Irshad Trust

Students have a right to be provided with clear, accurate and comprehensive information by their university or college when making choices, as well as clear and accessible terms and conditions in the contract they have with their university or college so that they benefit from the protections of consumer law and understand their rights. This case report provides an example of our work to protect students’ consumer rights before and during their studies.

We have also published a version of this case study for students to highlight and explain some of the types of behaviours and contract terms that could undermine their consumer rights, and what they should look out for when reviewing terms and conditions.

Where students, their representatives and students’ unions have concerns about the information they were provided with by their university or college which informed their decision to choose a provider or course or the terms and conditions in the contract with their university or college, they should raise these with their university or college. If this doesn’t lead to a satisfactory outcome, they can raise a complaint with the Office for the Independent Adjudicator. They can also notify us about concerns that a university or college is not meeting its obligation to uphold students’ consumer rights.

Only a court can determine whether consumer protection law has been breached. The case report sets out work the OfS and National Trading Standards (NTS) have done to ensure the information the Irshad Trust provides to students about the courses that it offers is clear and accurate and the provider’s student contracts do not contain terms that could be deemed unfair or to affect students’ consumer rights.

Case overview

The OfS referred Irshad Trust (which trades under the name The Islamic College) to NTS in June 2025, following concerns identified during a review of the provider’s website.

The NTS assessment found several issues, including:

• confusing and misleading information about the courses offered, including advertising of 'BA-equivalent' and 'MA-equivalent' courses on UCAS
• terms and conditions were difficult to locate
• an unclear refund policy
• references to Middlesex University on course webpages despite Irshad Trust no longer being validated by the university
• misleading claims regarding student loan eligibility.

NTS considered that these issues were potentially misleading under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC) and potentially did not comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). The information also did not comply with the consumer protection guidance on higher education issued by the Competition and Market Authority (CMA).

Irshad Trust was advised by NTS to take corrective action to ensure compliance with consumer protection legislation. NTS has reported to the OfS that Irshad Trust had taken substantive steps to address the concerns raised and aligned its practices with consumer protection legislation and relevant statutory requirements.

We encourage other universities and colleges to review this case study. It shows how we partner with NTS to identify and assess whether a higher education provider’s terms and conditions are potentially unfair under consumer protection law.^[1]

Providers should make sure they are familiar with their legal obligations and revisit their own terms and conditions where necessary. Universities and colleges should communicate any changes to students clearly.

The consumer rights issue

In February 2023, Middlesex University told the OfS that the partnership arrangement with Irshad Trust would end from 1 January 2024. This meant that Middlesex would no longer validate qualifications from the Trust or award degrees to new cohorts of students on its courses.

The Trust needed, therefore, to seek alternative validation arrangements or apply for its own degree awarding powers. Middlesex University continues to teach out the students who were studying through this partnership. The final cohort started in October 2023.

Despite the partnership ending, Irshad Trust’s webpage still referred to Middlesex University and listed ‘BA (Hons) degree from Middlesex University’ as a course option. This risked misleading students about the nature and recognition of the qualifications Irshad Trust offered. It also raised concerns about whether the information it was providing to prospective students was clear and accurate.

Irshad Trust continued to deliver validated programmes for existing students following the termination of its partnership with Middlesex University. However, references to Middlesex University and validated BA (Hons) awards appeared in publicly accessible course webpages and policy documents without clearly distinguishing between validated programmes for continuing students and non-validated ‘BA-Equivalent’ and ‘MA-Equivalent’ courses for prospective students. This created a risk that prospective students could interpret these references as applying to the courses being promoted.

In June 2024, a review of the provider’s website revealed confusing and potentially misleading use of terms like 'BA-Equivalent' and 'MA-Equivalent'. This appeared alongside claims that students would be eligible for Student Loans Company (SLC) funding and could progress to a masters’ degree — when these courses were not validated, which meant that students would not be eligible for student loans.

Irshad Trust’s course listings on UCAS also raised concerns. These included BA and MA courses advertised as recently as May 2025 that it was not validated to deliver.

The review also highlighted issues with the accessibility of key contractual documents, such as the terms and conditions referenced in the Admissions and Enrolment Policy, which were not publicly available. Certain aspects of the refund policy also raised potential concerns about compliance with consumer protection legislation.

The following claims about course information and terms were of particular concern:

1. Use of 'BA-Equivalent' and 'MA-Equivalent' terminology, reference to BA (Honours) and MA awards and statements, which suggested eligibility for SLC funding for ‘BA-Equivalent’ and ‘MA-Equivalent’ courses.

We were concerned about the use of the terms 'BA-Equivalent' and 'MA-Equivalent' on Irshad Trust’s course webpages, as they implied that the programmes would lead to formally recognised degree awards, which they did not. This could have misled prospective students into believing they were enrolling in validated degree programmes.

For example, the BA-equivalent Islamic Studies course webpage stated:

'We now offer an innovative, equivalent BA-Programme that captures the essence of our acclaimed former BA Islamic Studies curriculum.'

The MA-equivalent Islamic Studies course webpage similarly used the term without clarification.

Additionally, the sidebar included:

'Programme code: BA (Honours).'

'Financial Assistance: If you’re eligible under Student Finance England (SFE) rules, you can apply for both a Tuition Fee Loan of up to £6,000 to cover your course fees and a Maintenance Loan to help with living costs.'

We were concerned that these claims could have misled students into believing the courses were officially recognised and eligible for government-backed financial support. Also, the use of such terminology without clarification risked misleading students and may have breached the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.[2] Paragraph 4.20 of the CMA guidance explains that presenting false or deceptive information, including outdated references, may constitute a misleading action.[3]

2. 'BA (Hons) degree from Middlesex University' continued to be listed on the BA Hawza Studies webpage.

We were concerned about this statement as the validation agreement between Middlesex University and Irshad Trust ended in January 2024.

Referencing Middlesex University on a course webpage for a programme delivered after this date was misleading and may have given prospective students the false impression that the course remained to be validated by the university.

This is contrary to paragraph 1.14 of the CMA guidance, which states that material information must be accurate, clear, and not omit facts that could affect a student’s decision.

3. The listing of the BA and MA courses on UCAS.

We were concerned about Irshad Trust’s continued advertising of BA and MA courses on UCAS for entry in the 2024-25 academic year, despite its validation agreement with Middlesex University ending in January 2024.

While some listings were removed in August 2024, by May 2025, the provider was advertising three MA courses, two BA (Hons) courses, one CertHE course, and one DipHE course. It was unclear whether students applying through UCAS had been informed that these courses did not lead to validated awards. The use of such terminology and listings without clarification risked breaching consumer protection legislation.

This raised issues under paragraph 3.14(a) of the CMA guidance, which explains pre-contract information is treated as a contractual term. Consequently, any change to that information — before or after the consumer enters the contract — is ineffective unless the consumer gives their express consent.

4. Policy documents referencing Middlesex University without clarification.

Several documents published on Irshad Trust’s website contained references to Middlesex University as the validating institution. These included:

• Student Complaints Policy (dated September 2023)
• Non-Academic Misconduct Policy
• Admission and Enrolment Policy (dated July 2021).

The documents did not distinguish between validated and unvalidated courses. This lack of clarity may have misled students enrolled on 'BA-Equivalent' and 'MA-Equivalent' programmes.

Paragraph 4.20 of the CMA guidance requires that particularly important terms be clearly flagged, which had not been done in this case.

5. Terms and conditions were not available to students, and we had concerns about the clarity of the refund policy.

The Admission and Enrolment Policy referred to terms and conditions that were available on the website, but no separate document could be located.

The Refund Policy, which was available online, contained clauses that may have raised fairness concerns under consumer protection law. Notably, it lacked sufficient detail regarding refunds in cases where the provider was unable to continue delivering the course due to an event triggering the student protection plan.

The only reference to such circumstances was a brief statement in Section E:

'Where The Islamic College defaults on provision of the program, payments will be made within four weeks of the default day.'

However, this statement did not specify the reasons for default or the amounts to be refunded, which may not have met the standards of transparency and fairness required under consumer law.

Additionally, other clauses in the refund policy may have been problematic if they had been incorporated into student contracts. These included provisions allowing the provider to:

'Withhold refunds if the student is in debt to the provider.'

'Retain 100% of fees if the student has provided false or misleading information.'

We had concerns that the terms had created a significant imbalance between students’ consumer rights and the provider’s obligations and could be considered unfair under Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) and the Consumer Contracts Regulations (CCRs). In some cases, they might even have fallen under the CRA’s 'blacklisted'[4] terms, rendering them automatically unenforceable.

The Trading Standards assessment

We referred Irshad Trust to NTS due to the range of concerns identified in relation to course advertising, UCAS listings, and student-facing policies.

Through our partnership, NTS reviews each referral it receives from the OfS. The agreement means that we are supported by Trading Standards’ expertise in understanding and enforcing consumer protection legislation so that together we can effectively protect students’ consumer rights.

NTS advised that several terms may have breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly Part 2 – Unfair Terms, as they could have created a significant imbalance between the rights of students and the provider. NTS also considered that these issues may constitute ‘misleading actions’ under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024

These included misleading references to validated awards and funding eligibility, vague refund provisions, and clauses allowing the provider to retain full fees or withhold refunds under certain conditions.

Together, these issues raised serious concerns about compliance with consumer protection law and the fairness of contractual terms offered to students.

Resolving the issue

Irshad Trust responded to the concerns raised by NTS by making a series of amendments to its website content, course descriptions, and student-facing policies.

Key changes included:

• clarifying the use of 'BA-Equivalent' and 'MA-Equivalent' terminology, including the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications level identification and disclaimers that these are not UK honours degrees
• removing all references to SLC funding eligibility from promotional materials
• eliminating UCAS references from the Admissions and Enrolment Policy and ensuring no active courses were listed on UCAS
• adding a dedicated 'Policies & Procedures' section to the website homepage to improve access to student-facing documents
• revising the refund policy to provide clearer information on entitlements and meet the CCR’s cancellation rights
• updating the student protection plan to include specific details on refund policies
• reviewing all student-facing documentation to ensure compliance with the CMA guidelines.

Following these corrective actions, NTS confirmed that no further action would be taken.

We are engaging with the provider to understand the impact on students and will continue to monitor the college to ensure the actions it takes addresses our concerns.

We will continue to refer cases to NTS where we have concerns, and we expect to publish further case reports explaining the outcomes of these cases.

Notes

[1] See 'New OfS-National Trading Standards partnership to protect students’ rights as consumers'.

[2] See ‘The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008’.

[3] This guidance: Consumer law advice for higher education providers was updated in May 2023. All references in this case report refer to the updated guidance.

[4] Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 contains terms and notices that are automatically unenforceable against consumers. Part 1 of the Act also blacklists certain terms and notices, making them automatically unenforceable and open to challenge.