Students as consumers
Consumer rights case studies
The OfS refers cases to National Trading Standards where we have concerns that students’ consumer rights may have been compromised or undermined.
The case reports published below provide examples of these cases and show the actions providers have taken to revise or remove terms and conditions from their student contracts that may be unfair or not comply with consumer protection law.
These case reports:
- show how the OfS makes judgements about consumer protection law
- explain some of the actions we have taken when we identify concerns that students’ interests as consumers are being compromised or undermined by providers
- provide examples of clauses used in student contracts that Trading Standards has considered may not comply with Part 2 Unfair Terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
We publish case students to help all providers to meet their legal obligations and our regulatory requirements relating to consumer protection law.
The case reports are not formal regulatory advice. Only a court can determine whether consumer protection law has been breached. The case report sets out work the OfS and Trading Standards have done to ensure a provider’s student contracts do not contain terms that could be deemed unfair or to affect students’ consumer rights.
Case reports
From 2023, we have referred to National Trading Standards concerns about consumer protection law for a number of providers.
Outcome: terms and conditions have been updated.
In 2024 we referred ICON College to Trading Standards because of concerns that the college’s terms and conditions contained clauses that could undermine the college’s own contractual obligations, appeared to limit the college’s liability and broad discretion to increase course costs for students due to decisions made by the college. We had previously engaged with the college on these issues.
Trading Standards advised the college that some aspects of its terms and conditions may not comply with the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Part 2 Unfair Terms.
The college responded to Trading Standards’ concerns by updating its contract with students for the 2024-25 academic year.
The OfS is taking no further regulatory action because the college made these changes.
Outcome: terms and and conditions have been updated and document reformatted
In 2023 we referred London Bridge Business Academy to Trading Standards because of concerns with the way the college’s terms and conditions were formatted. We also had concerns the terms and conditions included clauses that were unclearly explained and appeared to give the college broad discretion to charge students in the event of visa or payment issues.
Trading Standards advised the college that terms in its terms and conditions may not comply with the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Part 2 Unfair Terms.
The college responded to the advice from Trading Standards by updating its terms and conditions with students for the 2024-25 academic year and prior to recruiting overseas students.
The OfS is taking no further regulatory action because the college made these changes.
Outcome: terms and conditions have been updated.
In 2023 we referred the University of Manchester to Trading Standards because of concerns that the university’s terms and conditions for students contained clauses which appeared to limit liability or give the provider an unreasonably wide discretion without an appropriate explanation. We had previously engaged with the university on these issues.
Trading Standards advised the university that some aspects of its terms and conditions may not comply with the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Part 2 Unfair Terms.
The university responded to the advice from Trading Standards by updating its contract with students for the 2024-25 academic year.
The OfS is taking no further regulatory action because the university made these changes.
Describe your experience of using this website