Waive your legal rights, Chester tells students

Leading lawyer criticises contract to protect university from compensation claims, reports Phil Baty.

Universities were accused this week of forcing students to sign away their basic rights to seek compensation over inadequate teaching or facilities.

A new student contract introduced by Chester University was strongly criticised by Jaswinder Gill, a specialist education lawyer, who said it would unfairly prevent students from taking legal action over an array of possible problems that they may encounter at university.

But Chester mounted a robust defence. A spokeswoman claimed that other institutions used similar contracts, which had been developed to protect universities' income as students increasingly asserted their consumer rights and turned to the law. "We are not pioneers of this," the spokeswoman said. "We are simply trying to avoid occasions on which we would be forced to pay out large sums of money to individuals when the money could benefit all our students in the form of equipment, facilities and extra staff."

Like a controversial contract introduced recently by Oxford University, Chester's contract lays out the university's obligations, which are to provide basic facilities and tuition, and to deliver programmes with "reasonable care and skill". It sets out students' obligations, which include "to study diligently, and to attend promptly and to participate appropriately at lectures, courses, classes, seminars, tutorials, work placements and other activities that form part of the programme as required".

But the contract also makes clear that the university "does not accept responsibility, and expressly excludes liability", for any "loss of profit, loss of earnings, loss of opportunity, disappointment, distress or injury to feelings, living expenses and any indirect or consequential loss or damage, however arising, suffered by [the student] as a result of any breach by the university of these conditions or any other act or omission of the university or its employees or agents".

Mr Gill, of solicitors Ormerods, said: "Such exclusion clauses are unreasonable and the courts will declare them null and void. But how many students are going to challenge the validity of exclusion clauses in the courts?"

Chester said this week it was following best practice as developed by the Armed group, Active Risk Management in Higher Education, a project backed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England that is run by Bristol, Nottingham Trent and Oxford universities and the University of the West of England.

An Armed paper written by Stephen Smith, the secretary of and solicitor for Nottingham Trent University, warns: "It is particularly important to ensure that there is as little doubt as possible as to what the institution is able, and intends, to deliver."

Wes Streeting, vice-president of the National Union of Students, said that such contracts were "a real cause for concern" and were a "kneejerk reaction" to top-up fees. Students would seek to ensure they got value for money, he added.

phil.baty@thes.co.uk