Pair claim ‘substandard’ course scuppered lawyer dreams
Two former Anglia Ruskin students have taken legal action against their former university, claiming that problems during their Legal Practice Course (LPC) ultimately prevented them from progressing in their legal careers.
The legal action is being brought by Paul Wayte and Ingrid J. Santana who enrolled on the LPC with ARU — the predecessor of the SQE — in 2021-22. The university strongly refutes the allegations and states that it has applied for the claims to be struck out.
Wayte tells Legal Cheek they had been promised a “high-quality” course, but instead found themselves enrolled in what they described as a “Mickey Mouse” programme. He claims the experience was “substandard”, citing last-minute cancellations of advertised modules and a lack of academic support — including what he refers to as a “refusal” to provide revision sessions.
The pair also claim the university introduced unfair policy changes midway through the course, including a restrictive 30-day complaints window which Wayte says was “hidden in the fine print”, along with delays in issuing completion certificates, ultimately “preventing career progression”.
“Despite raising multiple complaints, the university has refused to acknowledge its failings and instead, they have done everything possible to silence us and strike out our complaint, instead of engaging with us,” Wayte says. “As a result, both of us — despite holding multiple academic qualifications — have been left unable to progress in our legal careers.”
Santana, meanwhile, says she enrolled in the LPC course during the lockdown in early summer 2021. However, as the course progressed, she claims the university “changed the parameters of the whole course without giving sufficient notice”, citing guidance issued by the SRA at the time. She claims she was directly and indirectly discriminated against on the grounds of sex and by association, alleging that she was denied access to online lessons that had been promised and made available to other students.
The pair are seeking £49,841 in damages for breach of contract, violations of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and other statutory breaches.
Responding to the claims, a university spokesperson told Legal Cheek:
“Given that both claimants had to resit exams or retake modules multiple times, and that one of them still failed, it should be clear to anyone that while are committed to supporting all our students to succeed, we are rigorous in our requirement of high standards.”
They continued: “ARU’s course content and delivery have been rated as outstanding by the independent higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), and we are among just 22% of institutions in the country to receive a Gold rating in the OfS’ Teaching Excellence Framework. We strongly refute the allegations of both claimants and have applied for their claims to be struck out.”
Having seemingly stepped away from their legal careers for good, Wayte tells Legal Cheek he’s about to begin pilot training in Asia, while Santana is a secondary school teacher and is in the process of trying to set up a charity.
(
(
