More cash-strapped English universities have decided against asking their current students to pay higher fees, while legal wrangling continues at other institutions.
Goldsmiths, University of London confirmed to Times Higher Education that its fees will remain frozen for those already on courses, despite the government making it clear that the recently announced £285 rise can be passed on, if contracts allow.
SOAS University of London was adopting the same strategy of only applying the rise to new undergraduate entrants. Leeds Beckett University, the University of Reading and Bournemouth University have all previously confirmed returning students will not be charged.
It has been estimated that an average sized university stands to lose around £3 million in income if they do not increase all students’ fees.
Goldsmiths, which will apply the fee rise to new students, has been one of the most high-profile victims of the ongoing financial crisis in the sector, saying last year that it had seen a £13 million shortfall in tuition fee revenue, requiring it to cut almost 100 jobs.
The reasons for its decision not to increase fees for returners have not been disclosed but it is known that many institutions have found that their terms and conditions did not allow for a mid-course rise, while student groups have also raised objections.
Rami Labib, a partner and higher education specialist at the law firm Pinsent Masons, said he had worked on 15 cases connected to the issue since the fee rise was announced in November, some of which are still ongoing, and a “mixed picture” was developing.
The problem many have encountered, he said, was with clauses that reserved the right to raise fees with inflation, given the specificity of the coming 3.1 per cent rise, which is based on what the RPIX measure of inflation is projected to be in the middle of next year.
More blanket clauses referring to the government fee cap were safer, he said, but few were totally without risk, given the difficulties of drafting contracts without knowing what a potential rise might look like.
Labib said further issues could emerge if language concerning fee increases differed across different documents, for example an offer letter or access and participation plan, and the contract itself.
Several universities have recently decided to go ahead with a fee rise across the board, including high-profile institutions such as the University of Cambridge and Durham University.
Other universities that have experienced some of the most acute issues with finances – including the universities of Kent and Northampton and Oxford Brookes University – have also made clear they will charge current students more.
But some were still embroiled in negotiations. The University of Leeds told Times Higher Education it hasn’t yet finalised its policy. Coventry and Sheffield Hallam universities and the University of Huddersfield were among those who repeatedly declined to comment.
Ben Vulliamy, executive director of the Association of Heads of University Administration, predicted that eventually a “small majority” of all providers will opt for implementing the full increase. A fast-approaching mid-February deadline for institutions to tell the Student Loans Company their course fees for next year was expected to push universities into making a decision.
The ultimate risk for an institution was that it would face a group litigation claim in the courts, said Pinsent Masons’ Labib, although he felt this was unlikely due to the rise being relatively small scale.
More likely was action from the Office for Students (OfS) – which monitors institutions’ compliance with consumer protection law as a condition for registration – or the Competitions and Markets Authority, whose guidance has made clear that universities must be upfront with students on the cost of a course at the outset.
Vulliamy said institutions were subject to various competing interests, with potential student complaints to the Office for the Independent Adjudicator another factor. But most were in a position of having to second-guess what they thought the outcome of any potential case may be.
The issues underlined the need for the government to outline a long-term funding settlement for the sector to allow for better forward planning, he added.
Given the prospect of more fee rises in future, many institutions were in the process of reviewing their terms and conditions to make them watertight, said Labib, but they should be wary that asking students to sign new contracts mid-study may open them up to further challenge.
David Palfreyman, director of the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, who has long called for standardised student contracts across all universities, said the latest issues should prompt ministers and the OfS to look again at the idea. The regulator did hint in its most recent strategic plan that it will at some point look to develop a “model contract” universities can use.
