Background
Five universities challenged the government’s classification of full-time undergraduate courses requiring extensive home study and in-person attendance every weekend, but no weekday attendance, as “distance learning courses” under the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011. That classification makes students generally ineligible for maintenance loans and grants, although tuition-fee support remains available.
The universities had registered their weekend-only courses as in-attendance courses, and affected students had received maintenance support. After investigating the issue, the Secretary of State instructed the Student Loans Company in March 2026 to classify the courses as distance learning, stop further maintenance payments and initially recover past payments. The government later paused or abandoned recovery of grants, while many students transferred to weekday courses to retain support.
The universities sought judicial review on four grounds: erroneous statutory interpretation, frustration of a legitimate expectation, irrationality of the regulatory distinction between weekend and weekday attendance, and inadequate reinstatement of funding for students who transferred to weekday courses.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Johnson refused permission to claim judicial review on every ground. Regulation 2(1) expressly provides that a requirement to attend “on a weekend” does not satisfy the requirement to be in attendance. Read naturally and with the Interpretation Act 1978, that language covers repeated attendance on multiple weekends, not merely attendance on one isolated weekend. Once all weekend-attendance requirements were disregarded, the courses were distance learning courses under the statutory definition.
The published guidance did not create a substantive legitimate expectation because it contained no clear, unambiguous promise that weekend-only courses would be treated as in-attendance courses. In any event, neither defendant could lawfully promise or provide maintenance support contrary to the Regulations.
The irrationality challenge was substantially out of time and an extension was refused; the court also found it lacked arguable merit because weekday attendance was a rational proxy for reduced capacity to undertake conventional employment when the Regulations were made. The universities lacked standing to pursue students’ individual reinstatement claims, and the evidence did not establish unlawful delay or systemic failure by the Student Loans Company.
Key Takeaways
- Regular attendance every weekend does not prevent a course from being classified as distance learning under regulation 2(1) of the 2011 Regulations.
- General guidance describing regularly attended courses as in-attendance did not override the statutory text or create an enforceable legitimate expectation.
- A challenge to the regulation’s rationality arose when each university first became affected by it, not when the government formally announced its interpretation in 2026.
- Universities could not litigate individual students’ payment entitlements without showing a sufficient interest, particularly where the affected students were not parties.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that, under the existing student-support regime, the timing of required attendance can determine access to maintenance funding even when weekend and weekday courses are academically equivalent and require the same study hours. Universities offering weekend-only provision must classify those courses as distance learning for student-finance purposes.
The court emphasized that the students were not at fault and had borne the consequences of the misclassification. Its refusal of permission did not endorse their treatment or determine any separate claims or complaints individual students may pursue.