Tuition fees legal?

rick_chasey

The barristers at Matrix chambers aren't sure they are.

finchy

I'm not a legal expert, but I've just had a (probably misguided) thought.

What are the laws regarding refunds in the UK? Can anybody demand their money back on anything if they aren't satisfied? Or is refund policy entirely at the sellers' discretion?

spen666

a) this is a political opinion
b) tuition fees for toffs are £9000 pa, tuition fees are £9000pa for council estate kids no discrimination there
c) Rolls Royce prices discriminate against poor people in the same way surely as at £100,000 or so the poor can't afford them
d) re demanding refunds - anyone can ask for one, it doesn't mean you wil get one.

Anonymous

Bleat.

Ollieda

The whole argument kind of falls down on the fact that they don't discriminate against those from poorer backgrounds. People really don't realise how ideal the current fees set up is for students and how with top up fees there should be no-one who "can't afford" to go to uni.

With regards to it being £3k a year or £9k a year its only going to affect you if your earning a good wage afterwards. For me on £3k a year I would have to earn £29k a year to pay it off before it was written off after 25 years (I would pay it off after 24yr 9 months at that wage) so if I'm earning £29k or less whether I have £20k debt or £200k debt I still pay the same amount for the same amount of time. Obviously if I go on to earn more than £29k then there would be a difference in how much I pay, but if my degree has allowed me to get a high paying job then its only right that I pay the money back!

pneumatic

Universities are autonomous institutions. They are only classed as public bodies because they process significant amounts of public funding.

In theory, any university could opt to charge whatever it likes. The reason that they don't is because their main customer is the State, who set complex conditions on the relationship and control behaviour through strings attached to funding.

The latest round of complex conditions is to allow them to charge higher tuition fees to home students (which, by the way, will still end up being cheaper than the tuition fees most Universities already charge overseas students on the open market).

The political question is whether or not the State should pay for indiduals to experience Higher Education. When my father attended University, there was no state support; his family had to pay for it; when I attended, I got everything paid, even my living expenses and my travel to and from the campus; when my kids start in a couple of years time, it looks like they will be expected to pay for it themselves (even if retrospectively).

Stewie Griffin

Cheers for this, Im off to take Ferrari to the cleaners.

Bobbinogs

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Cheers for this, Im off to take Ferrari to the cleaners.

...that'll be the Poles then, hence the term car Polish

MattC59

Rick Chasey wrote:

The barristers at Matrix chambers aren't sure they are.

Where's the discrimination ?
Are Matrix chanbers also known as Tuition Fees Lawyers 4 U ?

rick_chasey

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The barristers at Matrix chambers aren't sure they are.

Where's the discrimination ?
Are Matrix chanbers also known as Tuition Fees Lawyers 4 U ?

They're known as the lot who that Cherie Blair women works for innit.

Buckled_Rims

The easiest solution is pay by result. If you get a double first, you pay nothing. A 2:1 and you pay 50% fees, a 2: 2 and you pay 75%, get anything less then pay full whack for wasting everyone's time, money and effort

rhext

I really don't see any discrimination against students from poorer households.

The price is the same for everyone, and the person who benefits from the education pays it back when their personal income trips a certain threshold. So the 'poorer household' doesn't have to pay it back, the student does. And only when they're earning a wage which would take them out of the 'poorer household' bracket.

In fact, seems to me that the system is so fair inherently that I'm struggling to understand a little the justification for offering any support for students from low-income households. The system is structured to allow students to make their own investment and decisions without any help from their parents at all, paying it back when they're standing on their own two feet (and not having to pay any of it back until they are standing on their own two feet).

EKIMIKE

Parliament is Sovereign. The law will be 'legal' if/when passed through both the Commons and Lords.

Whether it goes against certain morals or the 'rule of law' is debatable but you can bet your ass that once it's all passed, there's nothing anyone can really do about it.

It's an interesting point about the 'discrimination' aspect. Essentially it isn't discriminatory to the poor as no-one has to pay for tuition up-front. Maybe if they lowered the point at which you start paying back to say 12k p.a. then this would be discriminatory especially in conjunction with a fee rise. However that's not the case. It's also not the point.

The point is that it's a bloody sack full of debt for anyone, including the 'well off'. Increasing tuition fee's also has no affect in improving the education system and it's faults. There are too many people going to university. Too many subjects at degree level. Will raising tuition fee's mean less people going to university or will everyone continue to go but we'll have a generation saddled with incredible debt before they get to the workplace? I suspect the latter. Or maybe at best a mixture of both, which, in all honesty is no solution to the problem.

There needs to be fundamental reform and new ideas. Not a simple fee rise. It's an astonishingly short sighted proposal and far from what many would call a 'solution'.

pneumatic

the problem is perceived debt.

should the individual have a liability of 27,000 hanging around their necks for the rest of their lives? Most people find that a bit scary because they don't like the idea of owing money.

However, another way of looking at it is that we already have such a liability anyway. Each of us is going to cost a fortune to sustain during our lifetimes - we wear out the country's infrastructure, we all have medical needs that have to be attended to, we need to be defended, we need to be organised, we need to be protected from crime and from the responsibility of meeting the needs of the vulnerable amongst us.

The tax we pay over a lifetime covers some of this (not enough at the moment). The condems could just as well have come out and announced a "maternity contribution" whereby every child born in the UK is liable for a 9000 pound annual fee for the space they take up in society. But, of course, they don't have to start paying any of it back until they start paying tax.

rick_chasey

On a very facile level, it's a little ironic, that because the UK is in 'so much debt', children must take on debt to go to university, in an attempt to be able to help pay off the debt of the UK, after paying their own debt.


What's interesting is that if the case does get taken to court, the evidence that it does affect poorer families will be scrutinised properly, rather than by a bunch of amateurs on the internet who probably should be doing work but can't be bothered because it's near christmas (i.e. me).

rhext

The bottom line is that the current proposals are a graduate tax for all but a handful of students who either

a) become stellar high fliers (and pay of their debt very quickly as a result)

b) have parents rich enough to pay it off for them.

Can't understand why they didn't just call it a graduate tax to be honest! That would have taken the whole 'debt' thing off the table and might have allowed them to have a higher threshold or lower marginal rate. The only drawback is that it would have been obvious that it was a tax and we can't have that, can we! What was it, eight months ago, you couldn't turn on a radio without hearing the Tories railing against Labour 'stealth' taxes? And yet given an opportunity to be open and honest about the need to raise cash, what do they do instead?

rick_chasey

rhext wrote:

The bottom line is that the current proposals are a graduate tax for all but a handful of students who either

a) become stellar high fliers (and pay of their debt very quickly as a result)

b) have parents rich enough to pay it off for them.

Can't understand why they didn't just call it a graduate tax to be honest! That would have taken the whole 'debt' thing off the table and might have allowed them to have a higher threshold or lower marginal rate. The only drawback is that it would have been obvious that it was a tax and we can't have that, can we! What was it, eight months ago, you couldn't turn on a radio without hearing the Tories railing against Labour 'stealth' taxes? And yet given an opportunity to be open and honest about the need to raise cash, what do they do instead?

I guess they felt it wasn't a tax because the total amout to be paid back is fixed, rather than proportional to your earnings. Only the rate you pay it back is proportional. It's only in exceptional circumstnaces that the debt gets cancelled, (i.e. when the debt still exists after a certain period of time) which is also not very 'tax' like.

In fact, depending on the way the inflation is measured and applied to the interest rate, it could very well be that grads who just pay the amount back before the 30 years or however long it is is up, that they've paid more in real terms than the people who paid it off sooner.

rhext

They could 'time-expire' the tax too. And the effect of limiting the total amount to be paid back is that the people who arguably do best out of the system have their contribution capped.

The reason it looks like a tax to me is this.... I guess most people who live frugally while at University will come out with about £30K debt: £18K for fees and £12K for living expenses. Could be up to about £40K if you go to an expensive university.

You pay back at 9p in the £ above £21K, and there's interest on the debt. Even if you were just paying the capital, you'd have to be earning £32K flat over 30 years to pay it all off. Add in a bit of interest, and the fact that most people will take their time to get up to that sort of salary level (if they ever reach it), I reckon that someone starting on £20K, getting to say £50K 30 years later would still be paying it off then.

So they might as well have made it a tax!

pneumatic

what might make it unfair would be the opportunity for richer people to pay off the debt more quickly through lump sums. That would leave the poor paying interest on a debt, whilst the rich are not.

I haven't yet seen anything about the rules regarding early repayment, or, for that matter, the possibility of home based students just opting out of the state funded system altogether and just paying the fee up front to the University.

After all, if Torquil and Hermione have been funded through Eton and Bedales, mater and pater shouldn't have that much of a problem stumping up for a few more years (or should that be yahs?)

Now that really would be unfair!

shm_uk

Rick Chasey wrote:

The barristers at Matrix chambers aren't sure they are.

I don't see how the fees contravene anything.

I can't afford a Bentley Continental GT and a 5-bedroom detached house in a desirable suburb of Cheshire.

Does this mean the 'vendors' are contravening my human rights & I should therefore be subsidised to be able to own these things?

Nope. I didn't think so.

Whereas the huge Uni fee increase is a bummer (for want of a more lucid phrase), nobody is telling poorer people that they can't go to Uni, they'll just have large debts if they do.

Same as I'd have large debts if I bought a Bentley & a massive house.

Everybody should be entitled to having the choice to attend Uni.
I just don't see why some people think they should be entitled to have it paid for.

The only argument that possibly sways my opinion is that the fees should be seen as investing in the next generation and therefore in the interests of the Govt to fund in the long term.

rick_chasey

rhext wrote:

They could 'time-expire' the tax too. And the effect of limiting the total amount to be paid back is that the people who arguably do best out of the system have their contribution capped.

The reason it looks like a tax to me is this.... I guess most people who live frugally while at University will come out with about £30K debt: £18K for fees and £12K for living expenses. Could be up to about £40K if you go to an expensive university.

You pay back at 9p in the £ above £21K, and there's interest on the debt. Even if you were just paying the capital, you'd have to be earning £32K flat over 30 years to pay it all off. Add in a bit of interest, and the fact that most people will take their time to get up to that sort of salary level (if they ever reach it), I reckon that someone starting on £20K, getting to say £50K 30 years later would still be paying it off then.

So they might as well have made it a tax!

£18k in tuition fees?
Most courses are 3, and those that aren't are 4 years.

I

EKIMIKE

They're arguing that prospective students from lower income households are debt averse. Is that genuine grounds for discrimination? It's hard to say. Certainly 9k p.a. in relation to my family's income would make me think twice if I was faced with the decision. In reality, the earning prospects of a student post university is surely more significant. After-all, I wouldn't expect my parents to pay off my student loan for me even if they could.

Going deeper into the issue - arguments based on Human Rights grounds are notoriously hard to argue. One of the reasons being that such a decision can account for a significant precedent being set. The courts don't want to open the floodgates so to speak.

Also Human Rights aren't as broad as many would think. Is Higher Education really a Human Right? We now have a UK statute - The Human Rights Act 1998. Was it really intended to prevent HE fee's increasing?

The 1998 Act may be very important an indeed considered powerful legislation but i'd argue that it's more powerful for what it prevents than what it allows. It certainly not some haven for easy litigation.

If we're being cynical, it just looks like a few lawyers wanted their names in the papers this morning.

StillGoing

spen666 wrote:

a) this is a political opinion
b) tuition fees for toffs are £9000 pa, tuition fees are £9000pa for council estate kids no discrimination there
c) Rolls Royce prices discriminate against poor people in the same way surely as at £100,000 or so the poor can't afford them
d) re demanding refunds - anyone can ask for one, it doesn't mean you wil get one.

Couldn't agree more. Think I'll ask for a refund on all the contributions I've made towards university fees in the past as I've yet to meet more than two students who were worth it. Pay your own way if you want a degree just like I pay my own way to own a property.

RDW

Ollieda wrote:

Obviously if I go on to earn more than £29k then there would be a difference in how much I pay, but if my degree has allowed me to get a high paying job then its only right that I pay the money back!

If graduates generally have higher-paid jobs, surely the the simplest and fairest system would be to fund universities from progressive general income tax, taking the money from those in the higher tax brackets that their degrees have enabled them to enter? Rather than dumping everything on the next intake, the burden would also fall on those who benefited from completely free education (including nearly all the politicians who thought up the latest scheme, and me). If this requires raising the income tax rates and adjusting tax brackets, so be it.

finchy

philthy3 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

a) this is a political opinion
b) tuition fees for toffs are £9000 pa, tuition fees are £9000pa for council estate kids no discrimination there
c) Rolls Royce prices discriminate against poor people in the same way surely as at £100,000 or so the poor can't afford them
d) re demanding refunds - anyone can ask for one, it doesn't mean you wil get one.

Couldn't agree more. Think I'll ask for a refund on all the contributions I've made towards university fees in the past as I've yet to meet more than two students who were worth it. Pay your own way if you want a degree just like I pay my own way to own a property.

Your doctor, your dentist.

Can I just ask what your job is?

StillGoing

Come off it John FInch; the students running around causing damage, assaults and disruption are not studying anything that will benefit this country. They're more than likely studying the arts and "media studies". Those that are studying for worthwhile occupations will already be paying their own way. As a form of taxation on those who graduate, what's to stop them clearing off and working for another country avoiding paying anything back?

My occupation has a mixture of graduates and non-graduates who can all attain the same levels in management. The graduates tend to be chinless wonders in it for themselves and stuff everyone else.

It's certainly proved to be the myth for me that having a degree opens more doors for you than not having one. The fact that so many degrees are worthless stocking fillers, has in the eyes of many, belittled the achievement of achieving a degree.

finchy

philthy3 - only a small minority of this nation's students were at the demonstrations, and of those, only a small minority caused any damage. Both the police and the government recognised that the vast majority protested peacefully.

The reason for me asking your occupation was to know if it is in an industry which is dependent on graduates or not.

I've explained my views on higher education policy in the other thread - convert the new universities back to polytechnics, start promoting technical and vocational education more aggressively and toughen up university courses to avoid students spending 3 years at the bar with occasional visits to the library. Entry to university dependent on getting at least a B in a relevant A-level, anyone who doesn't make the grade at university after years gets chucked out.

I've not got vested interests in this - I'm at the Open University studying for a degree in Engineering, so unless the government decides to cut OU funding (which is unlikely), I will be unaffected by this policy. I just think that it is a massive mistake when the country suffers from a shortage of science, engineering and maths graduates to give young people studying those subjects a gigantic debt to start their working lives, especially as there are other countries which offer a far better quality of life even without this debt.

StillGoing

Then we agree in part. University should be for those subjects that we all recognise as university subjects. Not the clap-trap that is worthless to anyone inlcuding any prospective employer. There are far too many universities, which was aluded to on the other thread; revert the polytechnics and colleges back to exactly that. Univesrities need to account for their funding far more. Just exactly how long does each student spend actually studying at uni or in lectures? How long does each prof spend tutoring their course as opposed to doing the research work that is funding their own studies? Just exactly how much land and buildings does a university need to own? As you know, Leicester Uni has a lot of listed buildings amongst the countless ones it owns as well as acres of land. The maintainence bill for that has to come from somewhere.

I have no doubt that the students who were involved in the violence were those whose university would ordinarily be a polytechnic. But lets be honest, the student reps who had the public voice didn't do their cause any favours by refusing to condemn the violence and trying to apportion the blame on the police. A lot of support they may have had left them the moment they opened their mouths. For info of those who have no knowledge of public demonstrations; any route has to be agreed with the chief of police. The route is agreed in advance by both parties. By trying to stop in Parliament Square, the organisers broke the agreement. The police were quite right to block them from the area.

simonaspinall

Paying £9K a year for the same thing people were paying nothing/£1K/£3K for.

That's what stinks

StillGoing

So by the same argument, penalising bankers who's predecessors were enjoying enormous bonus' each year is also wrong? Nothing is free in this world. It all has to be paid for somehow. Sharing that responsibility around can only be fair.

rhext

pneumatic wrote:

what might make it unfair would be the opportunity for richer people to pay off the debt more quickly through lump sums. That would leave the poor paying interest on a debt, whilst the rich are not.
...Now that really would be unfair!

Or, to paraphrase, rich people can afford to do things that poor people cannot! How unfair!

But in a way, that's my point: the only people for whom this is not effectively a graduate tax are those with parents rich enough to pay their fees for them, and those who do best out of the system. In my view, if it had to be done, it would have been more honest (as well as arguably fairer) to do it as a graduate tax.

Oh, b.t.w, I believe the proposals are £6K per year unless a University can demonstrate specific schemes designed to improve accessibility, in which case they can go up to £9K.