Case Summaries

The provider did not uphold the students’ complaint. It said that the prospectus and marketing materials hadn’t referred to accreditation and the only piece of information that still mentioned accreditation was the programme specification the students had been sent a link after it had made them an offer of a place on the course. It offered the students £500 as a gesture of goodwill and in recognition of delays in the complaints process.

The students complained to us. They were unhappy with the provider’s decision because they maintained that they had been given information prior to enrolment that said the course was accredited. They also said they’d turned down offers at other accredited providers and that they would like financial compensation.

During our review we were concerned that the provider’s final decision was unreasonable based on the evidence we had seen. There was evidence to show that information available to applicants said the course was accredited, the provider had acknowledged that students had been told this verbally, and the programme specification sent with the offer letter still referred to the course being accredited. We were concerned the provider might not have properly considered its obligations under consumer protection law, as set out within guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority. Specifically, that the material information applicants need to make an informed decision about what course to study should be accurate and not misleading.

We contacted the provider to discuss our concerns and explore whether there was an opportunity to settle the complaint. The provider offered to refund the students’ tuition fees and pay them £5,000 each in compensation. The students accepted the provider’s offer and their complaint to us was Settled.