CoL slammed for refusal to repay non-starter fees

  • Print
  • Comments (35)

Readers' comments (35)

  • Admit it Savage. CoL is a profit making charity. A special class in its own right.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Those firms normally make their training contract offers in the beginning of September. By that time the LPC must have already started. The core subjects of the course are approved by the Law Society, so how can this be a problem for the students to carry on with the course? These firms accept applications from people who are already LPC students or even who have completed the LPC. So why the hypocrisy? It is more likely that the agreed bulk numbers with the other LPC providers are now affected?

    The College of Law must not give in!

    By the way, I was half way through my LPC course when I got my training contract, and my firm refunded me the fees that I had paid to the College of Law so far (of course they needed copies of my invoices).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "“We wrote to the college to express our concerns because we thought it was unfair for those students to attend a different law school to the rest of their intake."

    Yes, isn't life tragic.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How can they pass themselves off as a charity? I dont get it... theyr'e clearly not one; they're a legal course provider...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The College of Law needs to re-look at this. While they may be perfectly within their rights from a contractual perspective to hold onto fees already paid - it will have a significant knock on effect for future student intakes.

    If firms/students cannot get fees refunded - it may make LPC students from CoL "less attractive" if no refund is available. It is already competitive enough trying to secure a training contract, without the College making their students appear to cost more to train than students from other law schools.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is yet another example of CoL being overly aggressive and unreasonable in the pursuit of profit. I know that BPP and Kaplan both refund students if they secure a TC with a law firm working with another law school. Why should firms or students be paying CoL thousands of pounds for nothing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • On a similar note to Anon@2:18, this surely makes CoL much less attractive to students. You're much safer accepting an offer from another provider and transferring across if you accept a TC at a firm with whom CoL has an exclusive relationship. Clearly not every student will be dissuaded, but some of the best probably will.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You bunch of soft scoops. I'm with CoL on this. They've clearly said the position would be different in hardship circumstances but the fact remains that these are firms who have committed to them and then up-sticks'd to competitors. On the business case points, exclusive LPC arrangements only exist for firms who settle their TC intake well in advance so the transfer point would be rare or non-existent. CoLs charity status mitigates their tax exposure and why shouldn't they make cash out of it - they still have central london property and trained lawyer lecturers to pay and we're none of us in the business of doing freebies. Wring out your wet blankets.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Come on, its like saying you are going to a concert, you pay for the tickets then change your mind and decide not to go, are you going to ask the artist for your money back because something better came along. If the training contracts were with good firms then they should refund the students not b**ch at the CoL

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Have I missed the point here? The CoL is a very good provider and up there as one of the very best. Just because certain firms "prefer" their trainees to go to BPP and Kaplan does not in any way make these providers any better than the CoL. Students have then approached firms who they may already know do not want their trainees to go to CoL but have tried to obtain a training contract with them anyway, have been accepted and hey presto because of CoL's policy for non refundable fees are left complaining that they cannot get their fees back..... well if thats the case, why approach the firms who prefer you to go to Kaplan/BPP in the first place?
    Yes you have guessed correctly I chose the CoL at Birmingham to undertake my GDL and am now in the second year of LPC - they are brilliant providers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (35)