London Bridge Business Academy

Students have a right to fair, clear and accessible terms and conditions in the contract they have with their university or college so that they benefit from the protections of consumer law and understand their rights. This case report provides an example of our work to protect students’ consumer rights before and during their studies.

We have also published a version of this case report for students to explain the sort of contract terms that could undermine their consumer rights, and what they should look out for when reviewing terms and conditions. 

Where students, their representatives and students’ unions have concerns about terms and conditions, they should raise these with their university or college. If this doesn’t lead to a satisfactory outcome, they can raise a complaint with the Office for the Independent Adjudicator. They can also notify us about concerns that a university or college is not meeting its obligation to uphold students’ consumer rights. 

Only a court can determine whether consumer law has been breached. This case report sets out the work the OfS and Trading Standards have done to ensure providers’ student contracts do not contain terms and conditions that could be deemed unfair or to affect students’ consumer rights.

Case overview 

The OfS referred London Bridge Business Academy (LBBA) to National Trading Standards in 2023 because we identified clauses in the college’s contract with students which we considered were likely to be unfair. A Trading Standards assessment identified terms in the college’s terms and conditions that it considered could be deemed to be unfair and may not comply with the provisions of Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. LBBA worked with Trading Standards to change its terms. Because the college took action to address these issues, the OfS is taking no further regulatory action. 

This case report sets out the OfS’s role in protecting students’ consumer rights and shows how our partnership with National Trading Standards works in practice to identify and assess whether a higher education provider’s terms and conditions could be deemed to be unfair under consumer protection law.¹ It explores the terms and conditions we had concerns about in this case, and how these were resolved through our partnership with Trading Standards and the action it took.  

We encourage other universities and colleges to use this case report to familiarise themselves with their legal obligations and to revisit their own terms and conditions where that's necessary to ensure compliance with consumer protection legislation. Any changes should be communicated clearly to students.  

The consumer rights issue 

The OfS referred LBBA to Trading Standards after seeing that its entire terms and conditions document was written in capital letters, with poor grammar, contained inconsistencies in the information about the costs that a student might incur, and appeared on one A4 page. We were concerned that, overall, LBBA’s terms and conditions compromised students’ consumer rights as the document was not likely to be clear, intelligible and unambiguous as required by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and paragraph 4.7 of the Competition and Market’s Authority (CMA) guidance to UK higher education (CMA).

In addition, some clauses included terminology that was not explained. This is contrary to paragraph 5.12 of the CMA guidance to UK higher education providers on how to comply with consumer law, which states that 'unfair terms legislation requires that your terms must be written in plain and intelligible language…you are more likely to achieve this if our contract and rules and regulations are intuitively laid out, use meaningful headings, are written in plain English and explain any terminology used'.

The following clauses were of particular concern to the OfS:

'If a student visa application has been refused, then the amounts paid will be refunded, less an administration charge of £500 (plus any courier and transfer charges) on production of the following documents:

1. A copy of the visa refusal letter (app200)
2. Copy of both student’s passport showing both a photograph and a signature; and
3. Where the payer was not the student, an original authority letter from the student authorising the payment to the payer.

Refunds will only be made under this paragraph if requested in writing with the necessary supporting documents within four weeks after the commencement of the course (published date) should the student be applying for a visa from abroad'.

'Should students (CAS) have commenced the course at the college and then be refused a visa provided it is within four weeks and full fees have been paid they will then be allowed a refund of half (50%) of the full fees paid.'

We were concerned that these clauses were not intelligible and required students to pay charges which appeared disproportionate and unfair. They also seemed likely to have the same effect as terms included in the grey list² to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and were contrary to paragraph 5.13 of the CMA guidance to UK higher education providers, which states: 'A term in a HE provider’s rules and regulations will be unfair under unfair terms legislation if it creates a significant imbalance between parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the student, and is contrary to the requirement of ‘good faith''. The college said that it had not enforced some of these terms. However, that does not resolve the issue that the terms and conditions are not clear, intelligible, and unambiguous, or that they contain charges that may be disproportionate or unfair.

'The college reserves the right to change any aspect of a course including availability of the course, course dates, tutors’ timetables, curriculum and the material at any time. It is students’ responsibility to be aware of the changes.'

We were concerned about this term because it allows the college an unreasonably wide discretion to vary course content and structure during the duration of the course. This is contrary to paragraphs 5.22 – 5.24 of the CMA guidance to UK higher education providers.

The Trading Standards assessment

Due to our concerns about the college’s terms, we referred the case to Trading Standards. Through our partnership, Trading Standards will examine each referral it receives from the OfS. The agreement means that we are supported by Trading Standard’s expertise in understanding and enforcing consumer protection legislation so that together we are able to effectively protect students’ consumer rights. 

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. Trading Standards advised the OfS that it considered that the highlighted terms could be deemed unfair under the legislation because the terms as written caused significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the college and students, which causes detriment to students.³  It also advised that terms were not transparent or in plain and intelligible language as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Resolving the issue

The college responded to the advice from Trading Standards by updating its terms and conditions with students for the 2024-25 academic year and before recruiting students. The main changes the college made were:

• The document was reformatted, to appear in standard typeface with terms explained.
• The term which allowed the college to deduct an administration charge of £500 (plus any courier and transfer charged) was amended to reduce the administration charge to a single fee of up to £350.
• The clause which allowed the college to refund half (50 per cent) of the annual fees paid in circumstances where a student requiring a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies had commenced the course but was subsequently refused a visa provided it was within four weeks was amended to permit the issuing of refunds in these circumstances within eight weeks.
• The clause which gave the college wide discretion to vary course content and structure was removed and a new clause outlining the college’s approach to dealing with events outside its control was included. This clause states that 'the college will use all reasonable attempts to lessen the effect of the event and will communicate these to students in a timely manner. Where students are adversely affected, then they will be given the option to either switch courses or to withdraw from the college.'

The college updated the relevant pages on its website to make new and re-enrolling students aware of the changes, as requested by Trading Standards. The college also received general advice on compliance with consumer protection law and Trading Standards closed the case with no further action.

The OfS is not taking any further regulatory action on these issues. We will continue to refer cases to Trading Standards where we have concerns, and we expect to publish further case reports explaining the outcomes of these cases.

Notes

[1]  See 'New OfS-National Trading Standards partnership to protect students’ rights as consumers'

[2] The Consumer Rights Act 2015 contains a list of terms that may be regarded as unfair, known as the ‘grey list’. This also applies to terms that have the same purpose or effect as terms on the grey list. However, these terms are not automatically unfair.

[3] The Consumer Rights Act 2015 contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list in Part 2 Schedule 2 of terms that may be regarded as unfair, known as the grey list. This also applies to terms that have the same purpose or effect as terms on the grey list. However, these terms are not automatically unfair.