First Aspect
Guru
You can't make the argument that they are paying for a degree, otherwise someone who fails would be entitled to a refund.
You also can't make the argument that they haven't paid when they have a debt. I assume they are after debt reduction rather than a cash windfall.
And yes, the strength of their claim in front of a judge will be based on whether the terms of the contract have been met. But no one here is commenting on the strength of their legal position, they are commenting on the moral position. Plus if UCL have settled, it can't be that simple
They were borrowing for the opportunity to earn a degree. I repeat, there's no evidence that any fewer of them succeeded, nor that grades were detrimentally impacted. Quite the opposite, in fact.
It is a debt like no other, because it eventually ceases to exist if you don't pay it back. And the payment terms aren't proportional to the amount borrowed. So analogies to other loans break down quite quickly.
Universities settling despite the merits of a case seems to be in vogue. It's most likely a pragmatic decision based on £500+/h fees.
As far as I can tell, the cause of action is that the students were deprived the opportunity to get shiftfaced, hump someone they normally wouldn't if the lighting had been better, puke in some toilets they were lucky enought to get to in time and make it home without really knowing how.