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 | 29-Sep-2010 2:03 pm
as harsh as it may sound - contract is contract!
They should be happy that they have a training contract now, and on average they will save money. So I really cant see what the fuzz is about!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Badger Tum | 29-Sep-2010 7:10 pm
Of course a contract is a contract. No one is denying that.
The issue is the lack of foresight and nous the CoL is displaying in sticking to the contract, particularly when other providers do not. Do the CoL not want a continuing relationship with the firms involved?
The right to enforce a contract doesn't necessarily make it commercially sensible to do so.
If this is the short-sighted attitude of the CoL, I certainly wouldn't send my trainees there, and I certainly wouldn't apply go there if I were lucky enough to get a training contract I might end up losing the money I'm paying to the CoL should my firm decide to send me elsewhere.
Surely it's safer to sign up for BPP or Kaplan and transfer to the CoL if need be?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Sep-2010 10:50 pm
It suspect the CoL have done a fine job in mobilsing their PR team on this thread! However the simple fact is that their stance on this matter is fundamentally unfair, stubborn and shortsighted. Forcing young people to study their LPC at CoL will do little to endear them to a raft of firms or the wider student population. The again, I suppose a chief exec who can justify earning almost 4 times more than the Prime Minister needs to fund the CoL coffers come what may.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scep Tick | 30-Sep-2010 1:35 pm
@ 10.50pm
Or, alternatively, the stance of the law firms that are trying to get their staff out of contracts and are whingeing about the consequences are also behaving fundamentally unfairly, stubbornly and shortsightedly?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Badger Tum | 30-Sep-2010 4:49 pm
Yes, but you wouldn't say that to a potential client's face, would you Scep?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Sep-2010 5:04 pm
CoL a charity?? Chief Exec on half a million £.
Has the CoL passed the public benefit test?
Time for the Charity Commission to have a look at this outfit.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Buggaluggs | 30-Sep-2010 9:45 pm
The CoL's a charity? How???
Why are they are charity and BPP and Kaplan are not? Are their fees cheaper? Do they give more scholarships?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Sep-2010 10:56 pm
Diabolical liberty! Similar thing happened to me. I booked a cruise to the Med and paid a deposit of £1000. I then had a better offer of going to Benidorm with me mates. Would you Adam and Eve it! The cruise company would not give me my money back arguing that the terms and conditions clearly stated that the deposit was non-refundable! "Terms and Conditions"! What do they think I am, a trainee lawyer!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Oct-2010 9:31 am
There may be a contract in place but I would think that the clause is unfair and may very well be unlawful.
If I was an effected student I would sue the COL for the balance on the basis that the relevant clause is unlawfal under consumer regulatons.
It would be an interesting case.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Oct-2010 9:13 am
Dear me people mouth off so easily on here without having a clue what they're on about.
1) The difference between CoL and other providers in the charity stakes is that CoL is not for profit whereas BPP, Kaplan etc are businesses. If you are an educational institution you practically walk the public benefit test as long as you can show you're not exclusive. CoL is not alone in being fee paying and a charity (just look at the over 1000 private schools who are registered charities) so CoL is not a big exception in any way. You can't use a charity for private gain, which theoretically rules out paying anyone fees that are above what they should be paid. Ultimately though the argument that you have to pay to get the kind of candidate you need has stood the test of time in the public and charity sector so feel free to complain to the charity commission about Nigel Savage but you won't get far. Lobby to change the charity rules if you wish but that's how they stand.
2) How on earth is there anything that could possibly be illegal about CoL refusing to refund a non-refundable deposit? They are not forcing them to study at CoL, it's the training contract providers that are in order not to have to fork out the money to refund the deposit themselves. It is a consumer contract like any other, the LPC candidates signed up to it of their own free will and they are free to walk away from the obligation to pay their full fees. CoL just won't give them their deposit back. That is the point of a deposit. If you'd take on that case I would suggest re-evaluating if the law is for you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment