing it.

Reply 82

Quady

20

Original post by nulli tertius

Read the bottom of page 3 (section 2) of the Terms and Conditions

http://www.sfengland.slc.co.uk/media/666045/sfe_t_c_guide_1415_d.pdf

Then read this

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/13/raise-interest-rate-student-loans-secret-report

Interesting, not a clause that exists in the pre £9k fee Ts&Cs

However, I'd say changing the interest rate would be open to legal challenge.

I'd have thought that would cover them for changes to repayment methods and (rasing) the income threshold.

The cap on fee interest comes under legislation outside of that for student loans so might be tricky to change.

LOL. 20K.

Original post by Quady

Didn't say it wasn't.

I wasn't commenting on the motive for doing it.

Well actually you said: 'The loans are designed to bring in more revenue overall' but making savings through cuts and bringing in revenues are two different things.

Reply 85

tree123

8

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

As long as students can get a loan to cover the costs, which gets written off after a certain amount of time, they will continue to go - because it doesn't feel like "real money". If anything, it feels like getting paid if you have anything left over from your loan, and it still feels like an easier option than getting a job for a few years.

If you take out a loan and cant pay it back, does it get wiped out after x years?

Reply 86

Table dust

17

so long as the repayment rates don't increase in line with the actual loan - the increased fees will be covered by the government, as it's unlikely anyone will actually pay off their debt within 30 years

so this is probably an attempt by universities to reclaim funding which was retracted by the government

Reply 87

wildrover

19

I want to be a teacher and a degree is required so I would have had to bite the bullet.

Reply 88

Welsh_insomniac

14

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

As long as students can get a loan to cover the costs, which gets written off after a certain amount of time, they will continue to go - because it doesn't feel like "real money". If anything, it feels like getting paid if you have anything left over from your loan, and it still feels like an easier option than getting a job for a few years.

Youre delusional to think that these loans will remain to students. The reason the UK government, both Labour and Conservative, have been raising fees is that it will eventually lead to the privatisation of universities. They can make the argument to the electorate that the tax payer is giving out 20k to each student and will give statistics on how many pay it back (and I doubt it will be a lot).

Privatisation of UK services has been the goal of the Conservatives and Labourites for 30 years now. Why can no one see this?

Reply 89

Quady

20

Original post by kratos90

Well actually you said: 'The loans are designed to bring in more revenue overall' but making savings through cuts and bringing in revenues are two different things.

Well tag on the end 'to offset cuts in higher education expenditure from general taxation'.

They are different things, but I was talking about the purpose of loans not being to repay the capital. Adding that bit does make more sense though as it gives the context.

Reply 90

Quady

20

Original post by Welsh_insomniac

Privatisation of UK services has been the goal of the Conservatives and Labourites for 30 years now. Why can no one see this?

Because they haven't? We aren't any closer to that than 15 years ago.

Even the Royal Mail has been yet there is still no encouragement for private universities to be setup, let alone existing ones be privatised.

Reply 91

xoxAngel_Kxox

21

Original post by tree123

If you take out a loan and cant pay it back, does it get wiped out after x years?

Yes.

Original post by Welsh_insomniac

Youre delusional to think that these loans will remain to students. The reason the UK government, both Labour and Conservative, have been raising fees is that it will eventually lead to the privatisation of universities. They can make the argument to the electorate that the tax payer is giving out 20k to each student and will give statistics on how many pay it back (and I doubt it will be a lot).

Privatisation of UK services has been the goal of the Conservatives and Labourites for 30 years now. Why can no one see this?

Hang on, how am I "delusional"? I only said that as long as students CAN get a loan, they will still attend. At no point at all did I say that this would always be possible. Please read again.

Reply 92

Welsh_insomniac

14

Original post by Quady

Because they haven't? We aren't any closer to that than 15 years ago.

Even the Royal Mail has been yet there is still no encouragement for private universities to be setup, let alone existing ones be privatised.

Except the UK has 3 private universities with many more private schools being able to award degrees.

I'm not sure what youre saying about the Royal Mail, can you elaborate?

Reply 93

Welsh_insomniac

14

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

Yes.

Hang on, how am I "delusional"? I only said that as long as students CAN get a loan, they will still attend. At no point at all did I say that this would always be possible. Please read again.

Apologies for my wording. I think I responded too quickly. What I meant to say that "One would be delusional to think that funding for students would always remain".

Reply 94

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Quady

Interesting, not a clause that exists in the pre £9k fee Ts&Cs

However, I'd say changing the interest rate would be open to legal challenge.

I'd have thought that would cover them for changes to repayment methods and (rasing) the income threshold.

The cap on fee interest comes under legislation outside of that for student loans so might be tricky to change.

There is primary legislation requiring interest rates to be below market rates. The RPI+3% provisions are contained in Regulation 21A of the Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2009 as amended and can be changed by statutory instrument.

You are right there is scope for a legal challenge, but not on the basis of "its not fair".

I think the argument runs this way. The equivalent guides, certainly back to 2007/8 if not before, http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media/pdf/4/t/200708_Student_Loans__A_Guide_to_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf. contained equivalent provisions about variation, but they were more explicit about interest rates and the loans were stated to be expressly outside the Consumer Credit Act because of the low rate of interest. Moreover at that time, I think there was a separate document containing the loan terms and conditions to which students signed up.

If the loan interest could have been varied upwards using the terms of the agreement about variation, then the loan would not have been outside the Consumer Credit Act as planned. Therefore the pre 2012 provisions about variation could not have allowed an interest rate variation. The 2012 onwards terms regarding variation should be interpreted in the same way as the pre-2012 provisions about variation.

The problem with this analysis is that any privatisation of the Student Loans Company would require primary legislation. The government can simply insert the necessary provisions to achieve the result of increasing interest rates into that primary legislation. There can then be no legal challenge.

Reply 95

Quady

20

Original post by Welsh_insomniac

Except the UK has 3 private universities with many more private schools being able to award degrees.

I'm not sure what youre saying about the Royal Mail, can you elaborate?

I only knew of Buckingham - which are the others? And Buckingham has been Private since it started in '73.

Nevermind, just if even the ROYAL Mail has been privatised, how come universities have not even been mentioned as being planned for privitisation.

Reply 96

nic-nac

15

Original post by Quady

Well the repayment terms were made much easier when 9k fees came in, not sure why they would be made harder, perhaps a longer repayment term - back to retirement age like it used to be.

They would be made harder so that the money would actually get repaid. I don't think the people giving out the loans want to be losing out on several thousand pounds per student.

Reply 97

Quady

20

Original post by nulli tertius

There is primary legislation requiring interest rates to be below market rates. The RPI+3% provisions are contained in Regulation 21A of the Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2009 as amended and can be changed by statutory instrument.

You are right there is scope for a legal challenge, but not on the basis of "its not fair".

I think the argument runs this way. The equivalent guides, certainly back to 2007/8 if not before, http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media/pdf/4/t/200708_Student_Loans__A_Guide_to_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf. contained equivalent provisions about variation, but they were more explicit about interest rates and the loans were stated to be expressly outside the Consumer Credit Act because of the low rate of interest. Moreover at that time, I think there was a separate document containing the loan terms and conditions to which students signed up.

If the loan interest could have been varied upwards using the terms of the agreement about variation, then the loan would not have been outside the Consumer Credit Act as planned. Therefore the pre 2012 provisions about variation could not have allowed an interest rate variation. The 2012 onwards terms regarding variation should be interpreted in the same way as the pre-2012 provisions about variation.

The problem with this analysis is that any privatisation of the Student Loans Company would require primary legislation. The government can simply insert the necessary provisions to achieve the result of increasing interest rates into that primary legislation. There can then be no legal challenge.

You're certainly clearer on the instruments than I am, but yes, thats the argument.

Even with primary legislation, there would surely be a case for challenge, unless its something like changing the inflation measure away from RPI. That said, I've no idea the chances of success in a situation with a change in primary legislation.

Reply 98

the-black-lotus

8

I think this would probably get rid of any social diversity in universities, and we'd end up with all our professionals having either studied abroad or being bankrolled by mummy and daddy.