Lots of students say they *feel* lied to/deceived about this academic year. But were they, legally? And what would be their rights if they were? There's lots of Consumer Rights Act chat but I've a feeling that something else matters.

You might recall that over the summer OfS advised that
students will need to understand what a provider is committing to deliver...

"in the current circumstances and in different scenarios, how this will be achieved, and the changes that might need to be made in response to changing public health advice. "

I *think* what they were getting at was making sure that universities didn't fall foul of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

The regs outlaw misleading actions - false information or info likely to mislead the average consumer in its overall presentation. Omissions a problem too.

If the info causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not have taken otherwise, there's an issue. The action just has to be a "significant factor".

There is no need to demonstrate any loss. Nor does the student have to show the uni acted dishonestly, recklessly or even negligently. The standard remedies
apply on a strict liability basis: if the uni's actions were misleading or aggressive, then the remedies apply.

The first main remedy is the right to unwind the contract and get their money back. Students have 90 days to complain (unlike cooling off regs which only allow 2 weeks). Some students may want to back out in that first 90 days even though uni thinks fee liability has kicked in.

Students don't have to unwind the contract or might have passed 90 days. They can get a discount based on how egregious the practice was. It's 25% if it is more than minor; 50% if it is significant; 75% if it is serious; and 100% (full price) if it is very serious.

Seriousness is assessed by reference to the behaviour of the (university) trader, its impact on the (student) consumer, and the amount of delay.

AS WELL AS A DISCOUNT student consumers could claim damages if they have suffered losses that exceed the price paid for the relevant goods or service (RENT ON A HOUSE NOT BEING USED, FOR EXAMPLE!)

Damages can cover distress and inconvenience, as well as
losses suffered by the (student) consumer because of a contractor payment they made as a result of the misleading or aggressive practice (heating bill in their HMO or a buss pass or something)

Unlike the standard remedies, damages can only be claimed upon proof of actual loss, or distress and inconvenience. And only reasonably foreseeable losses are covered.

The Regulations expressly provide that consumers have a right to damages if the consumer has suffered alarm, distress or physical inconvenience or discomfort caused by the misleading or aggressive practice ("I was not warned there would be no real social activity"?)

Under the regulations it is a defence to a claim for damages for traders to show that the misleading or aggressive practice happened as a result of a mistake or other cause beyond the trader’s control...

...and that they took all reasonable precautions to avoid the misleading or aggressive practice from occurring. But this due diligence defence does not apply to standard remedies.

But this due diligence defence does not apply to standard remedies.

So I wonder whether the courts would agree with a student that what they were told/warned about would amount to a misleading practice. Because if failing to warn students in the way OfS suggested "counts", it feels like a hell of a lot of students would have a case.

The info students can be misled about can include the main characteristics of the product (availability, benefits, risks, composition, delivery, usage, quantity, specification etc) plus motives for the practice.

Misleading omissions include omitting material information, hiding it, provisioning it in aw way that is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or failing to identify commercial intent.

If (and it’s a big if) a student was able to prove that the info was wrong or there was an omission - and this impacted their decision to “buy” - the remedies apply.

Also for students the objective test of the “average consumer” would be unfair and cause hardship if applied in all cases. The 2008 Regulations therefore apply a different test where the commercial practice is directed to a particular group of consumers…

... or where a group of consumers is particularly vulnerable to the practice because of “their mental or physical infirmity, age or credulity” in a way which the trader could reasonably be expected to foresee.

Aspects of that sound like they may well have applied to prospective students this particular summer!

In the end this needs some case law. We need to know how many/extent of the aspects that students feel lied to about would count as part of what was "sold".

The description of aspects of the product/service in the regs feels closer to "wider experience" than I suspect many universities would like.

But one of the bottom lines here is that relying on successful delivery of the learning outcomes often through alternative delivery might work under CRA15, but that's not the only act to think about.