Join the student-led campaign
The route is not meant to feel complicated. Join the group, understand the legal basis, and be part of the collective pressure for payment.
For King’s College London students and alumni affected by COVID-era delivery
Full fees paid. Reduced delivery. Refund owed.
KCL students paid for an educational service. The legal issue is simple: students were promised one level of course delivery before enrolment, but during the COVID years many received a reduced version while full tuition fees were still charged.
This group exists to make the refund route clear, accessible and student-led. Students in comparable COVID-delivery cases have already received payouts through real settlements. I was also granted a KCL refund. The task now is for concerned KCL students to join together and press for the money owed back into students’ accounts.
Student-led public advocacy explaining the legal basis and practical route.
Join the group
The outcome becomes stronger when students act together
One student can be dismissed as isolated. A group of KCL students saying the same thing is different: full fees were paid, delivery was reduced, and the refund should follow the money.
Share your experience
Whether your course was science, arts, law, business, health, humanities or another faculty, the shared point is whether the service delivered matched the service sold.
Keep the route student-led
Before giving away a large percentage of your refund to a claims company, understand the legal basis and what students can do together.
Legal basis
Why the refund is legally owed
1. Pre-contract information can become binding
Before students enrol, universities make representations through prospectuses, course pages, brochures, open days, module descriptions and marketing materials. Under section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, information said or written about a service can become a binding term when the consumer relies on it.
Simple point: if KCL sold one educational experience, it cannot treat that promise as irrelevant after collecting the fees.
2. Services must be performed with reasonable care and skill
Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires services to be performed with reasonable care and skill. COVID restrictions explain why delivery changed; they do not automatically justify charging the full price for reduced delivery without a proper refund, price reduction or equivalent replacement.
Simple point: the question is not only why teaching changed, but why students still paid the full amount.
3. Misrepresentation supports the refund case
Where students relied on statements about the course before entering the contract, and the delivered service did not match those statements, the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and ordinary contractual principles support restoring students for the value they did not receive.
Simple point: students chose KCL based on what KCL represented before enrolment.
4. Price reduction can reach the full amount
Section 56 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides a price-reduction remedy where repeat performance is impossible or cannot be provided without significant inconvenience. Lost COVID-era teaching cannot now be returned in time. The student-led position is that affected students should pursue the full tuition-fee refund for the affected period.
Simple point: time cannot be rewound, so the remedy has to be financial.
Cost versus delivery
The financial basis is clear
£9,250 per year
Typical annual tuition fee paid by many home undergraduate students.
Around £18,500
Two COVID-affected academic years at full tuition fees.
100% charged
The central complaint: KCL kept the full price while many students received reduced delivery.
The campaign is not about asking for a favour. It is about the value students paid for, the value actually delivered, and the money KCL kept.
Unjust enrichment
KCL should not keep the full benefit of a reduced service
Unjust enrichment is the principle that one party should not retain a financial benefit at another party’s expense where there is no fair legal basis for keeping it.
Here, students paid full tuition fees. KCL received and retained the full payment. The student position is that KCL did not provide the full promised educational value during the affected period. If the service was reduced, the price should have been reduced too.
That is why the refund should follow the money: KCL kept the full fee, students did not receive the full promised service, and a financial remedy is the only realistic way to correct the imbalance now.
Student-led route
Why not give away a large percentage first?
Some group-claim companies charge from compensation if the claim succeeds, with student contributions publicly described as capped at a significant percentage. Students should understand the legal basis before signing away part of money that is being claimed as legally owed to them.
This route is designed to be accessible. The core legal basis is not complicated: KCL promised one level of service, charged full fees, delivered a reduced service, and the refund should be paid back to students.
My case
Why I am making this public
My name is Anna Muchiewicz. I studied Molecular Genetics at King’s College London. In my own case, a KCL refund was already granted. A serious dispute later arose around KCL’s records and the information needed to complete the payment route.
I am careful with the details because the issue is still active. The important point for students is this: my case shows that refund records, course promises, email trails and internal handling matter. If KCL was prepared to grant a refund in one case, students should be asking why affected students were charged full fees in the first place.
What to do now
Simple route for concerned KCL students
- Join KCL Refund Rights. Start by joining the group and following the student-led updates.
- Read the legal basis. Understand promise versus delivery, consumer law, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
- Share your course experience. Your experience helps show that the issue affected students across faculties, not only one course.
- Support the collective message. The stronger the group, the harder it is to dismiss affected students one by one.
- Use the website as your guide. The campaign keeps the legal basis clear and accessible instead of buried in legal language.
Sources
Legal and factual references
Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 49
Service to be performed with reasonable care and skill.
Read section 49Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 50
Information about the trader or service to be binding.
Read section 50Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 56
Price reduction remedy where repeat performance is impossible or unsuitable.
Read section 56UCL settlement reporting
Reports state that UCL agreed a settlement worth about £21 million with thousands of students.
Read reporting