The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has confirmed[1] the Advocate General’s recent opinion that a state-funded school, providing free education, is subject to the European Union’s rules on unfair contract terms where it supplied services for-profit.
A student was offered an interest-free loan[2] (repayable over seven months) to pay her registration fees for the academic year plus the cost of student trips. The terms of the loan allowed the school to charge interest if the student defaulted on her monthly payments, at a rate of 10% from the date of default. The student missed a payment, and a summons was issued. The student claimed the term was unfair and challenged the enforceability of the interest payments.
One of the disputed issues was whether a free, educational establishment was caught by the consumer protections contained within Directive 93/13/EEC (the Directive).
The protections within the Directive apply where there is a contract between a “Seller or Supplier” and a “Consumer” for goods or services, which are offered for “purposes relating to trade, business or profession” and for remuneration. The school argued that as a state-funded school it was not acting in the course of a trade, business or profession. The school had also subsidised the total tuition fees payable by the student and so believed it was not caught by the Directive[3]. The ECJ confirmed that the definition of “Seller or Supplier” is very broad and applies to the contractual arrangement between the parties, not the legal status of the person supplying the goods or services or how much they charge for the supply.
The ECJ confirmed that providing the student with the interest-free loan and the ability to pay in instalments was “complementary and ancillary to its educational activity”. The term was subject to the Directive and held to be unfair (and therefore unenforceable), owing to the distorted bargaining power between the school and the student.
Key points for charities, schools, public authorities and other organisations providing goods and services for a public benefit
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the Act) replaced the previous Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and translated the Directive in English law. It empowers consumers to expect, amongst other things:
Remedies are available to consumers if these requirements are not met and generally, a breach of the consumer protections within the Act will entitle consumers to:
It is important to understand that charities, schools[4] and other public-sector bodies are subject to the Act where they enter into a contract for activities provided in the course of their trade, business[5] or profession. Consumer protections still apply, regardless of whether the goods or services are supplied by a not-for-profit organisation, in the public interest, as a ‘freebie’[6] as part of a purchased package or at a discounted rate.
If you have any questions on the issues raised in this article or would like to review your consumer contracts, contact Emma Watt.
[1] Karel de Grote Hogeschool – Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Kuijpers (Case C-147/16) EU:C:2018:320 (17 May 2018)
[2] Please note that in certain circumstances providing credit or allowing individuals to pay in instalments may require authorisation from the Financial Conduct Authority.
[3] Generally, public education is provided as part of the State fulfilling a legal duty, rather than a supply of services.
[4] Please note that the Competition and Markets Authority takes the view that education providers (including those operating on a non-profit basis) must treat their students as consumers for the purpose of the Act - Page 12
[5] “Business” includes the activities of any government department or local or public authority (section 2(y) Consumer Rights Act 2015).
[6] Certain rights also exist where digital content is provided free of charge.
Supreme Court publishes key decision for those working in the UK’s gig economy.
From 6 April 2021, it will be the responsibility of medium and large private sector organisations to assess whether contractors working through an intermediary come within the ambit of IR35.
The 'Chocolate Snowman Appeal' is an amazing initiative that Anthony Collins Solicitors' (ACS) employees take part in every year.
The Building Safety Bill (the Bill) is said to be the most significant and wide-ranging change to the regulatory environment for higher risk building (HRBs) for over 45 years.
On 4 November 2020, the Restriction of Public Exit Payments Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) came into force; exit payments for the public sector were capped at £95,000.
The case was brought by the Official Receiver who sought disqualification orders under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) against the seven trustees of Kids Company and its CEO. It illustrates well the tension between the role of a fulltime paid CEO of a large charity and the role of its board as voluntary trustees/directors.
At the end of 2020, The Charity Governance Code was updated or 'refreshed' as it is termed on its website.
Anthony Collins Solicitors is today (Thursday 11 February) revealing the scale of its social impact during 2020.
In their first podcast of this series, current and future trainees will discuss their journey and route to securing a training contract at Anthony Collins Solicitors.
A recent prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive ("HSE") demonstrates the importance of organisations regularly inspecting, maintaining, and if necessary, repairing or replacing street furnitur
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.