Case Summaries

The student said this meant the degree was no longer suitable for them because they would be unable to complete their preferred course pathway. The student was exploring arrangements to transfer to provider B, which had a deadline for in-year course transfers. The student’s complaint hadn’t been resolved before the deadline, so they decided to proceed with their transfer to provider B and asked provider A for financial compensation.

Provider A partly upheld the student’s complaint. It acknowledged that module choices had been impacted by oversubscription and that students hadn’t previously been informed modules may be subject to caps or prioritisation. It also concluded that issues with communication between the departments had caused the student unnecessary stress. But it decided there weren’t grounds to uphold the student’s request for financial compensation because, although this resolution hadn’t been reached before the student decided to transfer, arrangements had subsequently been made that allowed the student’s cohort to enrol on the oversubscribed modules. It noted the student had already been given a verbal apology and as a result of the student’s complaint it would take steps to address the clarity of information about core and optional modules.

The student was unhappy that the provider hadn’t upheld their request for financial compensation and complained to us. They explained they felt they had no choice but to transfer to provider B and had experienced financial losses as a result. We upheld the student’s complaint (we decided it was Justified). We didn’t think it was reasonable for the provider to have upheld core aspects of the student’s complaint without providing them with a remedy. There had also been delays in the provider’s consideration of the complaint, which meant it had missed the opportunity to provide a timely resolution for the student.

In making our decision we also referred to guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for providers on consumer protection law, specifically that consumer protection regulations require providers to give prospective students clear, intelligible, unambiguous and timely material information about the course. We decided that the module choices available to the student were not in line with what the provider had advertised and what the student reasonably expected.

To put things right for the student we recommended that the provider offer them just over £3,800 in compensation for distress and inconvenience and the specific losses the student had outlined in their complaint to the provider.