Change from in-person to online teaching

Short answer

Sometimes yes, but not freely. Whether a university can lawfully switch a course from in-person to mainly online teaching depends on what it promised you, what its contract terms say, whether any power to make changes is fair and properly exercised, and whether the change is significant enough that you should be offered a remedy. This is primarily a matter of contract law and consumer protection law, overlaid by the guidance of the Competition and Markets Authority and, if you complain, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.

The student contract

When you accept an offer and enrol, you enter a contract with the university. The terms come from the offer letter, the prospectus and course information relied on when you applied, the programme specification, and the university’s terms and conditions and regulations. As a fee-paying student you are also a consumer, so consumer protection law applies.

The starting point is what the university told you about delivery. Under CMA guidance, higher education providers are expected to explain clearly in their course information how a programme will be delivered, whether in person, online or blended, and the study location. If the material you relied on described the course as taught in person on campus, that description forms part of what you were promised. A later shift to mainly online teaching is a departure from that and needs a proper legal basis.

Does the university have a right to make changes?

Most universities include a variation clause allowing them to change delivery, modules or arrangements in certain circumstances. Two questions matter.

First, does the clause actually cover this change and the reason for it? Clauses often distinguish between minor changes and significant ones, and may only permit changes for good reason, such as regulatory requirements, staffing changes, low enrolment or events outside the university’s control.

Second, is the clause fair and was it used fairly? Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a term is not binding if it is unfair, meaning it creates a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer contrary to good faith. A term giving the university a very broad, one-sided discretion to change the core of what was promised, without a good reason and without any remedy for the student, is vulnerable to challenge as unfair. Terms must also be transparent and prominent. A sweeping “we can change anything at any time” clause is exactly the kind of term the CMA has warned providers about. So even if a clause appears to permit the change on its face, it may not be enforceable if it is unfair or was buried and not clearly drawn to your attention.

How significant is the change?

The lawfulness and the remedy often turn on how material the change is.

A change is more likely to be a serious problem where in-person, on-campus teaching was a central and advertised feature of the course, where practical, clinical, studio or laboratory elements cannot be properly replicated online, where the change affects a large part of the teaching rather than an occasional lecture, and where you chose this course and location specifically because it was in person. It matters less where only a small proportion moves online, the learning outcomes and assessment are unaffected, and meaningful interaction and support continue by other means.

The pandemic case law and adjudicator decisions illustrate the distinction. Where providers moved teaching online but communicated clearly, preserved the academic outcomes, maintained access to staff and support, and students were not academically disadvantaged, complaints for refunds were often not upheld. Where the change is significant, poorly communicated, damages the quality or value of what was promised, or removes something essential, students are in a much stronger position.

Reasons matter

Before treating this as a breach, consider why the university is making the change. A change forced by law, regulatory direction, or genuine events outside the university’s control is treated differently from a change made simply to cut costs or increase intake. A cost-driven downgrade of a course that was sold as in-person is far harder for the university to justify and is more likely to entitle you to a remedy. Ask the university, in writing, for the reason and the contractual basis for the change.

Possible remedies

If the change amounts to a breach or an unfair or improperly made variation, potential remedies include the university reversing or limiting the change, providing an adequate alternative that genuinely delivers the promised outcomes, a partial fee refund or reduction reflecting reduced value, compensation for losses caused, or in a serious case the right to withdraw. The appropriate remedy is proportionate to how significant and unjustified the change is. A modest, well-managed shift may warrant no financial remedy; a fundamental change to a course marketed as in-person may warrant a meaningful reduction or refund.

What to gather

1. The offer letter, prospectus and course webpages you relied on when applying, ideally as saved copies or web archive versions showing how delivery was described.

2. The programme specification and any module handbooks describing delivery mode and contact hours.

3. The university’s terms and conditions and academic regulations, especially any variation or changes clause.

4. All communications announcing and explaining the change, including the stated reasons.

5. A note of what you personally lose, for example essential practical sessions, in-person supervision, or the reason you chose this course and location.

Practical steps

1. Raise it informally first with the department or programme lead, asking for the reason, the contractual basis, and whether an in-person option or alternative can be preserved.

2. If that fails, submit a formal complaint through the university’s internal complaints procedure. Set out clearly what you were promised, what has changed, why it is significant to you, why you say the change is not permitted or is unfair, and the remedy you want. Complaining as a group of affected students can carry more weight.

3. Complete the internal process and ask for a Completion of Procedures letter at the end.

4. If you remain dissatisfied and your provider is a member, you can then complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which reviews student complaints and can recommend remedies including refunds and compensation. There is normally a time limit of twelve months from the Completion of Procedures letter, so do not delay.

5. Separately, concerns about a provider treating students unfairly as consumers can be reported to the Competition and Markets Authority and the Office for Students, though these regulators generally act on systemic issues rather than individual disputes. Court action to enforce your contract is possible but is usually a last resort given cost, delay and litigation risk; the internal process and then the adjudicator are normally the sensible route.

What the outcome is likely to turn on

The key unknowns are how the course was described in the material you relied on, exactly what the variation clause says and whether it is fair and was clearly drawn to your attention, how large and essential the online shift is, why the university is doing it, and whether the academic outcomes and support are genuinely preserved. If in-person teaching was clearly promised, the change is substantial, and the reason is not a compelling one outside the university’s control, you have a realistic case for either reversal or a financial remedy. If the change is limited, well justified and well managed, the university is more likely to be acting within its rights.