Richard Adams’ reporting for the Guardian sets out the immediate fallout.
Hundreds of international students, including around 200 from China, are stranded after UCL admitted it had run out of Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) allocations.
The Guardian reports that many have already spent thousands on flights and accommodation – others are already in the UK and now face deportation.
Comments like this one on Reddit illustrate the issue:
On September 22nd, I suddenly received a notice from UCL, telling me that the issuance of CAS had been suspended… the only option they’ve given is to defer my enrolment to 2026. I’ve already rented a flat and the money is non-refundable.
The reputational damage may spread from UCL. A YouTube video entitled “UK university cancels CAS letters” lists causes like overbooking and compliance checks without actually mentioning UCL. And a look at Chinese-language spaces suggests that story has gone semi viral – re-told and amplified with screenshots said to be from affected cohorts.
UCL told us that it’s urgently working with the Home Office to secure additional CAS numbers and is doing everything it can to resolve this as quickly as possible:
In the meantime, we are contacting affected students directly to explain the situation, offer our sincere apologies, and provide support including the option to defer their place to next year.
The short-term picture is reputational damage and urgent negotiations with the Home Office. But potentially, the longer-term problem is consumer law – and the conflicting risks and incentives that our immigration regime and the consumer protection regime creates.
Push me pull you
Universities, of course, have to apply to the Home Office for CAS (Confirmation of Acceptance for Study) numbers. The number allocated is based on how many international students each university expects to admit.
They have to aim to be as accurate as possible – they’re not permitted to significantly over-estimate these figures as a precaution. The problem this year for UCL is as follows:
We’ve experienced significantly more applications and acceptances of offers than anticipated, and as a result, we have exceeded the number of Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) numbers allocated to us by the Home Office. Our planning is based on historical data and expected trends which take account of attrition rates and other factors.
For all universities, the numbers are always estimates. This is because, in any one year, more offer holders than expected may accept their place, or more students may meet the academic requirements than in previous years – both of which increase demand for CAS allocations.
The question then is how to manage the risks – not least because as well as worries about over-recruiting, as per the Legal Migration white paper, UKVI will soon be demanding a visa refusal rate of less than 10 per cent and a course enrolment rate of at least 90 per cent of CASs issued.
UUKi’s advice on that looks like this:
Universities may wish to consider reviewing their deposit requirements alongside their diversification plans to help ensure applicants are genuine students and intent on studying. This could include introducing or increasing deposits or introducing earlier deposit deadlines.
It’s not hard to see how immigration policy pushes universities towards locking students in once they apply, and then having to take steps to limit the impact if a surprising number then accept and/or meet any offer made.
The problem is that those steps may not be compatible with protections students are supposed to have. In other words, it may not be quite as simple as it looks to transfer the risks being loaded onto universities onto students.
CMA’s earlier warnings
You may remember that after the pandemic admissions crunch caused by those mutant algorithms, the CMA issued specific advice reminding universities that:
Universities and colleges should not make binding offers which they know they may not be able to honour, and should avoid terms which allow them wide discretion to withdraw offers once accepted.
Then in updated CMA guidance to universities in 2023, the same themes recur:
Institutions must provide prospective students with clear, accurate, comprehensive, unambiguous and timely information about courses, teaching, teaching locations and any limiting conditions.
And echoing its Statement on Admissions, the guidance stresses that terms allowing a university excessive discretion to withdraw or change the service must be fair:
HE providers should not use terms which allow wide discretion to vary or cancel aspects of the educational service after an offer has been accepted, or to limit or exclude liability for failure to provide what was promised.
Non-refundable deposits
Like most universities, UCL’s Tuition Fee Deposits Policy 2025 says deposits are:
…typically non-refundable if the offer-holder simply chooses not to enrol or is unable to enrol for reasons within their control.
Refund routes are narrow – visa refusal, academic failure, programme cancellation, scholarship funding – and discretionary. Refunds may also be reduced by bank charges or currency fluctuations.
The CMA’s unfair terms guidance (CMA37) says that deposits must reflect a trader’s pre-estimate of the loss, not operate as punitive lock-ins.
Paragraph 5.14 warns that forcing consumers to forfeit prepayments:
…is open to serious objection where it bears no relation to the business’s actual costs.
Where universities use deposits to insure against under-recruitment, the price is often borne by students – in ways consumer law regards as unfair.
UCL told us that:
Tuition Fee Deposits are not intended to deter withdrawals and represent a genuine estimate of the loss suffered where an individual doesn’t enrol. UCL specifically sets out that Tuition Fee Deposits aren’t non-refundable in all circumstances.
Acts of god
Meanwhile, UCL’s terms and conditions allow it to cancel programmes and treat “under or over demand for courses or modules” as an “event outside our control.”
In the undergraduate version, Section 15 lists over or under-subscription alongside things like government restrictions and industrial action as circumstances for which UCL “will not be responsible or liable for failure to perform.”
And under Section 5, UCL may withdraw or cancel a programme and will then “use commercially reasonable endeavours” to offer a suitable alternative or permit withdrawal.
The CMA’s HE consumer law advice is explicit that providers must not draft broad discretionary rights to withdraw courses after offers have been accepted. Terms must be narrow, transparent, and balanced – and force majeure cannot be used to cover risks the provider should reasonably plan for.
In what appears to be the CMA’s view, oversubscription is not an act of God – it’s a business choice.
UCL’s terms also cap its liability for breach of contract at twice the tuition fee, and exclude responsibility for consequential losses – including travel, accommodation, and visa fees.
But under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, suppliers can’t exclude liability for foreseeable losses arising from their own breach – and the CMA warns against blanket exclusions of precisely these losses.
If students have rented expensive private halls or bought non-refundable flights on the strength of UCL’s assurances, those look potentially like foreseeable losses. Trying to exclude them may not survive scrutiny under the fairness test.
The university told us that:
UCL does not seek to limit or exclude liability that it cannot lawfully limit or exclude and accepts a fair and reasonable allocation of liability in the terms.
The exacerbating issue is that evidence on student forums appears to show that UCL knew weeks before the term that there could be a capacity issue.
UCL states that first-year undergraduates who meet the published criteria – such as applying by the deadline and firmly accepting their offer – are “guaranteed” a place in UCL accommodation.
But posts on student forums suggest that by early September some applicants were being told the guarantee had effectively become a “priority” allocation because of high demand, leaving students scrambling for private halls after cheaper options had gone.
It means that many are now locked into costly private housing contracts, without a contractual route to compensation because the contract expressly excludes accommodation losses.
The university’s UG terms say:
UCL does not accept any liability for loss that does not flow naturally from a breach of its obligations under these Terms. This is often referred to as indirect or consequential loss. In addition, particular types of loss that UCL does not accept liability for, whether direct or indirect and whether considered a possibility at the time the contractual relationship came into effect, are loss of earnings (including delay in receipt of potential earnings), loss of opportunity, loss of profit and loss of your data.
That could also be a classic example of an unfair exclusion clause under the Consumer Rights Act.
All of this lands at a time when UCL is, as a first target in a likely series of claims, already preparing to defend itself in the High Court against claims from students over pandemic and strike disruption. That trial, due to begin in early 2026, may test amongst other things whether the “force majeure” clauses that universities have relied on to exclude liability are enforceable at all.
The CMA has long said that force majeure clauses covering a university’s own staff strikes are likely unlawful, and OfS has echoed concerns in its guidance. In UCL’s case, the test claims may explore whether something truly uncontrollable in March 2020 became predictable – and therefore compensable – over time.
That context matters because UCL’s oversubscription response leans on similar legal logic – that over-demand is “outside its control” and liability for students’ losses is capped. Regulators, adjudicators and courts could now be asked whether these contract clauses are actually fair.
A risky model
Recruiting large numbers of international students is inherently volatile. Visa policies change, attrition rates fluctuate, and global demand can surge unexpectedly. But while the business model may be risky, in theory the law prevents the transfer of that risk onto students via hefty deposits, discretionary refunds, cancellation rights or liability caps.
In other words, an airline can take the risk of overbooking a flight – but if it does, you have the right to compensation – as well as a choice between a refund or an alternative flight.
In many ways, UKVI and Home Office policy pushes universities towards the sorts of risk management practices that consumer law was designed to rule out.
But the problem may not only be universities sometimes over-recruit. It may be that they do so on terms that attempt to ensure they are protected, while students are not.
It’s not yet clear whether UCL is committing to compensation – or seeking to rely on the terms that would, on the face of it, allow it to avoid compensating.
But if the pandemic/strikes litigation establishes that universities cannot contract away responsibility with sweeping force majeure clauses, oversubscription could become the next flashpoint in regulation and the courts – with real implications across the sector.
======
A UCL spokesperson said:
This year, UCL has seen an extraordinary surge in demand from international students, a reflection of our global reputation and the value students place on a UCL education.
We’ve experienced significantly more applications and acceptances of offers than anticipated, and as a result, we have exceeded the number of Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) numbers allocated to us by the Home Office. Our planning is based on historical data and expected trends which take account of attrition rates and other factors.
We are urgently working with the Home Office to secure additional CAS numbers and are doing everything we can to resolve this as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we are contacting affected students directly to explain the situation, offer our sincere apologies, and provide support including the option to defer their place to next year.
We also recognise that some of our recent communications have caused confusion and uncertainty, and we are sincerely sorry for that. We are committed to supporting every student impacted by this and are grateful for their patience and understanding as we work to find a solution.
An Office for Students spokesperson said:
All registered universities and colleges must show that they’ve given due regard to CMA guidance about how to comply with consumer protection law in developing and implementing their policies, procedures, and terms and conditions. Students invest a significant amount of time and money in their studies and it’s important that their consumer rights are protected when making this investment.
