“Staff at a college ranked as ‘highly trusted’ by the UK Border Agency are helping foreign students cheat the immigration system, a Sky News investigation has found. The investigation discovered that diploma certificates and dissertations were for sale inside the London College of Business in Barking. As ‘highly trusted’ by the UK Border Agency, the college can sponsor visa applications for foreign students and help them towards post-study work visas if they get their applications in by April 6. But we found foreign students desperate to obtain visas can buy themselves the necessary qualifications without attending any classes. It should take nine months to get a postgraduate diploma from the college but its marketing consultant [named in the story as Dr Javed Akhtar] has been secretly filmed by Sky News telling students they can have one in a week if they pay£1,000 . … Master’s degree dissertations are also for sale. A student working for us was told by Dr Javed if he wanted the qualifications quickly he could pay someone at the college£500 to provide his coursework. That dissertation is then sent to be externally marked at the University of Wales.”
“Where the student learning experience is perceived to be at risk, under the terms of its Agreement with Collaborative centres, the Taught Degrees Board has the authority to hold an Interim Review (IR). This decision may be made on the basis of concerns raised in external examiner/moderator reports, or as a result of the annual monitoring process, student/staff complaints or other relevant evidence received by the University. … The panel’s focus will be on the current and potential risks associated with operation of the validated programme(s), particularly those identified as the rationale for the IR; the collaborative centre will be informed of the key areas for consideration in advance of the visit. The IR event will take place at the Institution and will normally involve private meetings with key groups: senior management, teaching staff and students. The outcome of the Interim Review may range from continuation of validation (perhaps with conditions/recommendations which will be developmental in their nature and focus) through to withdrawal of validation. The review panel shall submit a detailed report to the Taught Degrees Board for approval.”
“Thank you for your message. We have taken notice and are waiting for further details regarding the Interim Review.”
“Thanks for this, we’ll have all documentation ready.”
“[C]ould you let me know how long do you think it will take for the University to confirm the result of the review, once the review takes place? I’m asking this because we have a number of potential online students for our May intake and I was wondering if we’ll be able to still enrol them (given the current suspension, pending review).”
“We are unable to confirm when the result of the review will be confirmed, but we will conclude the process as swiftly as possible. The majority of the work relating to the review is in the collation of the documentation, so we do hope that the result will be confirmed shortly after the review.”
“After the Sky story broke I suggested that they urgently review all students introduced by that agent specifically [that is, Dr Akhtar] and any other locally based agent they had used. I have also rejected a number of students through the APEL and Work Experience process and this may be what they are thinking of.”
“Please find the list for those registered in Jan[uary 2012]. Those highlighted in red are being terminated so there is no need to matriculate them—those in black are still with us.”
“Shall I go ahead and withdraw the ones in red on our system? I still will wait for a definitely go ahead (sic) from you/Jenna with regards to processing the black ones or any in the Jan intake batch that are not mentioned as being withdrawn.”
“Please hold onto this and do not process until you hear back from the interim review panel.”
“The Panel felt more positive hearing some of the comments and noted that students spoke warmly of LCB. The Panel commended the detailed plagiarism and administrative processes carried out by the MBA Programme Administrator. However, the Panel retained some concerns about the quality and the security of the provision of the programmes at LCB and wished to make the following recommendations: • The College must revise, clarify and formalise its relationships with ‘recruiting agents’, both in the UK and overseas, to protect itself, the University of Wales and past, present and potential future students from the sort of allegations which surfaced in the media earlier this year. The College should submit documentation on the revised arrangements for approval by the University of Wales. The agents used to find academic supervisors for the online MBA need to be considered. • The recent rapid growth of the ‘top up’ version of the MBA and the proposed growth of the online programmes do not seem to have been accompanied by the provision of adequate resources to ensure a secure and quality programme for the students. The College should draw up costed resource development programme for both the ‘top up’ MBA and the online programmes and a detailed operational model for the online programmes and submit them to the University of Wales for approval. The Panel recommend a Top Up admissions regulatory document. • The dissertations are a concern. On the one hand the supervision responsibilities … seem daunting and must militate against detailed and quality supervision for all students. On the other hand, the submission of all dissertations for ‘administrative inspection’ and testing with plagiarism software before they are sent to the two internal markers suggests the College seemingly see plagiarised dissertations as the norm. The College must take steps to reduce dissertation supervision loads to more manageable proportions …, it should give more thought to vetting proposed supervisors to ensure that they have the necessary experience and it should monitor the number and the nature of the student supervision experience more closely. The Panel would like a review of dissertation arrangements and procedures, and how these will be managed. • The Panel noted that there are issues surrounding Advanced Standing and how the moderator approved credit transfer students. The Panel noted that the credit transfer / advanced standing processes should be internally reviewed and made clearer to moderators. The Panel noted that LCB need to have more regulated CT processes as there is a risk with Top Up students, so their previous experience should be researched. • The Panel noted that LCB need to formalise many of their processes, e.g. student support[,] so that they have clear audit trails. • The Panel noted that there needs to be more sharing of information across the admissions and administrative teams, as currently the administrative staff are not involved in or consulted in admissions. • The Panel noted that the research training for advanced standing students needs strengthening and [to be] made compulsory.” • The College must revise, clarify and formalise its relationships with ‘recruiting agents’, both in the UK and overseas, to protect itself, the University of Wales and past, present and potential future students from the sort of allegations which surfaced in the media earlier this year. The College should submit documentation on the revised arrangements for approval by the University of Wales. The agents used to find academic supervisors for the online MBA need to be considered. • The recent rapid growth of the ‘top up’ version of the MBA and the proposed growth of the online programmes do not seem to have been accompanied by the provision of adequate resources to ensure a secure and quality programme for the students. The College should draw up costed resource development programme for both the ‘top up’ MBA and the online programmes and a detailed operational model for the online programmes and submit them to the University of Wales for approval. The Panel recommend a Top Up admissions regulatory document. • The dissertations are a concern. On the one hand the supervision responsibilities … seem daunting and must militate against detailed and quality supervision for all students. On the other hand, the submission of all dissertations for ‘administrative inspection’ and testing with plagiarism software before they are sent to the two internal markers suggests the College seemingly see plagiarised dissertations as the norm. The College must take steps to reduce dissertation supervision loads to more manageable proportions …, it should give more thought to vetting proposed supervisors to ensure that they have the necessary experience and it should monitor the number and the nature of the student supervision experience more closely. The Panel would like a review of dissertation arrangements and procedures, and how these will be managed. • The Panel noted that there are issues surrounding Advanced Standing and how the moderator approved credit transfer students. The Panel noted that the credit transfer / advanced standing processes should be internally reviewed and made clearer to moderators. The Panel noted that LCB need to have more regulated CT processes as there is a risk with Top Up students, so their previous experience should be researched. • The Panel noted that LCB need to formalise many of their processes, e.g. student support[,] so that they have clear audit trails. • The Panel noted that there needs to be more sharing of information across the admissions and administrative teams, as currently the administrative staff are not involved in or consulted in admissions. • The Panel noted that the research training for advanced standing students needs strengthening and [to be] made compulsory.”
“As Chair of the Taught Degree Board I have taken Chair’s action and have recommended to the Vice Chancellor as Chair of Academic Board that the suspension now be lifted and normal business is resumed.”
“I write to advise you that the University of Wales has reasonable grounds to believe that irregularities may have occurred with respect to the certification process at the London College of Business (‘LCB’). As a result, we are hereby formally suspending the Validation Agreement between our institutions, (dated1st February 2012 ) regarding the registration of new students with immediate effect until such time as we are able to satisfy ourselves through an investigation that the academic and administrative processes of LCB are sound. Colleagues from the University will be in touch to make arrangements for the review to take place; it is our intention that this will commence within the next five business days.”
“The College has been liaising with the University’s staff throughout the last year in respect of the above mentioned students and invoices. It has been common practice for the University’s staff to liaise with the College regarding the students which have been submitted for enrolment by the University. Often the College would submit a list of students which were expected to enrol. The College would then withdraw some of these students based on the discussions and admission approval processes from the university moderator prior to the University undertaking the matriculation process. Throughout its relationship with the College under the Validation Agreements the University has agreed to withdraw these students and amended any invoices accordingly so that no fees were payable in respect of non-enrolled-non-matriculated students. It has also been common practice since the commencement of both Validation Agreements (and indeed since the College began dealing with the University in 2007) for the College to discuss and amend the University’s invoices to reflect only students which the University has matriculated. This process has often taken longer than the 30 day payment period as stated in the Validation Agreements. It was therefore implied that payment after the 30 day period was acceptable to the University irrespective of the terms of the Validation Agreements. … The College therefore requests (in accordance with the conduct of the University since 2010) that the University render updated invoices and appropriate receipts to the College reflecting the correct balances due and the payments which have been made. The termination of the Validation Agreements has caused significant hardship to the College and hindered its ability to recruit students. In light of the above, we trust that the College’s Validation Agreements will be reinstated. There has not been breach of the Validation Agreements (given the amended terms implied by the University) as alleged in your20 December 2012 letter.”
“We have no doubt that the suspension of the Validation Agreement in March 2012 for over 6 months, the subsequent further suspension on29th November 2012 and the purported termination of the Validation Agreement by letter dated20 December 2012 were unlawful and amounted to a breach of the conditions of the Agreement. As the purported termination was wholly unjustified it effectively extinguished the business of the London College of Business as then constituted as the University of Wales was our sole University collaborative partner. We regard the purported termination as a repudiation of the Validation Agreement and we now accept that repudiation without prejudice to our rights to claim damages for such repudiation and breach of the Validation Agreement. It appears that the attempt to terminate was designed to enable the University to avoid its continuing obligations to validate our courses in order to make it free to speed up the merger with Trinity St David and to compete with our courses in the London market.”
“[I]n every case in which it is said that some provision ought to be implied in an instrument, the question for the court is whether such a provision would spell out in express words what the instrument, read against the relevant background, would reasonably be understood to mean. It will be noticed from Lord Pearson’s speech [in Trollope & Colls Ltd v North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board[1973] 1WLR 601 ] that this question can be reformulated in various ways which a court may find helpful in providing an answer—the implied term must “go without saying”, it must be “necessary to give business efficacy to the contract” and so on—but these are not in the Board's opinion to be treated as different or additional tests. There is only one question: is that what the instrument, read as a whole against the relevant background, would reasonably be understood to mean?”
“The question of implication arises when the instrument does not expressly provide for what is to happen when some event occurs. The most usual inference in such a case is that nothing is to happen. If the parties had intended something to happen, the instrument would have said so.”
“Where a contract does not expressly, or by necessary implication, fix any time for the performance of a contractual obligation, the law usually implies that it shall be performed within a reasonable time.”
“The invoices originated from batch information uploaded by LCB to the University, which then generated an invoice. However, the details uploaded were rarely totally correct because of students who did not take up their courses, were found in some way ineligible to pursue their courses and because of double counting and other administrative errors.”
“The expression ‘deals on the other’s written standard terms of business’ is not defined or explained by the Act … Since, in any event, no two contracts are likely to be completely identical, but will at least differ as to subject matter and price, the question arises whether variations or omissions from or additions to standard terms thereby render them ‘non-standard’ and, if they do not, whether all the terms then become standard terms. Where negotiations have taken place around standard terms before the contract is made, and amendments agreed, it is a question of fact whether one party can be said to have dealt on those standard terms. If it is alleged that an ostensibly ‘one-off’ contract is in fact the other’s written standard terms of business, extensive disclosure may be involved to determine the terms on which contracts have been concluded with others. The burden of proving that he dealt on the other’s written standard terms of business appears to rest on the party who alleges that s. 3 applies.” 101. In St. Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd[1996] 4 All ER 481 , 490-1, Nourse LJ rejected the submission that one cannot be said to deal on another’s standard terms of business if one negotiates with him over those terms before entering the contract: “Thus it is clear that in order that one of the contracting parties may deal on the other’s written standard terms of business within s. 3(1) it is only necessary for him to enter into a contract on those terms.”
“The concept underlying the provisions ofUnfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s.3 , in my judgment, is that there should exist a stock of written, no doubt usually at any rate printed, contract conditions which was simply drawn from as a matter of routine and intended to be adopted or imposed without consideration or negotiation specific to the individual case in which they were to be used. That seems to me to be the force of the words ‘written’ and ‘standard’ in the expression ‘written standard terms of business’. In other words, it is not enough to bring a case withinUnfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s.3 , that a party has established terms of business which it prefers to adopt, as for example a form of draft contract maintained on a computer, or established requirements as to what contracts into which it entered should contain, as for example provision for arbitration in the event of disputes. Something more is needed, and on principle that something more, in my judgment, is that the relevant terms should exist in written form prior to the possibility of the making of the relevant agreement arising, thus being ‘written’, and they should be intended to be adopted more or less automatically in all transactions of a particular type without any significant opportunity for negotiation, thus being ‘standard’.”
“The terms under which the University was prepared to validate a programme delivered by another institution are set out in a formal (written) Validation Agreement between the University and the institution. … The Validation Agreement is in a standard form and was drafted by the University’s solicitors.” 103. In cross-examination Mr McInally said that all potential collaborators were given a standard-form agreement so that they would know the University’s expectations, but he insisted that not all validation agreements were precisely the same and that special arrangements could be made about matters other than merely fees. No documentary evidence was adduced by way of example of variations to the standard form. For LCB, Dr Basha stated in his witness statement dated21 November 2014 : “[T]he University prepared through their solicitors a Validation Agreement which was sent to the College in January 2008 (the ‘2008 Validation Agreement’). We were told by the University that the Validation Agreement was in their standard form prepared by their solicitors for use for all colleges and that the college must sign and return the agreement if we wanted to proceed. We did not consider that we had any negotiating position with the University as it was really a take it or leave it situation.” “The College was sent the [2010 Validation Agreement] for signature and return on the basis that it was the standard form of the University drafted by their lawyers and no changes were allowed except to the schedules which related to the courses, qualifications and to the minimum and maximum number of students on the various courses. The 2010 agreement was the same as the earlier 2008 Validation Agreement except in so far as [concerned provision for the courses, the student numbers and the identification of the campuses].” “The University Validation Department sent us the new validation Agreement on26th January 2012 and asked the college to print off two copies, sign and return two signed copies to the University. … Here again, we had no opportunity to negotiate the substance of the Agreement but were required to sign as suggested. Again the only discussion was on the courses and degrees to be covered by the new Agreement. … The body of the agreement was the same as the previous agreements.”
“Not only has your non-performance lost us £x under the Validation Agreement. If you had performed, we would have gone from strength to strength; other validating institutions would have done business with us; we claim damages for the lost business from those sources.”
“Not only has your breach lost us the profit from the fee income under the Validation Agreement. It has tarnished our reputation and no one is any longer interested in having courses validated by us; we claim damages for the loss of our ongoing business.”