Case Summaries

The student complained to us. They said the provider hadn’t properly addressed their concerns and that its handling of the complaint had been poor. We partly upheld the student’s complaint (we decided it was Partly Justified).

The student didn’t think the provider had fulfilled the promise made in its prospectus to provide access to industry recognised equipment. They also complained that the provider hadn’t delivered the advertised industry engagement, specifically in relation to a series of industry lectures and events and access to work placements. We thought it was reasonable for the provider not to have upheld these parts of the complaint because the evidence showed that the provider had delivered a service which was consistent with what it said in its marketing materials.

But we were concerned about statements made by the provider during the complaints process that the industry access and employment opportunities it offered were additional services that the provider was not obliged to deliver. The marketing materials didn’t make it clear that these were additional services so it was reasonable for students to believe that they would be delivered. Industry access and careers services are material factors for applicants when choosing where to study. Our view is that inaccurate information about these kinds of opportunities could constitute a misleading omission under consumer protection law.

The student also complained that they hadn’t been able to access a specific piece of specialist equipment until their third year. The provider had included the equipment in a list of resources that would be available to students from year one. We therefore thought the provider had established a reasonable expectation that the student would be able to use the equipment from their first year and that this was likely to have caused them some distress and inconvenience.

To put things right for the student we recommended £500 in compensation for distress and inconvenience. We also recommended that the provider refer to guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority and review its approach to compliance with consumer protection law. We thought the £250 already offered by the provider for delays in the complaints process was reasonable.