27/04/2026
Welcome to the spring edition of Higher Education Today.
In each edition we feature content from key members of our Higher Education team.
In this edition, our higher education pensions team share their thoughts on the recent trend that many higher education institutions are reviewing their ongoing participation in schemes such as the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) and the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS).
We also comment on the recent Covid-19 disruption and the Student Group Claim, and discuss what this means for higher education institutions.
Finally we also have an update from the presenters from our ‘Getting Ready for the Renters’ Rights Act: Key issues for Higher Education’ summarise the key points and the practical steps that higher education institutions should be taking. This webinar was part of our recent higher education spring webinar series.
You can view our previous higher education webinars.
If you would like further information about the wider Higher Education team please see our Higher Education brochure.
We hope you find the newsletter interesting and helpful.
Head of Higher Education
Rising costs of the TPS and LGPS – what this means for the higher education pension sector
A recent trend across the Higher Education sector has seen many organisations reviewing their ongoing participation in schemes such as the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) and the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS). Organisations are now taking steps to remove or restrict access to these schemes for new staff, or in some cases, to transition existing employees onto alternative pension arrangements that benefit from lower and/or more predictable costs.
Removing access to these schemes, though seen as a cost saving measure, carries a number of legal, ethical, and workforce implications. Practical considerations such as the impact on recruitment, retention, industrial relations and employee benefit structures are all important factors, but there are also legal risks in managing and implementing these changes which are sometimes overlooked. Statutory consultation obligations, contractual protections, and mitigating the scope for potential challenges must also be carefully managed by organisations alongside the wider commercial and costs implications. This can particularly be the case with an engaged workforce who understand the value of a defined benefit pensions. Where significant pension changes are proposed, organisations must ensure that the legal risks are fully addressed and the communications to employees appropriately address their concerns, particularly as any such action will come under increasing scrutiny.
We have substantial experience in supporting employers in the Higher Education Sector and beyond where they are restructuring or altering their employees’ pension offering. We have found that early consideration of potential resistance and issues can smooth the overall process, making any consultation or notification project more efficient and minimise the possibility of material objections.
Watch the autumn 2025 HE pensions update webinar OnDemand
Authors: Sadie Goodrum and Joel Eytle
Covid-19 disruption and the Student Group Claim
Covid-19 related disruption to students has given rise to further group litigation, with solicitors coordinating the Student Group Claim representing over 200,000 students seeking compensation via the courts from universities for interruption to their studies during the pandemic.
Hamon & Others v University College London was earmarked as a ‘test-case’ for the breach of contract claims, in which the Student Group Claim solicitors represented 6,000 UCL students. Confidential settlement was reached in February 2026 with no admission of liability by UCL. The settlement has instigated a new wave of litigation; Student Group Claim issued a press release confirming that 36 universities have been sent letters before action seeking similar compensation.
Bevan Brittan regularly advises HE providers on the legal issues underlying these claims, which we explore in this short article.
What is the legal basis for these claims?
The proposed claim alleges that the universities breached their contracts with students by cancelling in-person classes or moving them online and restricting access to facilities, seeking damages to reflect the asserted difference in value between the service they paid for and the service they received. The limitation for claims relating to the 2020-21 academic year will expire in September 2026.
Consumer Rights
Legislation requires that certain details about course provision (for example, the delivery of teaching and modules) must be provided to prospective students pre-contract.
Under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (“the CCRs”) , the ‘main characteristics’ of the course must be communicated pre-contract . The Competition and Markets Authority guidance specifies these, the most relevant including teaching provision.
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (“the CPUTRs”) were repealed and replaced by the Digital Markets Consumer and Competition Act 2024 with effect from April 2025, but for the purpose of Covid-related claims they required pre-contract communication of similar ‘material’ information necessary for prospective students to make an informed decision on their offer of a place to study .
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“the CRA”), any information that may be considered by students both whilst considering whether to sign the student contract and thereafter (when making, for example, a decision to withdraw) are binding terms of the contract . A chemistry course without laboratory facilities is unlikely to be an attractive proposition. Should the prospectus indicate that access to such facilities is covered by the contract, the CRA does not permit any change to this access unless effectively agreed between the student and the HE provider .
By relying on pre-contract information which was not reflective of the course, and variation to course content/delivery without their consent, students may argue that HE providers did not comply with consumer protection law. Should offer letters reserve the right for the HE provider to make changes pursuant to public health advice, it may be argued that the student accepted the offer on that basis. However, Student Group Claim contends that clauses which HE providers say entitle them to continue charging full tuition fees, even if they did not provide in-person teaching, are unfair to students and therefore under the CRA HE providers cannot rely on them.
Contract law principles
CMA Guidance makes it clear that ‘flexibility’ terms allowing blanket changes/affording HE providers very broad discretion to change significant characteristics of the course (such as the content, location, and/or method of assessments) is likely to be an unfair contract term unless it stipulates the circumstances and/or reasons necessitating the changes. Otherwise, students are not able to adequately foresee and/or adapt to these changes.
Pre-contract course information that was provided to prospective students and later unfulfilled could be considered misrepresentation (an untrue statement of fact or law made by the HE provider, inducing the prospective student to enter into the student contract which thereby caused them loss). ‘Loss’ in this context would be the difference in value between what the student paid for (certain number of contact hours, in-person teaching, access to facilities etc) and the service they received.
To defend claims for misrepresentation, HE providers may only have to argue that the information provided was substantially correct, not necessarily that it was entirely correct . Nonetheless, should the information forming the misrepresentation be written into the student contract, an argument for breach of contract may be available to the student.
Wider arguments in contract law may also be available to students, such as failure to perform the student contract with reasonable care and skill (breach of an implied term ). HE providers will need to look at how their counterparts handled changes during the Covid-19 pandemic to argue that their actions were standard practice for the time.
What next?
The accessibility of representation through Student Group Claim, the pre-action letters already served on HE providers and the limitation issues in the proposed claims indicates that proceedings will be issued. The merits of the UCL case were not tested and thus the approach the civil courts might take remains unclear. If the approach in the UCL case is adopted, test cases on common contractual terms covering issues of liability and quantum will be decided and “either the defences will be made out and the claims will come to an end, or the basis of liability will be established and the principles for setting the level damages will have been identified and permit settlement or mediation of the remaining claims” (neutral citation number: [2024] EWHC 1744 (KB)).
HE providers may want to prepare for further litigation and review their pre-enrolment processes to ensure that they are in line with consumer protection legislation. Our specialist team of HE lawyers have the experience and market insight to assist, please do get in touch.
Author: Sarah Burton
Renters’ Rights Act 2025 – Key issues for Higher Education
Our Higher Education specialists, Sarah Orchard, Daniel Halstead, and Helen Taller, recently ran a webinar on Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (the “Act”), outlining the key changes and exploring what they mean in practice for the sector. The session focused on student tenancies, arrangements, emerging compliance risks and the practical steps higher education institutions should be taking now to prepare.
They summarise the key points in their article below.
Phase 1 of the Act is being implemented on 1 May 2026 within the private rented sector (PRS). Whilst there will be no direct impact on those students who live in university/college halls of residence, the Act will impact any individual who has been granted an assured shorthold tenancy (ASTs), such as:
- Students living in the PRS
- Staff relocating
- Visiting academics
- PHD students
- Any ‘non-student’ housing portfolios
The principal aim of the Act is to reform the way in which the PRS operates. Some of the key issues for higher education are as follows:
Tenancy Reform
ASTs have been the default agreement for student accommodation lettings. However, the Act will abolish ASTs and assured fixed term tenancies. This means that, save for exempted university-owned accommodation and certain purpose-built student accommodation (see below) all new tenancies granted will need to be assured periodic tenancies (APTs). Any existing ASTs or fixed term assured tenancies will automatically convert to APTs from 1 May 2026.
Ending a Tenancy
The Act is amending the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 so that tenants will be able to end their tenancy at any point by giving two months’ notice; although, the parties are also able to agree a shorter period between them. This might raise some concerns for landlords should a student seek to end the tenancy earlier than expect (e.g. at the end of substantive teaching in Easter or moving in with different friends mid-year) as they may then have to accept a period where the property is empty, and potentially difficult to relet, until the start of the new academic year.
The Act will also abolish the ‘no fault’ eviction process under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (the “1988 Act”). This means that landlords will only be able to recover possession of APTs by relying upon one of the grounds under Schedule 2 of the 1988 Act. Under the Act, some existing grounds of possession will be amended with some new grounds also being introduced.
Ground 4A
The new ground 4A is likely to be of most relevance – this allows student landlords to recover possession from students in certain circumstances. This is a mandatory ground, which means that so long as the ground is proven, the court must order possession to the landlord.
For this ground to apply, the following conditions must be met:
- The dwelling-house must be in a house of multiple occupation (HMO) - as defined within Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004.
- The student meets the ‘student test’ (defined in ground 4A) when the tenancy is entered into – i.e. the tenant is a full-time student at that time or that the landlord reasonably believed the tenant would become a full-time student during the tenancy.
- The landlord must give the tenant a written statement before the tenancy is entered into of their wish to recover possession under this ground on the basis the tenant met the student test at the start of the tenancy and that the landlord intends to let the property on the next occasion to a student who meets the student test. For any existing tenancies entered prior to 1 May 2026, the landlord must serve this written statement by 31 May 2026.
- The landlord must provide at least four months’ notice for this ground, which can only expire between 1 June and 30 September in any year. This may cause some issues for the current and next academic year as, should a landlord serve notice on 1 May 2026, this may only leave a narrow window for a landlord to regain possession and re-let the property.
- The tenancy must not have been entered into more than six months before the tenant was entitled to possession of the property. This is designed to discourage landlords and students from agreeing tenancies early in the academic year. This rule will not apply to existing tenancies entered into prior to 1 May 2026.
Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA)
Lettings of PBSA provided by a specified educational institution are outside of the scope of the assured tenancy regime under the 1988 Act and this will continue to be the case under the Act. However, these institutions should note the exemptions do not apply to any private residential portfolio stock they have. Universities and student union in-house advisory teams will therefore need to be up-to-date with the new legislation to help raise awareness and provide correct information to their students.
The Act also intends to extend the exemptions to private PBSA, i.e. to tenancies that are granted by a ‘specified body of persons, such as non-education institutions, when the accommodation is let or managed by a member of a government-approved student management code of practice. This is specified under the Act as, as defined at section 233 of the Housing Act 2004. For private PBSA providers, and includes membership of ANUK or Unipol.
The extension to private PBSA is not being applied retrospectively, meaning existing tenancies or those entered before 1 May 2026 will continue to convert to APT. Although landlords would then be able to rely upon ground 4A (where the criteria is met).
Prohibition on Rent in Advance and Rental Bidding
From 1 May 2026, the Act will prohibit landlords from inviting, encouraging or accepting any rent or offer to pay it before the tenancy is entered into. In addition, for any new assured tenancies entered on or after 1 May 2026, landlords cannot require the tenant to pay rent before the start of the rent period to which it relates, i.e. rent cannot be payable more than a month in advance (given a month will now be the maximum rent period allowed under the Act).
This is likely to impact student landlords who typically charge international students a greater advance payment of rent currently – given they are usually unable to provide a UK based guarantor. In addition, students often pay rent in line with student loan payments so perhaps pay rent in advance. However, the changes do not prevent a tenant from voluntarily paying more than a month in advance once the tenancy is entered into, rather the tenancy agreement cannot require it to be paid this way.
The Act will also prohibit ‘rental bidding’ - it is intended that once landlords publish an asking rent that they will be prevented from inviting, encouraging or accepting a rent above this amount.
Rent Increases
From 1 May 2026, landlords will only be able to increase rent by way of the amended Section 13 process set out in the 1988 Act. This means that any rent review clauses in existing agreements will no longer apply.
Tenants will be able to challenge a rent increase via the First-tier Tribunal (FtT). The FtT can only decide to set the rent at a level which is the same or less than the figure provided for by the landlord not higher. The FtT may also delay implementation of that new rent for up to 2 months if they consider that the increase will cause hardship to the resident.
These changes have led to some concerns over the likely increase in challenges by residents across the PRS as they are in a ‘nothing to lose’ situation. In turn, this increase is then likely to cause delays in cases being heard at the FtT and further impacting on rent review cycles for landlords.
There are also concerns that the changes may impact on the supply of private sector non-PBSA student accommodation with landlords exiting from the market, in turn leading to accommodation being more expensive.
Pets
The Act will imply a term into every assured tenancy that the resident can request permission to keep a pet. Consent from the landlord must be provided but this cannot be unreasonably refused.
The Government has published some guidance for landlords when a tenant asks to keep a pet although this is limited as to the basis for refusal. It is to be seen how this will be interpreted by the new PRS ombudsman and courts where a tenant raises a challenge to a refusal.
Written Information to Tenants
A new section 16D of the 1988 Act will require a written statement of terms to be provided to tenants granted a new assured tenancy from 1 May 2026. This statement will need to be provided before the tenancy agreement is signed or terms agreed – in most cases we envisage that these terms will be incorporated into the body of the tenancy agreement, rather than providing it in a stand alone document. The prescribed information to be provided has been set out in regulations published by the Government.
In addition, for tenants with an existing written tenancy agreement entered prior to 1 May 2026, landlords must serve them with the Government’s information sheet explaining the effect of the Act on their tenancies. This sheet must be provided to relevant tenants by 31 May 2026.
Digital Database
Private landlords will be required to sign up, and register all properties they let out, on a new digital PRS database. Marketing, advertising and lettings will be restricted where the landlord and/or property are not active on the database. Anticipated to be apply in late 2026, regulations are awaited to provide detail on how this will be operated and the cost to join.
Digital Database
Private landlords will be required to sign up, and register all properties they let out, on a new digital PRS database. Marketing, advertising and lettings will be restricted where the landlord and/or property are not active on the database. Anticipated to be apply in late 2026, regulations are awaited to provide detail on how this will be operated and the cost to join.
PRS Ombudsman and Landlord Redress Scheme
All private landlords in England will also be required to join a new ombudsman service and a landlord redress scheme. Both are expected to come in for 2028 and regulations are awaited as to how the scheme will work and any fees to join.
Decent Homes Standard (DHS) and Awaab’s Law
The aim of the DHS is to raise the condition of homes in the PRS. The Government ran a consultation on the new standard which ended in September 2025. The outcome was published in a policy statement with it being anticipated the new DHS shall be enforceable from 2035.
Awaab’s Law provides for strict timelines as to when emergency hazards within a home must be addressed and provides for a requirement on landlords to source alternative accommodation for the household where these deadlines cannot be met. The regulations already apply to social landlords from October 2025, with a consultation (to be announced) to follow about how they will apply, and be implemented, in the PRSMaterials.
Watch our webinar in full on demand.
We also have a dedicated webpage to support organisations in navigating these changes.
Bevan Brittan’s Housing Policy, Advisory and Regulatory team can assist landlords in reviewing tenancy agreements and policies in line with the forthcoming changes. Should you require further advice at this time, please do not hesitate contact Jabir Dar or Sarah Orchard.
Authors: Sarah Orchard, Daniel Halstead, and Helen Taller
Estates Safety at Universities – what to look out for in 2026
In times of financial uncertainty, it can often be tempting for budget holders to consider a reduction in health and safety provision. As tempting as that may be, it is critical that institutions ensure regulatory compliance continues and standards are maintained. Estates must be safe. Further regulation lies ahead; and we consider below the challenges Universities are likely to face in the next 12 months.
Event safety
Following the deadly terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena in 2017, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 3 April 2025 and is expected to come into force 24 months later. It is known as ‘Martyn’s Law’, named after Martyn Hett, a victim of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. This is the government’s commitment to strengthen security at events. A regulator will be created through a new function of the Security Industry Authority (SIA), intended to support and guide those responsible for premises in meeting the requirements of this new law. Those responsible for certain premises and events will now need to consider how they would respond to a terrorist attack.
Whist guidance is anticipated, institutions may wish to begin considering how they will meet the legislative requirements. Generally, where it is reasonable to expect that between 200 and 799 (including staff) will be in attendance at a qualifying event, the responsible person will be required to notify the SIA and have in place, so far as is reasonably practicable, appropriate public protection procedures. If attendance will be above 800 people, the premises will become an ‘enhanced duty premises’ and there are consequently additional requirements imposed by the Act, for example a requirement to have appropriate public protection measures that could be expected to reduce both the vulnerability of the premises or event to an act of terrorism, and the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an attack was to occur there or nearby.
Safe evacuation
The Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) England regulations 2025 came into force on 6 April 2026. Whilst relevant to England only, they apply to buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises and which is either a least 18 metres above ground level or has at least 7 storeys, or is more than 11 metres in height above ground level that has simultaneous evacuation strategies in place. The regulations are designed to improve the fire safety and evacuation of relevant residents who would have difficulties evacuating a building by themselves in the event of a fire, for example a mobility issue, sight or hearing impairment or cognitive condition. The regulations mandate emergency evacuation plans in these buildings.
Responsible persons must use reasonable endeavours to identify their relevant residents. Those residents will be entitled to a person-centred fire risk assessment to consider their specific individual risk and ability to evacuate in the event of a fire. Resident consent is required throughout every stage of the plans.
Cladding remediation
The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has published an update to its Remediation Acceleration Plan which introduces legal deadlines requiring the remediation of unsafe cladding on residential buildings by 2029 or 2031, depending on height. Those failing to comply risk criminal sanctions, with new enforcement powers enabling government intervention. The Welsh Government has now published a summary of responses to its consultation on the next stage of its phased approach to building safety reform, which focuses largely on implementing a regime for higher-risk buildings. The summary suggests widespread support for implementing a regime that is consistent with the English building control system.
E-bike and scooter warnings
Concerns continue to be raised for public safety and fire risk caused by the widespread use of unsafe, illegally modified e-bikes and scooters. There has been a surge in battery fires caused by unregulated e-bike conversion kits, low-cost batteries, and poor-quality imports. A report from the All-Party Parliamentary
Group for Cycling & Walking made urgent recommendations including calling on online retailers to immediately withdraw unsafe e-bike items from sale and providing better police powers to seize unsafe bikes. Institutions may want to consider the safest ways for these to be stored on campuses and in their accommodation provision.
Grenfell Inquiry Recommendations
The Government has recently updated their annual progress report with regards to the implementation of the Inquiry’s Phase 2 recommendations (12 of which have been completed). The recommendations will impact the way Universities manage fire safety on a day-to-day basis and also how they carry out construction work.
The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has now officially transitioned away from the HSE as a standalone regulator responsible for regulating construction products, including testing and certification, accrediting fire risk assessors and overseeing building control. This will hopefully see improvements in processes moving forward but there is also potential for increased enforcement action. The Government has also recently consulted on the creation of a single construction regulator, intended to reduce fragmentation in the regulation of the industry. An update is awaited.
The BSR is due to launch a public consultation on proposed updates to Approved Document B this summer which will impact on fire safety during building work.
Construction products are being tightened with a new Code of Practice issued in February 2026 which organisations are being encouraged to engage with. The Code includes a due diligence approach and provides recommendations that can be taken to evidence all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure construction products are safe.
Plans also continue for the BSR to further expand the definition of a higher-risk building. A change to the definition would either increase or decrease the scope of the regime and either add or remove buildings from the regime.
The scrutiny and enforcement of building and fire safety management is now higher than ever before. This is only likely to increase. Universities should be aware of the Inquiry’s recommendations to ensure their management of building and fire safety is compliant and all reasonable steps are taken to make certain people are safe.
Authors: Emma Hall and Louise Mansfield
Say hello to us
Our Higher Education team is attending and speaking at a number of in-person and online events over the next few months, please follow the links for details. If you are also at these events, please come and say hello to us.
- Universities Human Resources (UHR) Annual Conference 2026 - 12 -14 May – (online)
- Association University Legal Practitioners (AULP) – 18 -19 June 2026 (St Andrews)
- Independent Higher Education – Student complaints and appeals – 21 September 2026 (online)
- Universities Safety and Health Association (USHA) – 7 - 9 October 2026 (Aston University)
- Independent Higher Education Annual Conference – 18 November 2026 (London)
Stay in the know — follow our LinkedIn page for legal insights that matter, or sign up for our Higher Education quarterly newsletter and bi-annual webinar series.
Previous Editions
- 22/01/26 Higher Education Today – January 2026
- 16/10/25 Higher Education Today – Autumn 2025
- 13/05/25 Higher Education Today – May 2025
- 06/02/25 Higher Education Today – February 2025
- 23/10/24 Higher Education Today – October 2024
- 30/04/24 Higher Education Today – April 2024
- 31/01/24 Higher Education Today – January 2024
