A SCOTS university is taking legal advice after objecting to a consumer watchdog over being highlighted as among three in Britain that it said was consistently adopting "unlawful" practice by failing to provide prospective students with full information on courses including tuition fees.
Glasgow Caledonian University along with Canterbury Christ Church University and the University of Huddersfield were singled out for what Which? called "consistently adopting unlawful practice" by failing to provide approximately 30 per cent of material information required, including up to date information on fees.
On Friday GCU moved to and refute the claims it had acted unlawfully and raised their concerns with the consumer watchdog.
Which? said that three in four universities are breaching consumer law by failing to provide at least one piece of vital information for prospective student about their courses.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) , which replaced the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), issued advice in March about how the higher education section should comply with their obligations under consumer protection laws following complaints about unexpected changes to courses after they have begun, with modules or larger elements of degrees being withdrawn or revised, or fees increasing.
The Which? report was a response to how well universities were complying with CMA advice about how to fall in line with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (CCRs) and to enable students to make informed decisions about what and where to study.
A GCU spokeswoman said: "Having reviewed the Which? report 'Higher Education: Audit of providers website information provision', the accompanying press statement and taken appropriate professional advice, Glasgow Caledonian University has concluded that Which? has gone far beyond the remit of a consumer affairs organisation by making stark, unsupported allegations of unlawfulness on the part of universities, including GCU."
She said the allegation that GCU is consistently adopting unlawful practice was "unsupported and defamatory".
The spokeswoman added: "Glasgow Caledonian University is committed to providing the best possible service to students and potential applicants and would like to reassure them that we endeavour at all times to present information in the clearest and fairest manner.
"We recognise the need to continuously improve the information we provide in line with best practice but refute the claims of unlawfulness made by Which?"
Glasgow Caledonian University had said on Thursday in response to the report that it was "committed to providing the best possible service to students and potential applicants and would like to reassure them that we endeavour at all times to present information in the clearest and fairest manner".
The University of Huddersfield instructed leading libel lawyers Eversheds to write to Which? calling for it to retract the claims which it said are "completely false and defamatory".
A Canterbury Christ Church University spokeswoman said that the Which? report “highlights issues which are extremely important to us” and that the institution had “taken immediate action to address many of the priority issues raised”.
Which? said it stood by its research, which compared information on providers’ websites for one single course – Psychology, in the 2016/2017 academic year - across 50 UK higher education institutions between 14 and 25 September 2015.
Which? said that in line with CMA’s advice, researchers assessed whether or not categories of material information were available on providers’ websites.
A Which? spokeswoman said: "While it’s disappointing to see the reaction from a small minority of universities, we stand by our findings. Which? will continue to be the consumer champion, highlighting good practice and challenging bad.
"The CMA’s advice makes it clear that the non-provision of any material information is unlawful under CPRs and/or CCRs. Universities need to provide material information across their marketing and advertising material for specific courses, including on their website, to avoid being in breach of the rules.
"Students will visit universities' course pages as a key part of their decision-making process, so it is vital that course information is comprehensive and up to date to enable students to compare courses and make informed choices."
A Which? survey of last year's applicants (2015 entry) found that the majority (75%) of students use websites and prospectus as the one of the main sources of information.
The CMA's March advice over complying with consumer laws explains: "Choosing what and where to study is, for most students, likely to be a ‘one off’ decision and involves the investment of a significant amount of time and money.
"Prospective students therefore need to be given clear, intelligible, unambiguous and timely information by HE providers so they know in advance what is being offered and can compare different courses and HE providers.
"When prospective students are researching what and where to study, they will usually be choosing a particular course or HE provider over others. The information made available to them – including via your website, prospectus, course handbooks and at open days – is therefore crucial to aid their choices.
"The CPRs make it unlawful to mislead students by failing to give them the information they need to make an informed decision, such as about what and where to study. This is called ‘material information’.
Material information does not necessarily include all of the information that might potentially be of interest to a student but is the information the student needs to make an
informed decision. "
It says providers should ensure that information is "easily accessible – for example, via your website, prospectuses, course and departmental handbooks and at open days".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel