Case Summaries
Back to Case SummariesStudent transfer - CS122403
Case summary December 2024 | Not Justified
A student applied for recognition of prior learning (RPL) to make use of credits they had achieved at another provider. The student later complained to their new provider that its prospectus was misleading because the course hadn’t delivered the practical experience described. The provider rejected this complaint.
The student was unhappy with the provider’s decision and complained to us. They didn’t agree that the course had been accurately described and thought their tuition fees should be refunded in full.
We did not uphold the student’s complaint (we decided it was Not Justified). We were satisfied that the information about the course available to both applicants and current students had clearly described the balance between academic and practical skills development that the course offered. Two modules had a specific focus on practical skills development, but the student had decided to apply for RPL for one of them. This meant the student didn’t benefit from the practical opportunities this module offered, which might have impacted their own personal balance between the academic and practical components of the course. But it was the student’s choice to apply for RPL and they also had other opportunities to gain practical experience during their studies. The provider was able to demonstrate the various ways in which students had opportunities to gain the practical experience described within its prospectus and the other material information it provided about the course.