University of Law accused of “despicable” debt collecting by aggrieved father

  • Print
  • Comments (29)

Readers' comments (29)

  • "I don’t believe that when a 21-year-old ticks a terms and conditions box they are really cognisant of what they are entering into"

    How ridiculous. I agree with the University of Law on this one. You would not get a refund in any other comparable situation such as the holiday scenario given above. A 21-year-old man does not need a parent holding his hand to read terms and conditions - especially an aspiring lawyer of all people.

    There is a procedure to cancel but Michael cancelled three days late. That is his fault. He signed up and agreed to the terms and conditions - nobody forced him to. If he wasn't sure then he should have cancelled within the time period.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To quote you:

    “Board member for business development Sarah Hutchinson said: “I am not at liberty to discuss an individual case. I refute that he attempted to cancel....”

    If she is not at liberty to discuss an individual case then what on earth does she discuss the very case she is not at liberty to discuss?

    This one “board member”, if your report is accurate, proves that the “University of Law” is no different from any other business.

    Your conscientious and learned readers must include a good few who must have passed through what used to be the College of Law.

    It is hyped up beyond endurance.

    As are the other “Law Schools” in England. As indeed are the Inns of Court.

    It is time to bring all the facts to the fore and they say that there is no ivory tower, no special college or institution. What matters is who the particular people are who are in charge of a given course to a programme. If you are lucky and they turn out to be decent and competent as well then that is the best you can hope for. Otherwise, you must not drop your guard and treat the law trading colleges and courses and programmes just as much in it for what they can materially gain out of it as is allowed them.

    What “allows them” that is what the affected people do when they find the evidence of despicable conduct.

    It is absolutely vital that the myths about the law are removed from the bare beastly reality of life that is very tough for most people who need the protection of the law but are denied it daily.

    The case you report contains in it all the ingredients that constitute compelling evidence to debunk all the myths that glorify “the law” trade!

    You report Hutchinson as claiming that her business (Oops! University!) is training lawyers. She says it as if to do that you have to engage in training people to be cruel, uncaring and, to quote the reported youngster’ father, despicable!

    That really sums up the despicable level where the former College of Law has reached.

    As so many other institutions must also have already descended to!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I have very little symtpathy. It is bad PR for the University, but ultimately, it is a binding, contractual relationship so the comments about public v private sector are largely irrelevant. And surely this is a debt claim, so no obligation on the University to mitigate its losses in any event.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So he signed the contract and now the Dad says it's unfair because the son didn't cancel within the terms of the contract? Offensive defence I think.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If the purpose of this story is to garner sympathy for this individual then I can assure you it has not succeeded in my case. If you want to be a lawyer you should never, never, play the faux-stupid card in an argument like this. Did this poor, innocent 21 year-old think he was booking a cancellable table in a restaurant?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I suspect it wasn't only hidden away in the Terms and Conditions that the boy "ticked on a website" – I was sponsored through my GDL and LPC so it didn't really have the same impact on me and yet I can certainly remember being "cognisant" of the fact that there were deadlines for pulling out. There always are and course providers generally do point the proverbial big red hand at it and I would wager it would be held enforceable by a court. Whether College of Law have actually suffered any loss and whether they should (on a moral rather than legal level) use their discretion not to pursue in certain circumstances where a student has cancelled very shortly after the deadline is another question, of course.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It shouldn't be bad PR for the University. It's someone with a feeble legal claim trying to draw attention to the grievance in the hope of leveraging a more favourable outcome. All the time being completely blind to how it makes the complainer, and his wannabe-lawyer son, look.

    Most advisers to consumer-facing businesses will be used to dealing with such types now and again. It is surprising that The Lawyer should give space to nonsense like this.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would like to protest strongly about the misuse of the word "refute" by the College of Law when they mean "reject". They should know better.

    I also agree that the article is not helpful on the legal issues. It is a liquidated damages provision so comes down to whether or not is a penalty and mitigation etc is irrelevant. Personally, I don't think it is straightforward that this is a valid liquidated damages clause.... Also legislation protecting consumers likely to be relevant. If I were College of Law, not sure I would like a test case.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • “For a contract to exist in law, both parties have to be cognisant of that fact. I don’t believe that when a 21-year-old ticks a terms and conditions box they are really cognisant of what they are entering into."
    He was 21 for goodness sake, not 6. He's not a 'kid' he's a fully grown adult who entered into a contract and then broke it. This story's not going to do Michael's future job prospects any favours.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Agreed that this complaint by the father is not on. Some people always try and get out of paying for things. When the student signed a contract binding him to pay such a large amount of money (and in so doing deprived another applicant of that place at the University of Law) the least he should have done is paid attention to the deadline and made sure that he complied with that deadline. If he didn't it's his fault, not the University of Law's. If the University of Law bent their rules for him it would be very unfair on other students in a similar situation in past years who had pulled out too late and who had then behaved in a responsible and adult manner and paid up, whether by taking out a bank loan or otherwise. It would also mean that future drop outs would be able to argue that the deadlines should not apply to them, which would render the whole deadline system (which has for years enabled the University of Law to efficiently manage the applications process) completely meaningless.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields


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 (29)