At least 36 universities across England and Wales are facing potential legal action as tens of thousands of former students seek financial compensation over disruption to their studies during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Pre-action claim letters have reportedly been sent to a wide range of institutions, including the University of Exeter, Imperial College London, University of Leeds, University of Bath and University of Bristol.
The legal move follows a confidential settlement reached between University College London (UCL) and Student Group Claim, an organisation coordinating compensation claims on behalf of students whose university experiences were significantly altered during the pandemic.
UCL Settlement Sets Precedent
UCL agreed to a confidential settlement with Student Group Claim after students alleged that the university had failed to deliver the in-person teaching and campus access promised in its contractual materials. While the institution admitted no liability, it opted to resolve the dispute without incurring further legal expense.
The settlement effectively ends the claim against UCL but has intensified scrutiny on other universities that adopted similar emergency measures during national lockdowns.
Shimon Goldwater, partner at Asserson, which jointly represented the claimants suing UCL, described the outcome as a significant step forward for affected students.
“I am very pleased that our clients have been able to achieve a commercial settlement of their claims with UCL,” Goldwater said. “Student Group Claim will now turn its attention to claimants who attended other universities during the pandemic.”
Adam Zoubir, partner at Harcus Parker, also representing the claimants, echoed that sentiment.
“I am delighted that this settlement provides a resolution for our clients who attended UCL during the pandemic and had their classes moved online. This is the end of the claim against UCL, but we continue to represent tens of thousands of students who were at other universities during Covid,” Zoubir stated.
Alleged Breach of Contract
Student Group Claim argues that universities breached contractual obligations by failing to provide in-person tuition, campus facilities, and access to libraries and other resources, despite charging full tuition fees.
Under UK consumer and contract law, universities are generally required to deliver services as outlined in their prospectuses, promotional materials, and formal agreements with students. The claim contends that from 2018 onwards—due first to industrial action and subsequently the Covid-19 crisis—many institutions failed to provide the in-person academic experience for which students had paid.
During national lockdowns, lectures were shifted online, seminars were conducted via video conferencing platforms, and physical access to libraries, laboratories, and student facilities was either restricted or entirely suspended. Graduation ceremonies, placements, and other experiential components were also disrupted.
While many universities adopted digital learning tools at pace, claimants argue that remote instruction did not equate in quality or value to traditional face-to-face teaching. The legal action centres on the assertion that students paid for a specific mode of delivery that was materially altered without corresponding fee reductions.
The group further contends that access to facilities such as study spaces, academic support centres, and extracurricular services formed part of the educational package promised to students.
Universities Cite Government Restrictions
In response to the growing wave of claims, Universities UK, which represents institutions across the country, defended the sector’s actions during the pandemic.
A spokesperson said: “The Covid-19 pandemic threw two years of unprecedented challenge at universities and their students. Institutions—like other sectors—followed government guidance to adapt to a fast-changing situation.”
“During some periods of lockdown, universities were not permitted to offer in-person teaching as usual and instead they adjusted quickly and creatively to allow students to complete their degrees,” the spokesperson added.
Higher education leaders have consistently argued that institutions acted within public health regulations and prioritised student safety. They maintain that academic continuity was preserved, even if delivery methods changed, and note that substantial investments were made in digital infrastructure to facilitate remote learning.
However, the legal claims hinge on whether those adaptations met contractual obligations and whether students are entitled to partial refunds or compensation for diminished services.
Wider Financial Pressure on Graduates
The potential compensation battle comes at a time of heightened debate over student finance in the UK.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently announced that the repayment threshold for Plan 2 student loans will be frozen at its April 2026 level of £29,385 for three years, rather than rising with inflation.
Under the current arrangement, the threshold is set to increase annually in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI) from April 2030. Critics have warned that freezing the threshold could result in graduates repaying more in real terms, particularly as living costs remain elevated.
Commentators argue that the combined effect of pandemic-related disruption and tightening repayment terms has intensified dissatisfaction among recent graduates, many of whom feel they have borne disproportionate financial burdens.
Legal and Financial Implications
If the claims against multiple universities proceed to court—and succeed—the financial implications for the higher education sector could be substantial. Tuition fees for undergraduate courses in England are currently capped at £9,250 per year, meaning partial refunds across large student cohorts could amount to significant sums.
Legal experts suggest that the pre-action letters represent a coordinated effort to resolve disputes through negotiation before formal court proceedings commence. However, if settlements are not reached, universities may face protracted litigation.
For students, the cases raise broader questions about consumer rights in higher education and the extent to which universities are accountable when external crises disrupt service delivery.
The UCL settlement, though confidential, may influence negotiations elsewhere. Observers note that while universities argue that the pandemic constituted a force majeure event beyond their control, courts may ultimately assess whether contractual language adequately protected institutions against such disruptions.
Sector at a Crossroads
The unfolding legal action places UK universities at a sensitive juncture. Institutions are already grappling with financial pressures linked to inflation, international student recruitment volatility, and rising operational costs.
At the same time, student expectations around value for money have intensified, particularly in an era where tuition fees represent significant personal debt.
As Student Group Claim expands its focus beyond UCL, the higher education sector may face one of its most significant collective legal challenges in recent years. Whether through negotiated settlements or courtroom battles, the outcome is likely to shape how universities structure contractual obligations and contingency planning for future crises.
For thousands of former students, the issue is not merely academic. It centres on whether the educational experience they paid for was fundamentally altered—and whether compensation is now warranted.
