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)
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