SP Jain London School of Management

In 2024, we referred SP Jain London School of Management to National Trading Standards because of concerns we identified in its enrolment contract with students.

We had concerns about the following clauses:

‘The school will do all that it reasonably can to provide educational services as described on its website and/or in the programme prospectus, programme specification or other documents issued by it to appropriately enrolled students. Sometimes circumstances beyond our control mean that we cannot provide such education services. This might be because of, for example, industrial action by school staff or third parties.’

We were concerned about this clause because industrial action by school staff is reasonably within the provider’s control and is therefore unlikely to be classified as a force majeure (an event for which no party can be held accountable) and should not be used to limit liability. This is contrary to paragraph 5.37 of the CMA guidance to higher education providers which states that ‘terms limiting liability are more likely to be considered fair where they are restricted in scope to problems unavoidably caused by factors beyond the trader’s control. The relevant circumstances should be clearly and specifically described, and in the CMA’s view there should be no listing of matters that could be within the trader’s control – for example industrial disputes with the trader’s own employees’.

‘The school’s liability to you under the contract shall in no circumstances be greater than the total tuition fees due in respect of your programme.’

We were concerned with this clause because it seeks to limit the provider’s liability to the total tuition fees paid by the student which is contrary to the CMA guidance to higher education providers. This type of term is blacklisted1 because it contradicts contract law and the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. In addition, paragraph 5.6.1 of the CMA’s Unfair Contract Terms Guidance states that ‘if a contract is to be fully and equally binding on both trader and consumer, each party should be entitled to full compensation where the other fails to honour its obligations. Clauses which limit the trader’s liability are open to the same objections as those which exclude it altogether.’

‘In the unlikely event that, due to a technical error, the amount of the tuition fees displayed on the website or set out in the offer email is incorrect, the school will notify you as soon as it reasonably can. If the correct amount of the tuition fees is higher than as is displayed on the website or set out in the offer email, then you will be given the opportunity to cancel your place and receive a full refund at the time you are notified of the higher tuition fee. If the tuition fees are lower than displayed on the website and/or in the prospectus, then you will be refunded the difference between the lower tuition fees and the amount which you have paid. Any refund will be in accordance with the tuition fees policy.’

We were concerned with this clause because it enabled the provider to alter the contract after it was formed without the student’s agreement. This is contrary to paragraph 4.37 of the CMA guidance to UK higher education providers which states ’under the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013, the pre-contract information is treated as being a term of the contract and legally binding. Difficulties will therefore arise if you seek to make changes after the contract is concluded, and any terms that purport to permit you to do so are subject to the test of fairness under the CRA. A blanket provision that purports to allow the higher education provider to change important elements of the course (or make any changes it wants) would not be acceptable and is likely to be unfair under the Consumer Rights Act.

Resolving the issue

After working with Trading Standards, SP Jain London School of Management made the following changes:

• xxx

Notes

[1] Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 contains terms and notices that are automatically unenforceable against consumers. Part 1 of the Act also blacklists certain terms and notices, making them automatically unenforceable and open to challenge.