1 week Ago By The Telegraph
Two students are suing their university, claiming that its boast of offering high-quality legal training was fraudulently misleading and their course amounted to a “Mickey Mouse” qualification. Ingrid Santana and Paul Wayte are seeking nearly £50,000 in damages for what they claim was breach of contract and other alleged statutory breaches. Both had enrolled at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge as mature students to study on its Legal Practice Course.
The pair decided to take action against the university because they say the reality of the course differed considerably from what had been advertised. They claim that promises of specialist modules, high-quality teaching and flexible learning did not materialise after they had paid for their courses. The university denies the allegations and is applying for the claim to be struck out.
Ms Santana told The Telegraph: “I think this is a Mickey Mouse degree. I believe this country has higher standards at some secondary schools than at this university.” Mr Wayte said: “I feel like we’ve been sold a dream and left with a mess and Anglia Ruskin have washed their hands of us now that they’ve got our money.
We’ve been left in limbo with no support and what feels like no future.” It is the latest action in a series of cases that show how students are increasingly demanding value for money in their degrees, which cost thousands of pounds in tuition fees. Anglia Ruskin in 2019 paid out £60,000 in an out-of-court settlement to a business student who claimed that the university’s statements about teaching quality and career outcomes were fraudulently misleading.
It did not admit any liability. Both Ms Santana and Mr Wayte said they were attracted to the course by specialist modules that were promised but then withdrawn during the course. Mr Wayte told The Telegraph: “We had the expectation that we would pick and choose certain modules which made the course more interesting.
When it came down to it we had no choice at all because they didn’t have the lecturers to teach those modules. They told us just before the module was about to start.” Ms Santana and Mr Wayte were both denied access to online learning while studying at Anglia Ruskin.
Both claim that a promise of flexible learning was a key reason why they chose to study there. Ms Santana, a mother of two, says that reasonable adjustments were not made when she had to isolate because her children had Covid. She said: “The treatment was unfair.
It wasn’t suitable for a parent basically because if your children were ill you couldn’t attend lessons and there was no extra support for you. “They told me that it was a flexible course, that I could continue doing it while working and they also gave me the idea it could fit around my commitments and work. The course was attractive to me because they said they would do special training in so many optional modules I was interested in and that they had links to practitioners in the field.
That was not at all true.” Meanwhile, Mr Wayte says that he was unable to participate in parts of the course while suffering from health problems. The university maintains that online learning was not appropriate for the course, according to guidance it had received from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Ms Santana said the university had “cited the SRA as a blanket for their impunity”. A spokesman for Anglia Ruskin said: “ARU’s course content and delivery is rated as outstanding by the independent higher education regulator the Office for Students (OfS), and we are among just 22 per cent of institutions in the country to receive a Gold rating in the OfS’ Teaching Excellence Framework.” “We strongly refute the allegations of both former students and have applied for their claims to be struck out.
” Mr Wayte passed the course, but says he has struggled to find legal work since. He is now pursuing a career in another sector. He said: “I don’t think it’s fair that a university should charge such massive fees for such a substandard product.
I expected my investment to pay me back with a legal career and I’ve got nothing. Now I’m going in a completely different direction.” “It was 100 per cent a Mickey Mouse degree.
When you put your trust and faith in that institution you expect nothing but the best back, this is their bread and butter, they should be getting it right. But that just isn’t the case.” Ms Santana said she has had to give up on pursuing a legal career after she failed the course.
She said: “I wanted to become a lawyer. I was ready to do it. I got very good marks in my first degree.
It was the second degree. I had all that hope to become a lawyer. And they have just finished all of that.
They wasted my time. I’m a mature student with a family. I was paying for the course out of my salary without a student loan.
” “I have found myself poorer, without a qualification, and very tired. My ambition to become a lawyer is gone.”.
