Corporate report

Independent Assessors’ Annual Report 2022/23

Published 24 January 2024

1. Introduction

The Independent Assessors (IAs) are appointed by the UK and Welsh Governments to consider appeals and complaints from customers who are not satisfied with the responses they have received from the Student Loans Company Limited (SLC). This is our annual report to those Governments for the financial year 2022-23 and covers cases which we have reported on in the twelve months to 31 March 2023. 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 concludes with some recommendations.

2. Background

There are presently 9 IAs as there were at the start of the year. Our appointments are statutory and made under s23(6) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. During 2022-23 student finance customers had access to an IA if they remained dissatisfied after a single-stage complaint process within the SLC. From April 2023 appeals have also moved to a single-stage process. 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 our appointments lies with the Department for Education (DfE) within the UK Government and the Department for Education, Social Justice and Welsh Language within the Welsh Government (DESJWL). Our recommendations are binding on the SLC unless it is directed otherwise in the name of a Secretary of State or the Minister for Education and Welsh Language.

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 officials disagree with our recommendations to the SLC, they advise Ministers accordingly. In England, in most cases the Director General of Skills Group (who has delegated authority) decides whether those recommendations should be implemented. Complex cases are passed up for Ministerial approval. As far as Welsh cases are concerned the Higher Education Division will decide whether those recommendations should be implemented, with complex cases passed to the Minister for Education and Welsh Language for a decision.

We routinely explain the provisional status of our recommendations in our reports. In 2022-23 recommendations by IAs were rejected in this way by the DfE on four occasions. No Welsh recommendations were rejected.

In our reports we make recommendations to address the specific circumstances of the case and with respect to any 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 and policy proposals. 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. Caseload

The SLC has separate channels for handling appeals and complaints. An appeal is a formal request for a review of a decision, for example, as to entitlement to support or regarding the level of funding awarded. It will usually involve a contention that the 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 2022 there were 14 appeals and 42 complaints awaiting allocation to an IA, with a waiting time of 4 months and 3 months, respectively. One year later, at the end of March 2023, the figures were 17 appeals and 45 complaints awaiting allocation to an IA, with a waiting time of 2 months and 4 months, respectively. Appeal times have improved, but complaints have deteriorated, and there is a bigger backlog of cases awaiting allocation. There is not a lack of capacity amongst IAs and we understand the waiting times are due to difficulties with the resourcing for collation of cases by the SLC.

In October 2022, in response to our 2021-22 annual report, the SLC told us they were eager to reduce the time for escalation and they anticipated one of the benefits of having brought the complaints and appeals functions together (during 2021-22) was that resources could flex across the two teams for case collation. The SLC say they have agreed in principle to put in place a dedicated resource for case compilation as the work is primarily done by complaints and appeals officers alongside their substantive roles. The resource would be allocated following a larger organisational design review of existing resources across the two (at that time) newly merged teams. The SLC anticipated this would be completed by the end of March 2023. The SLC were also looking at other opportunities to reduce the time taken to escalate cases.

The benefit of the organisational review and other approaches to reducing case escalation has not yet been fully realised, but we hope waiting times for complaints can now be reduced – and would wish to see the SLC continue with its aim for a waiting time of no longer than 8 weeks from request for escalation to the case reaching an IA. As each IA aims to complete their report within 4 weeks of receipt of instructions, this would take the overall time across both complaints and appeals to no more than 3 months.

The one stage process that now exists for complaints was implemented for appeals on 1 April 2023. We anticipate being able to assess its impact on our work and provide comment in our next annual report.

4. Appeals

During the year we reviewed 84 appeals. A comparison with the preceding 4 years may be seen in the table below:

Year	SLC Decision Upheld	Appeal Upheld	Total
2022/23	76	8	84
2021/22	55	5	60
2020/21	60	2	62
2019/20	86	19	105
2018/19	52	25	77

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

Subject matter	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	22/23
Unfitted (Fraud)	32	40	6	9	13
Previous study/ ELQ	5	11	7	11	12
Residency	14	30	26	28	30
Overpayment/Repayment	1	5	4	1	5
Funding entitlement	6	8	4	3	5
Migrant Worker	6	4	4	2	4
Postgraduate loan	4	3	1	2	1
Other	9	4	8	4	14
Total	77	105	60	60	84

As far as Welsh appeal cases were concerned, of the 84 cases reviewed, 4 were from Student Finance Wales (SFW) - none of which were upheld.

Subject matter	22/23
Previous study/ ELQ	1
Residency	1
Overpayment/Repayment	1
Funding entitlement	1
Total	4

In considering an appeal IAs will sometimes also address service issues which have arisen in the handling of a case. During 2022-23 recommendations were made for DfE in 20 cases for the offer of an ex-gratia payment. The total amount recommended for payment in these cases was £4,275. No recommendation for the offer of an ex-gratia payment was made in Welsh cases.

Several themes have arisen in appeals which we have considered this year and would like to highlight:

• a) ‘Exceptional circumstances’ discretion under Regulation 19 (DfE only)

This was raised in both 2020-21 and 2021-22. These are cases where a customer is ineligible for funding for a course because of the impact of previous study or qualifications already obtained. If they were wrongly told in writing that they were eligible for funding, despite having described their history accurately in their application, there is provision to leave the wrongly awarded funding in place for one or more years of a new course. Previously the SLC had delegated authority to honour funding awards for the year in which the error was realised and for any earlier years of a course. The Secretary of State retained the discretion to award future funding for later years of the course if there were ‘exceptional circumstances.’ DfE have agreed that the discretionary function is to be delegated to the SLC. We welcome this and look forward to seeing how this works in practice.

• c) Transparency (DfE only)

We have emphasised before the importance of transparency if the DfE and the SLC are operating any policy that effectively constrains the exercise of powers which are available on the face of the regulations. During the last year DfE has overridden an IA recommendation on the basis that “it is not in line with the policy intent or the practice hitherto”, without any further explanation. We are not aware of any published policy which would make customers or IAs aware of “the policy intent or practice hitherto” in this area and do not consider this a satisfactory way of overruling a reasoned IA recommendation.

Another case which raised transparency issues was when the DfE instructed the SLC not to implement an IA recommendation that a customer had satisfied the residency requirements of the regulations and was eligible for support. They gave no answer to the IA’s reasoning but said simply that the SLC had been right to find that the residency requirements had not been met. Such an approach is discourteous, not only to IAs but also, more importantly, to customers. It is a basic principle of public administration that adequate reasons should be given for decisions.

5. Complaints

This year we reported on 185 complaints, including 14 from Wales. The table below shows the comparative numbers of complaints reported on each year:

2022-23	185
2021-22	148
2020-21	124
2019-20	142
2018-19	168

Many complaints have a range of issues within them. 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	18-19	19-20	20-21	21-22	22-23
Processing	80	58	35	83	85
Grant overpayment	1	N/A	2	3	1
Advice given	34	38	29	20	37
ICR	25	22	20	16	24
Other	28	24	38	26	38
Total	168	142	124	148	185

Within the 2022-23 figures, the 14 Welsh cases fell into the following categories:

Subject matter	22-23
Processing	7
Advice given	4
ICR	1
Other	2
Total	14

In 2022-23 recommendations were made in 128 cases for the offer of an ex-gratia payment. The total amount recommended for payment in these cases was £23,600. Included in those figures are Welsh cases where 13 recommendations for the offer of an ex-gratia payment were made totalling £2,550.

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 of good practice such as transparent and effective complaint handling, effective customer care from helpful and knowledgeable staff and patient call handlers attempting to help sometimes exceedingly difficult customers.

We note that most of the small number of those who make complaints were satisfied with the response they received from the SLC’s internal system but note there has been an increase in complaints in 2022-23 from 2021-22 of 25%. We would be interested in the SLC’s view on the reasons for this.

A number of issues from complaints which we want to refer to this year have been raised in earlier annual reports, although we have identified others:

• a) - The use of standard letters

This remains an issue. For example standard letters requesting evidence which may not be relevant and which then cause confusion and delay. While we appreciate standard letters are necessary and appropriate in most circumstances, this is not always the case. We urge care be taken where necessary as they can be a source of distress and on occasion misleading.

• b) - Inaccurate telephone advice

This has been raised before, but we still see a significant number of cases related to this. Where it occurs it can have enormous consequences, such as a customer starting a course based on advice received and making financial commitments which they are then unable to fulfil. The area of a second degree and “exception courses” remains a difficult area, especially where customers are changing careers and/or giving up jobs to study.

• c) - Request for evidence in applications for maintenance loans for distance learning courses (DfE only).

We have seen a number of cases where the provision of this evidence by customers is difficult and hampered by medical professionals not understanding what precise evidence is required. We note that the SLC has a form for completion by medical professionals in cases of loan cancellation and are of the view that provision of evidence in applications for maintenance loans for distance learning courses would be streamlined if the SLC also provided a pro-forma for completion by medical professionals.

• d) - - Reasonable Adjustment Policy

We received a presentation from the SLC on its work in developing a customer Reasonable Adjustment Policy. The SLC has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to provide reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities. At the time of writing, this has yet to be signed off. We look forward to an update on its progress and implementation.

We have though, on occasion, asked the SLC to provide a single point of contact for a customer if we considered it would assist them in navigating the student loans process.

• e) - Delayed escalation of complaints

We have previously commented on this issue and note once more that there have, on occasion, been requests by the SLC to the customer for clarification of the nature or extent of their complaint before it is escalated to an IA. Whilst it is understandable that the SLC wants to respond to new points raised, we have seen cases where it is obvious as to what the customer is complaining about and that the request for further information is unnecessary, causes delay, which in turn leads to more dissatisfaction.

• f) - - Manager call-backs

We have previously commented on this issue. We have seen instances where a customer has asked to speak to a manager, but as a manager is unavailable, a call back is arranged, which then does not take place. In some cases, this has happened more than once and it has continued to be an issue in complaints this year. In the SLC’s response to our 2021-22 annual report it said it believed the issue was on track to be resolved; work was underway to understand all existing processes and then to standardise and document the process to consolidate call-back management.

6. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (PSOW)

Both the PHSO and PSOW provide an opportunity for customers who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the two stages of the complaints or appeals process to seek a review via the Ombudsman scheme. The PHSO require that the referral is made via their MP. It is worth noting, contrary to some customers’ expectations, that the Financial Ombudsman Service (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 16 PHSO cases that remained open. Of these, 5 progressed to investigation and 11 did not. Of the 5 that progressed to investigation, 2 cases were upheld in full and 3 are still being considered.

During the year the PHSO requested information from the SLC in 18 cases, of which 10 were closed without investigation, 1 is unlikely to be investigated, as at this time, the SLC’s process had not been exhausted, and the SLC awaits the outcome of the remaining 7.

The PSOW requested information from the SLC in 7 cases in 2022-23, none of which proceeded to an investigation.

We have routinely been kept informed of the reports of the PHSO by the SLC in the past year. For example, in one matter the PHSO found maladministration in the handling of student finance and the subsequent appeal, namely the time spent inappropriately considering the wrong things and repetition. In this case, the PHSO recommended the SLC apologise and pay £800 in recognition of the stress and frustration experienced for a prolonged period as a result of its maladministration, together with the requirement to report back to the PHSO and complainant within 3 months on the learning from the report - and particularly  how the SLC communicate decisions made about long residency to applicants and the role of the Home Office check.

In another PHSO case, the complainant was awarded £2,312.50, plus interest and £100 for the service failing.

IAs may recommend the SLC award, by way of compensation, an ex-gratia sum of up to £5,000, for any documented loss or expense, or up to £500 for an unreasonable degree of inconvenience suffered by the appellant/complainant.

7. Recommendations

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

• a) IAs find it necessary to repeat a recommendation from last year, namely “in the interests of transparency, the SLC and DfE should ensure that any general policies on how they will interpret and apply the regulations are publicly available”.

• b) When DfE instruct the SLC not to accept an IA’s recommendation they should give adequate reasons and communicate this to all parties involved.

• c) The SLC makes further efforts to reduce the escalation time of cases.

• d) A fully integrated manager call-back system is implemented.

• e) The SLC produces a pro-forma for completion by medical professionals where evidence is required in SFE applications for maintenance loans for distance learning courses.

8. SLC response to the IA annual report recommendations

a) IAs find it necessary to repeat a recommendation from last year, namely “in the interests of transparency, the SLC and DfE should ensure that any general policies on how they will interpret and apply the regulations are publicly available”.

SLC currently publishes all formal policy guidance received from DfE via our Practitioners website (https://www.practitioners.slc.co.uk/policy). When we receive guidance from DfE on the two specific topics noted in the2021-22 report, exceptional circumstances and recovery of overpayments, these will also be published.

b) When DfE instruct the SLC not to accept an IA’s recommendation they should have five adequate reasons and communicate this to all parties involved.

This recommendation is for DfE rather than SLC. However, DfE have agreed this going forward and subsequent instruction letter have contained a clear rationale for the rejection. It has also been agreed that the DfE instruction letter will be provided to the customer.

c) The SLC makes further efforts to reduce the escalation time of cases

We continue to seek greater efficiency in the process.  We intend to automate more of the process and will be trialling this in November 23.  We have a daily update provided by the collators each day.  The manual nature of this reporting will be removed once automated tools are used and the time savings can be reinvested back into the process of collation or improving quality.

Tone of Voice is an integral piece of work for Customer Resolutions in helping resolve complaints and appeals at first point of contact.  The rollout of training has commenced.  We expect that it will be impactful in the Appeals cases as we work to balance the tone of the response to include regulation and greater empathy so that the customer is satisfied with the response at Stage 1. This is particularly important, as we have removed the second stage of appeals and have recently seen an increase in requests to go to Independent Assessors.

d) A fully integrated manager call-back system is implemented

We believe this issue is now resolved, as through the introduction of new process and new technologies, all inbound contact teams are now using Salesforce for call escalation requests with the exception of Repayment Recoveries. Repayment Recoveries are in the early stages of securing a new system, Pega, and have therefore been tracking manager callbacks through a manual excel system. We are currently exploring the reporting and tracking capabilities of Salesforce to manage and track implementation of call back requests.

e) The SLC produce a pro-forma for completion by medical professionals where evidence is required in SFE applications for maintenance loans for distance learning courses.

SLC Policy, CX Service owners and IALO have been working closely with DfE and an initial draft pro-forma has been produced. This his has been linked in with work already being undertaken in other areas of the business and we anticipate this change to the process being approved and implemented for 2024/25 application launch.