Student loan: deduction rate (Plans 1, 2, 4 and 5)
The share of an employee's pay above the plan 1, 2, 4 or 5 threshold that an employer deducts each pay period as student loan repayment.
Checked against its sources: statute verified 2026-09-21·guidance verified 2026-09-21
Current sources
History
Receipt
Everything above is reproducible and independently checkable — no trust in this site required (how verification works).
- Figure ID
employment.student_loan.rate- Name in the API
- Student loan deductions: employer rate (plans 1, 2, 4 and 5)
- Record fields (source type · unit · jurisdiction · status)
- si·percent·GB·corroborated
- Record hash (canonical JSON, SHA-256)
sha256:8450fe9fc9970bc67c24034f554aa56b93fa0aa449e7afd54082ea9a9cc7411b- Source snapshots (SHA-256)
- Legislation:
sha256:1d3b05a544c43749f5aed26341364fcac68a03f69fda7626f2a3a08daf2fdf28 - Official guidance:
sha256:2b130359261b54fc8f27f3e53cade20f559a6035397c2e3845de72e21ea4eede - Listed in the signed manifest
- release 3.0.0 manifest
·
record_hashes["employment.student_loan.rate"] - Machine-readable record
- /v1/figures/employment.student_loan.rate · current only: /v1/figures/employment.student_loan.rate/current
Compiler's notes
An SI carry (ADR-0014), and the first row authored under D20's pin: SI 2009/470 states 9% in regulations 29(3)(a), 44(1)(a) and 75(4)(a) — three enactments of one rate for three occasions of charge — so locate refuses the host unpinned ("3 sibling provisions") and the author names the enactment this record IS. The probe then checks THAT provision: SI 2017/831 reg 26(2) substituted regulation 44(1) WHOLE on 5 September 2017, so there is no "for X substitute Y" for NF-1 to re-derive (the finder confirms STATED-NOT-DERIVABLE on the setter's as-made text) and the new paragraph carries no provision id in the amender's own document. SI 2022/1335 reg 41(1)(a) is the newer note on this limb and states no rate — it substituted "plan 1, 2, 4, or 5 loan" for "student loan" — so D20(b) passes it over and the verdict names it: "newest-note check passed over". One value only, and the record does not claim the 9% BEGAN in 2017: reg 26(2) replaced a paragraph (1) that already existed, but the 2009 Regulations' as-made text is not archived, so whether it stated the same rate cannot be witnessed from the store, no origin can relieve an earlier date under D-RD-3, and the record carries the setter's own commencement — as Paternity leave (weeks) does.