CoL slammed for refusal to repay non-starter fees
Complaints about ’unfair’ treatment of transfer students as college holds onto payments
Nigel Savage
The College of Law (CoL) has entered into a major spat with several of Kaplan Law School’s LPC clients after refusing to refund thousands of pounds of course fees to the firms’ future trainees.
The dispute with Bird & Bird, Field Fisher Waterhouse (FFW), Nabarro and Trowers & Hamlins arose after the firms, all of which send their future trainees to Kaplan, offered training contracts to students who had already paid their first instalments to CoL, which in many cases amounted to £5,890.
The college’s terms and conditions state that if a student wishes to withdraw from a course these payments, which must be made by 31 July, are non-refundable. The students affected all secured training contracts after the payment deadline.
CoL’s refusal to offer refunds to enable students to transfer to Kaplan prompted Nabarro, FFW, Trowers and BPP Law School client Taylor Wessing to write a joint letter appealing to the college to waive its rules. The college, which is likely to be forced to write off £450,000 of debt owed to it by defunct firm Halliwells, rejected the appeal.
CoL chief executive Nigel Savage said: “The reality is the firms have selected a law school that the students didn’t want to go to. We might be a charity, but we aren’t a charity for law firms. If it were a genuine case of hardship then of course we’d reconsider.”
Bird & Bird and Hammonds, which has recently appointed BPP as its sole LPC and GDL provider, are dealing with the problem individually.
FFW senior HR manager Sonia Cochet claimed: “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.
“As far as I know the college is the only provider to expect the first instalment of fees to still be paid if a student changes their mind.”
Head of Kaplan Giles Proctor said: “This is particularly unfair now that there are so many more firm-specific LPCs. Students are being denied the chance to work with the provider and their firm before starting their training contracts.”
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (35)
Past student | 27-Sep-2010 9:34 am
Admit it Savage. CoL is a profit making charity. A special class in its own right.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ex-LPC student | 27-Sep-2010 9:52 am
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
Scep Tick | 27-Sep-2010 11:03 am
"“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
I dont get it... | 27-Sep-2010 12:54 pm
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
Anonymous | 27-Sep-2010 2:18 pm
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
Anonymous | 27-Sep-2010 2:22 pm
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
Anonymous | 27-Sep-2010 3:31 pm
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
Ex-CoL | 27-Sep-2010 4:08 pm
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
Anonymous | 27-Sep-2010 4:21 pm
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
Anonymous | 27-Sep-2010 4:29 pm
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
Anonymous | 27-Sep-2010 4:48 pm
Ex Col - you are incorrect, firms do not always recruit and agree LPC numbers well in advance. There needs to be some flexibility on the part of CoL on this matter. These days most large firms have exclusive providers and it is just hard faced and greedy to be so rigid on this matter. The LPC market needs a degree of fluidity for people to access the profession. Why are the CoL asking for people to sign up to such large deposits so far in advance of commencing the course? And why do the other schools have a more flexible approach. I think this whole episode speaks volumes about CoL and those at the top who raked in ridiculous salaries this year.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Sep-2010 4:57 pm
very short sighted, presumably when those firms review and tender for their future exclusive LPC provision contracts, they will remember this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
jonnobass | 28-Sep-2010 3:45 pm
I agree that the hiring firm should refund the fee to the student and not expect CoL to cough up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Badger Tum | 28-Sep-2010 4:18 pm
Of course the College should refund the fees!
What on earth is their loss? Have they really lost £5000 or so as a result of a student going elsewhere? Not this year...it's not like they will have denied a place to another student. So OK, keep some money to cover the cost of materials that might have been printed, but refund the balance.
The loss of goodwill here will only hurt the CoL - they really have shot themselves in the foot, particularly when other providers don't hold up the careers of their students in this way.
Nigel Savage, once again knowing the price of everything and the value of absolutely nothing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rio Ronaldo | 28-Sep-2010 5:21 pm
I disagree with this exclusive firm provider thing anyway. I found that it was a two tier system between the TC people and the non TC people. I really felt I was missing out not being able to study the same LPC as the TC people. So I say tough luck to all these firms who go for exclusive providers. Also, Savage has a point, non-TC people put a lot of thought into which provider to go for, so if they want CoL why can't the firm just pay for that. Surely, the firm specific and Kaplan LPC is not that different from CoL apart from the fact that at CoL you can bring your notes into the exam (which is why people want to go to CoL). Also, you 'lawyers' having a pop at CoL being a charity - I see that commercial awareness never sunk in - like it or lump it - this is a good option for an education provider.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Sep-2010 7:16 pm
Rio Ronaldo - you say you felt you were "missing out" and that it was a two tier system, yet then go on to say "surely the firm specific and Kaplan LPC is not that different"!! You cannot have it both ways.
Of course firms should have exclusive suppliers. They spend a lot of time and money helping design the LPC course for their students and enhance these course with their own workshops and skills training.
Presumably the CoL are happy to take on students from their consortium firms who are told to change law schools at the last moment. Makes no sense why they cannot offer the same flexibility. I see no reason why they should pocket £5,000 for providing nothing, or indeed forcing students to study separately from the rest of their intake.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Sep-2010 7:20 am
i'm with CoL on this one. Kaplan provide a low-cost, low-quality training course. Of course the employers want to switch - it's probably cheaper to write off the fees to CoL and go with Kaplan than to pay the balance at CoL. Of course, you get what you pay for. I'm an ex Kaplan employee, and they're very much the Ratners of the corporate education world.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scep Tick | 29-Sep-2010 9:09 am
Badger Turn, the CoL is hardly holding up the careers of its students. They can continue studying at the CoL. Perhaps their firms ought to send their partners along to a GDL provider to learn some basics about the law of contract.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CCF | 29-Sep-2010 9:57 am
Let this not detract from the issue of corporate excess at the CoL.
Notwithstanding its charitable status, and operating in a fantastically easy market where there always excess demand, it pays Mr Savage approaching half a Million pounds per annum, and the rest of the board are on similarly inflated salaries. For these people to be paid multiples of the packages of those heading the UK's leading universities (which have to compete on a world stage) is a disgrace. It is to be hoped that the law firms which effectively foot the bill for this use their leverage to call this appalling state of affairs to order. Failing that, I really wonder whether it is not possible for the charity commission to intervene.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scep Tick | 29-Sep-2010 11:17 am
"It is to be hoped that the law firms which effectively foot the bill for this use their leverage to call this appalling state of affairs to order."
The law firms whose senior partners earn two or three times that amount and when times are hard lose everyone else's jobs? I'm sure they're first in the line to complain about executive pay.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment