Following the confidential settlement of the University College London (UCL) student group claim in February 2026, litigation firms have now written to 36 other universities, signalling an intention to issue breach of contract proceedings on behalf of over 230,000 former students.

The actual number and merits of potential claims will be subject to closer scrutiny, but this is unwelcome news in an already challenging financial landscape for the sector. This article explains what happened with the UCL claim, the legal basis on which students are pursuing universities, the defences available, and the practical steps university leaders should be taking now to protect their institutions.

Background

The issue of Covid-19-related student claims for breach of contract has moved from a theoretical risk to active litigation. Following Student Group Claim’s successful negotiated settlement with UCL a few months ago, it has written to 36 universities warning of its intention to seek damages for learning that students claim they paid for but didn't receive during the pandemic.

The UCL settlement: What happened

The claim between approximately 5,000 – 6,500 former students, collectively represented by Student Group Claim, and UCL was scheduled for a four-week High Court trial in late February 2026. However, just days before the trial was due to begin, it was announced that the parties had reached a confidential settlement. 

Student Group Claim publicised that it was seeking £5,000 per student and although the actual settlement figure is unknown, it will often be the case that agreement is reached at a more commercial level, with no admission of liability to avoid the further expense involved in continuing to defend the proceedings. 

Defending litigation, if insurance is unavailable, inevitably involves weighing up the relative cost, including diverting valuable resources away from teaching, research, and supporting current and future students. While the settlement is confidential and has not been officially confirmed, the overall settlement figure widely cited in the press is £21m. If accurate, a sizeable part of this could relate to legal costs.

The new wave of claims

Following the UCL settlement, Student Group Claim announced that it had recruited over 230,000 former students, largely via social media, with the intention of issuing claims against another 36 universities. The action for breach of contract is being brought under consumer law and will be subject to a six-year limitation period; claims relating to decisions and actions taken in early 2020 may therefore be time-barred.   

However, the limitation position is not straightforward: the UCL claimants included some who allegedly received modified course delivery due to Covid and strike-related disruption as late as 2021–22, meaning the cut-off point will be fact specific. 

The legal basis of the claims

Students are bringing claims for changes to teaching during the pandemic, arguing that universities breached their consumer rights. The claims focus on three main points: first, that the university broke its contract with students; second, that it failed to provide education with reasonable care and skill, as required by consumer law; and third, that some contract terms are unfair. 

Consumer law treats university education as a service, meaning universities must deliver courses with reasonable care and skill. If they don't, students may be entitled to a refund or other form of compensation. 

Students also argue that certain contract terms - like those allowing universities to change how courses are delivered or limiting students’ ability to leave a course - are unfair if they put students at a disadvantage. These challenges are based on rules that protect consumers from unfair terms in contracts. 

Defences available to universities

Universities should not assume that the UCL settlement signals an inevitable outcome that all student breach of contract claims will succeed. UCL settled without admitting liability and no court has yet assessed the merits of the students' pandemic related claims.

Several defences remain available:

• Reasonable care and skill: Online delivery was a reasonable and lawful response to government-mandated restrictions – at numerous points it would have been unlawful for students to attend campus in person. Online delivery has since become a usual part of course delivery and the consequent widespread adoption of lecture capture as the norm is now often a student consumer expectation.
• Non-financial loss: It is notoriously difficult for claimants to establish damages for non-financial loss, and the courts may find it impossible to disentangle distress caused by university disruption from that caused by the pandemic more broadly.
• Fairness of flexibility clauses: Flexibility in course delivery is a legitimate and necessary feature of university contracts, enabling institutions to respond to unanticipated events whilst continuing to provide their services lawfully. Provision/alternative provision will have varied from university to university, again meaning that the claims will turn on their individual facts.
• Frustration: In the absence of express variation terms, universities could argue that the pandemic frustrated the contract entirely which means that all contractual obligations were effectively cancelled – an outcome that would not have served students' interests either. However, regulators have consistently insisted students' consumer rights must be preserved even in the face of pandemic disruption so this is unlikely to be an effective defence.
• Estoppel: Students who enrolled after the pandemic began may be taken to have been aware, or ought to have been aware, that teaching would be affected by ongoing restrictions, potentially undermining their claims.

The role of the OIA and potential CMA action

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) is the statutory body to deal with higher education disputes in a non-legal setting. 

Whilst the ability of the OIA to deal substantively and with quantum issues in respect of mass complaints on this scale has been questioned, the OIA remains a cost-free avenue for students, and a consultation on changes to the OIA's rules to make them more flexible and guidance-like will open soon. The OIA will also expect students to have first sought resolution via the university’s internal complaints procedures.

Universities should also be mindful of the regulatory dimension. The Office for Students (OfS), as the principal regulator of higher education in England, has powers to investigate and take action where providers fail to meet conditions of registration, including those relating to quality and standards of provision. In addition, the CMA, as the consumer law regulator, may launch an investigation or review, as it did in 2015–16 in relation to higher education, to monitor compliance with consumer law across the sector. Responding to regulatory investigations can drain time and resources.

What universities must do now to prepare for Student breach of contract claims

The UCL settlement has not resolved this litigation and now the Group Claim representatives are seeking to repeat the action against many individual universities across the higher education sector. With over 230,000 former students now reportedly recruited to claims against 36 institutions, universities should take risk management steps promptly, including assessing the relevant limitation periods and other mitigation action to more accurately assess the number of potential eventual claims. Preparation – in terms of documentation, contractual review and legal strategy – is critical. 

Those connected to the Group Claim will no doubt also recognise the challenge in mounting and sustaining multiple claims, which involve distinct individual circumstances and facts. The legal framework is genuinely contested, and the outcome of future litigation is far from certain.

Universities should use the time now available to compile an audit trail of how they communicated with students during the pandemic, review the terms of their student contracts, and take early legal advice on their exposure and strategy. To learn more on how to navigate claims and liability in the education sector, please get in touch with our specialist team.