HELP! Got Postgrad Grant last year now SUSI looking for money back?!!

anyone hear anything more since their deadline of last friday?

mango salsa wrote: »

I had a feeling this would happen. I suspected SUSI were not strictly applying the three year rule for postgrads.

Maybe people should ask MABS if they think that it might be possible to negotiate with SUSI.

My son got this letter also. When he applied there was nothing on the guidelines that referred to being out 3 years. All any of the sites he checked refered only to being over 23 and proof if independent living from oct 1 previous to entry. Now all have been changed to include information about entry and re entry. They awarded the grant on the info they provided in 2012 and he will be fighting this all the way.

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm not sure what was on the guidelines but the rule was there.

Yes he knows now the rule was there but it was not on any of the susi guide lines or citizen information that he looked up before he applied. Had it been visible at the time he would never have applied for the fee grant because he would not have qualified. They have since updated all the information to include out 3 years on entry or re entry. They have even changed the check list you recieve at the beginning of the process. His one from 2012 in the section under proof of independent is changed to include entry and re entry now . He has his sheet from 2012 and he has one from 2013 belonging to a friend that has the different wording. His case is the mistake is there's because he went on info they provided and was awarded the fee grant on that basis.

Can you post an image of the relevant check-list from 2012 if you have it?

ironingman wrote: »

Can you post an image of the relevant check-list from 2012 if you have it?

Yes will post 2012 checklist and 2013 checklist.I have them on paper only, not sure how to get them on this post can you tell me what to do and I will reply straight away.

ironingman wrote: »

Hi Betty,

Just posted 2012. I have been trying to make some progress with SUSI on their forum. Unfortunately they have the same rehearsed responses to every question. We can't get a legitimate response to what is clearly an error on there behalf shown in black and white.
SUSI thread on this is below.
http://www.boards.ie/ttfthread/2057136100

My son replied within days of recieving the first letter he followed the section on complaints and posted a compliant form with his grievence on it. 2 weeks later no responce I phoned susi desk and as usual no trace of letter , another copy sent in and guess what no trace of that either. He then emailed them and recieved a phone call about a week later. Still got no confirmation of the paper work he sent in and he has heard nothing since. He told them on phone that it was there mistake by not providing the correct info when he applied and he was not paying any thing back. They gave been a complete nightmare to deal with.

Here we go again another letter from susi asking my son to fill forms to be assessed as a dependant mature postgraduate. We have already told them 4 seperate times,2 complaint forms filled an email and a phone call that he recieved from someone at susi that he will not be completing the dependant students form that they keep sending. What kind of people work there. Can they not understand english.

Il Trap wrote: »

I'm one of the 60-odd people who are in a similar boat to your son and I'm equally exasperated and despairing the pitiful carry on of SUSI at this moment.
But, as a hunch, wouldn't it be the best case for your son if you, his mother, were to stay very much in the background on this one, seeing as the emphasis really is on his independent status.

Your posts above suggest that you might be intervening/communicating on his behalf. I'd imagine that possibly wouldn't be the best course of action if that is the case.

Not being smart with you at all - just pointing out my initial thought.

I can understand what you are saying but my son is up the walls with work placements and college work and also trying to work to keep him self going so I took over. From what I have been reading lots of parents have had to get involved because of the incompetence of this organisation and the way they have been treating students.

has anyone heard from these muppets in the last while? i havent heard a peep since they sent out the tree worth of forms for me to be reassesed despite me ignoring them and continuing to do so since. This was maybe 6 weeks or a couple months ago now! Just wondering if they have cut their losses and accepted the mistake or should I expect another tree load through my letterbox soon?

optimistic? very much so! realistic? somehow doubt it...contradiction? definitely!

Nothing yet. Hopefully they've accepted that they made a mistake and stop hassling hard-up graduate students. That money is a drop in the ocean for SUSI - a millstone for those they threaten to pursue.

I got the same letter - my situation dated back to 2012/2013 & 2013/2014 - posgrad. I got the first letter from SUSI in January 2014 - when I had 4 months of my 2year masters and all of my course work complete - their issue with my case linked to them deeming me ineligible to apply as an independent mature candidate (due to the 3 year rule) I had previously been awarded the grant for both years.


I contacted UCD about this at the time and they informed me that if SUSI apply to have the grant returned to them - UCD are obliged to return the money - even after a student graduates.

I have now graduated - my course fees were well over €7,000 per year -and as SUSI only cover €6200 fees I put myself in debt to return to college- I am still paying off this debt (which i willingly signed up for - there is no way I could have afforded to go back to college if I knew the course was going to cost me €15,000 - without even taking into account living expenses etc while I studied.)

There was a hint of the colleges selling the student debt to private debt collectors - does anyone know where we would stand legally against all of this?

Thanks for that Sup08 - I think I understand what you mean: I replied to SUSI today: filling in the appeal forms (for both 2012 and the current one) -

I am writing this letter as part of SUSI’s appeals process. I am appealing the decision for SUSI to refuse my postgraduate grant application for years 2012/13 & 13/14 based on ‘ineligibility for applicant class under Article 13 of the Student Grant Scheme 2012’ as dictated in your letter dated 01/10/14.

I am appealing this decision to class me as ‘ineligible’ based on the following principles:
• According to the ‘Guidance Notes for making a student grant application 2012/2013’ – under the heading of ‘category of applicant’, subheading ‘independent mature student’ - the criteria are set out as follows:
“If you were 23 years of age or older on the 1st of January of the year of entry or re-entry to an approved course but were not ordinarily resident with your parent(s) or legal guardian from the 1st October of the year prior to entry or re-entry to an approved course, your application will be assessed based on your own income. Your parents’ or legal guardian’s income is not taken into consideration. After provisional assessment of your application you may be asked to send SUSI documentary evidence as proof of living independently from your parent(s) or legal guardian during the relevant period. If you are an independent mature student and are married, in a civil partnership or cohabiting, your application will be assessed based on your spouse’s, civil partner’s or cohabitant’s income and your own income”.
I was over the age of 23 on the 1st of January of the year I entered my approved postgraduate course. I was not ordinarily resident with my parents or guardian from before the first of October of the year prior to this. After provisional assessment of my application, I was asked by SUSI to send additional documentary evidence as proof of living independently from my parents or legal guardian during the relevant period. When asked for this ‘further documentary evidence to substantiate my ‘independent’ status’, this was provided to SUSI without delay. I was not married, in a civil partnership or cohabiting, and so my application should be assessed based on my own income.
• To carry on from point number 1 – If I am a 20 year old man applying for a car loan – the application form may list all categories of applicant but the criteria listed under the ‘over 65’s’ category is not relevant to me – In this case I would consult the criteria listed under the heading ‘under 65’s’. The very same principle exists here – I appropriately consulted the category of ‘independent mature candidate’ – where I met all of the eligibility criteria – as laid out in bullet point 1.

• Should SUSI disregard points 1 and 2 – as has already been done, and should SUSI continue to maintain that my application was assessed in ‘Error’ – (through no fault of mine – confirmed by SUSI Supervisor *** on the 02/01/14) – If this is the case – that ‘error’ was wholly by virtue of a mistake made by your organisation - I filled out the application form correctly and in good faith. On the basis of the grant award, I enrolled on the Masters course in 2012/13 & 2013/14 and took out a personal loan to cover my living costs whilst in full-time education. The award of the grant, irrespective of whether SUSI now maintain it was awarded in ‘error’ or not, amounts to a ‘promise by conduct’. In reliance on that promise, I changed my circumstances, to my detriment, not only in incurring liability to fees by enrolling a year ‘earlier’ than eligibility for the grant award applied for but also in taking out a personal loan to maintain myself and my daughter, over that period. In such circumstances, the equitable doctrine of Promissory Estoppel applies i.e. where a promise has been made and relied upon to the receiving party’s detriment, it is inequitable for the promising party to subsequently seek to enforce its legal rights – in this instance, the right to seek return of the monies. Whilst the fee grant was paid directly to UCD and recovery would be sought by SUSI direct from the University, this would be done so in the full knowledge that the University would seek to recover the same from me.


There are a number of factors which further strengthen my case:

(1) If my application had been processed correctly in the first instance and the award denied on the basis of me ‘needing’ an a additional year to qualify under ‘re-entry’, I would have been able to defer my place for 12 months and seek to re-apply for the fee grant when ‘eligible’. Indeed, I confirmed this expressly to you in my letter date 2 January 2014 and further confirmed that under no circumstances would I have countenanced, nor been able to afford, to embark on the Masters in absence of grant funding. In granting the award in error you have effectively denied me the opportunity which I would have had to defer the course and apply under the ‘re-entry’ category. It should also be noted that I would not have assumed liability for a personal maintenance loan if it were not to undertake the course with the benefit of fee grant funding.
(2) Linked to point 1, in failing to realise your mistake for at least 18 months you denied me the ability to defer the course even after I had commenced.
It is clear from the facts and their chronology that I relied on your organisation’s ‘promise by conduct’, changed my circumstances as a direct consequence and have since suffered to my detriment. On this basis, your organisation’s attempts to renege on its promise and seek to recover the fee grant made, is not sustainable.
I would also like to point out the considerable amount of stress which I have been placed under since January 2014, when I received the letter from SUSI dated 30/12/2013. This has been over 9 months of stress and hardship caused by SUSI through no fault of my own.
I’m not in any way unsympathetic to people making mistakes, we all do, however, your initial ‘mistake’ and the failure to realise it for so long, has massive implications for me and my daughter, far beyond the level of the amount of money you’re seeking to recover. The really sad fact is that but for 1 year, a year which I would have been more than willing to wait, I would have been eligible for the fee grant, assuming my personal/financial circumstances had not changes – which they had not.

In light my application to appeal and the evidence for the appeal, I would ask you to confirm as soon as possible that your organisation no longer intends to pursue any action against me or UCD.

Susi changed the way they had written the guideline notes for the section under mature student the second year they were operating. All the students like my son went by those guidelines notes from the first year and were granted the 2000 off the course fees. It was a mistake on there own part and they know that. We got on to the ombudsman and had a letter back last week stating that they had a meeting with susi and they said they had no plans to try and get the money back and that if we did here from susi again get back on to them. As far as my son is concerned he is not going to worry about it any more.

Betty Nagle wrote: »

First year paper work from susi guideline notes States. Evidence of independent residence from 1st October 2011 to one month prior to the date of this letter. Year 2 in operation and the new guidelines notes state Evidence of independent residency from the October prior to re-entering further or higher education. This is on the explanation of documentation required that they sent out when you first apply.

My quotes are responding to the actual quote from the guidance notes provided by the OP above.

That's fine but I think the students should not worry about guideline notes as its on the explanation of documents they sent out in year 1 and year 2 that matter that's where they changed the wording.