LETTER OF COMPLAINT: BPP’S RESPONSE TO LOCKDOWN

Dear Professor Stewart,

We are writing to you to highlight the persistent failures in BPP University’s teaching and exam
delivery, as students on the LPC and LLM LPS courses. Our complaints fall under three main categories:

1. Communication;
2. Assessments; and,
3. Lack of value for money.

There are additional concerns that have been faced (specifically) by students with learning support
arrangements and international students on Tier 4 visas.

1 COMMUNICATION

1.1 ANNOUNCEMENTS
The first complaint is that all communication takes place through announcements on the VLE. We do
not believe that a centralised repository is a good way of making university announcements, given
that different announcements are of relevance to different cohorts: some are relevant for every
university student, others only relevant to students in a particular course, and others yet only relevant
to students who are studying a particular module or who are in a particular student group. This has
led to announcements for other cohorts being presented to students they do not apply to, confusing
them further. The complaints above were articulated to student representatives and our programme
leaders, as well as to the BPP administration through the Full-Time September start LLM LPS SSLC
meeting on the 7th of May and the Full-Time January start LLM LPS SSLC meeting on the 4th of June.

This manner of communication specifically caused difficulty on the 7th of May, where an
announcement posted on the VLE was visible to all LLM LPS students regardless of the start date of
their course. This resulted in students from both the September and January start courses (full time
and part time) concurrently using the VLE and Microsoft Teams, causing, in turn, the systems to exceed
their capacity and become unusable for the duration of the test. This resulted in a significant amount
of confusion, with many students spending their time on addressing technical difficulties that could
have been prevented by only emailing the cohorts that should have been present in the Teams
meeting. This incident will be discussed in further detail in the assessment section later on.

1.2 TIMING
Information seems to be delivered to students at the last minute. While we understand that this is a
consequence of the lockdown and the shift to online teaching and testing, it still results in students
receiving information too late to adequately prepare for assessments and causes unnecessary stress
and confusion. For example, it was announced on the 16th of April that we would have an opportunity
to trial the new remote proctoring system (Proctorio), and that this opportunity would come early in
the following week when we received the Proctorio guidance document. However, the trial
opportunity did not arise as planned. It was later stated that this sample paper would be uploaded to
the VLE on the 4th of May. This also did not happen. Our first informal opportunity to trial Proctorio
actually came three weeks after the original announcement on the 5th of May.
Our first formal opportunity to trial the software was on the 7th of May. However, this formal trial took
place on a Thursday before a bank holiday, two hours before the end of the working day. This was also
the final working day before our first exam on the 11th of May. As a result, students who had faced
hardware or software difficulties were left without enough time to make the adjustments that were
necessary to enable them to sit the exam, in addition to the unnecessary stress of worrying about IT
failures so close to the exam date.

1.3 ACCOUNTABILITY
We have often received contradictory information between our tutors and the formal announcements
made by the university administration. This has resulted in confusion, as our handbook, programme
leaders and more senior individuals in the administration have told us to rely on our personal tutors
as our first point of call, while simultaneously telling us that the VLE announcements should instead
be our main source of information.

Moreover, because our tutors are the last in what is presumably a long line of information
transmission, it is impossible to correct any incorrect information in time, because tutors do not have
the authority to verify the validity or change any decisions that have been made by their superiors.

In addition to the above, the university’s response to emails is deeply unsatisfactory. Many emails go
entirely unacknowledged. When they are replied to, they are often replied to too late for any
difference to be made. Though we understand the tutors and program leaders have likely received
many emails and have to choose and prioritise who they respond to, we have noticed that even our
important emails, such as those relating to learning support, tutors not attending classes, IT issues,
and unresolved questions about assessments have not been replied to in time.

We believe that all emails should at least be acknowledged. If the university’s response is something
best articulated through a subsequent announcement, an individual email response stating this would
be appreciated.

1.4 MISINFORMATION
In addition to BPP’s persistent failure to meet its deadlines, it is common for changes to be made
without any explanation as to their rationale. One example is the delay in the trial of Proctorio
(outlined above), which was originally planned to occur in late April, but only occurred on the 7th of
May, days before our first exam. A second example involves the justification as to why students
received extra time for our exams. Prior to the 11th of May, it was claimed that the 25% extra time was
given to students to account for the fact that we were sitting assessments under a new format and
were going to consult documents in a much more cramped exam environment. However, following
the system failure on the 11th of May during the Civil Litigation exam, an email was sent by Jane
Houston (Director of Programmes and Students) where it was claimed that the 25% extra time was
there to accommodate for any IT issues that could occur. To students, this email seemed like a
deliberate attempt to head-off complaints about IT failures by claiming that any such failures were
pre-emptively addressed by the additional time. It also diminished the very valid concern that take-
home exams are usually more time-consuming owing to the risk of distraction and the novelty of the
format.
2 ASSESSMENTS

2.1 IT FAILURES
As already mentioned, the initial Proctorio trial on the 7th of May was so over capacity that the VLE
failed and locked students out of the system. There was a significant amount of concern by students
at the time that the same would happen during the assessments that were scheduled for the following
Monday. As it turned out, Proctorio failed on the day of the 11th of May exams as well. Two exams
were sat that day: Litigation for the January start cohort and resitting/part-time students, and PCR for
the accelerated LPC cohort. Every student was locked out from the exam for a few minutes. However,
some students were locked out for longer, with the longest time we are aware of being 70 minutes.
BPP did attempt to mitigate the loss of time suffered by students by offering an additional 40 minutes
across the board to every student sitting the exam. However, this did not fully compensate those who
were locked out of the system for a longer period of time, and benefited the majority of students, who
only suffered a minor time penalty.

When communicating the above to the University, we were directed to the university’s no-detriment
policy. This stated that, if the average grade across the cohort was less than that achieved within the
past three years, the grades of students who had achieved less than this would be increased by the
difference. Those who failed will also be able to take advantage of the deferral policy. However, two
problems persisted. Firstly, those who failed entirely could defer their exams (and thus get a second
chance), whereas those who passed with a low grade could only rely on the no detriment policy.
Granted, BPP was responsive to this disparity: the no detriment policy was changed on the 22nd of
May to allow for students who felt their grades did not meet their expected standard for any reason
to resit at the next sitting. However, this resulted in a second problem: any student who faced an IT
issue, including the IT issues that were anticipated and brought to the university’s attention in
advance, was put in a position where they had to decide whether to accept results achieved with a
handicap or opt for a resit in January 2021. Of course, delaying the completion of one’s degree by
several months would have knock-on effects on the affected student’s other plans, such as their job
applications and offers, and would also force them to meet the (high) cost of living in the cities in
which BPP campuses are located for at least another half-year. BPP has refused to commit to
additional resits prior to January 2021. This will be discussed in greater detail below.

2.2 FORMATTING
Two of BPP’s May exams contained formatting issues that made the question unclear or the answer
more difficult to calculate.

Firstly, a formatting issue occurred in Part One of the Business Law & Practice exam (“BLP”), which
took place on the 19th of May. Values were offset in a table in one of the questions, which made it
difficult to adequately calculate the proper answer without rewriting the table in its entirety. We
would therefore like the question to be excluded if the distribution of grades on it is markedly lower
than that of other questions on the exam paper.

Secondly, the design of the Criminal Litigation exam shows little consideration of the fact that this
exam requires students to work across multiple web pages, as each new question requires a significant
amount of cross referencing from previous questions that had loaded as separate tabs/webpages. This
severely prejudices anyone with a slower internet connection and makes it unnecessarily difficult to
keep track of information.

We believe that the need for cross-referencing and the issues with the BLP table would have been
detected had the exams been trialled by the university in advance. This calls the thoroughness of BPP’s
internal testing into question.

2.3 COMMUNICATION
There has been a failure to notify students in a timely manner as to their assessment changes. The
Solicitors Accounts exam format was changed significantly when moved online, a fact that was only
communicated to students in a small group session that took place less than a week before the exam.
When questioned about the change in format in an email, Camilla Brignall (programme lead for the
January start Holborn LLM LPS), responded that there was no need to tell students about the change
in format until that point due to the structure of the course. However, given that all but one activity
in the workbook and SGS materials are modelled on the old format, students would have benefited
from the forewarning in order to adjust their study methods. This issue is especially grating given that
the university knew of the change as early as May 13th, as indicated by an update on that date, that
was however hidden within the assessment “tile” for this course on the VLE. This departs from the
policy that we ought to receive our information directly from the university’s announcements.

3 LACK OF VALUE FOR MONEY

3.1 HARD COPY MATERIALS

The issue most frequently raised by students since lockdown began was that of hard copy materials.
This was largely an issue in the run-up to Core Practice Area (“CPA”) assessments, because most
students lacked many if not all of the permitted materials that were required for their assessments.
Not only did the BPP administration give students less than 24 hours’ notice before they closed their
buildings at the start of lockdown, they then failed to address student queries on the issue of
assessment materials for a number of weeks. The university did eventually allow for exams to be open
book, which helped lessen the disparity between the students who were fortunate enough to have
the materials in their possession and the students who did not. However, those who either had all the
materials or could afford to have them reprinted still had an advantage compared to those who lacked
them. This is because those who had materials from the outset did not lose revision time copying
statutory references down by hand or creating more printer-friendly versions.

BPP must also appreciate the benefits to learning provided by having materials in hard copy, as, if it
did not, students would have been given entirely digital materials from the outset (aside from those
needed to sit in-person exams). The importance of hard copy materials is also laid out in the
university’s student handbooks and marketing materials. It is therefore odd that BPP has outright
refused to refund students the printing costs incurred and refused to refund students the printing
credits that are redeemable at BPP printers that students will not be able to access or use for the
remainder of their course.
When the question of retrieving hard copy materials from university buildings was put to Andrew
Chadwick (Dean of the Law School) at the June 4th SSLC meeting, the explanation given was that
recommissioning (reopening) any BPP building that has been out of use for a given amount of time
has expenses attached. The implication, of course, is that this expense should be borne by students
rather than the university. Further investigation by a student has revealed that this reopening expense
only amounts to the cost of a water specialist needed to flush the main water system and the cost of
staff needed to enable students to enter the building and properly social distance. The university has
refused to entertain the idea of opening buildings at all, pointing to government guidance. However,
given that retail businesses have reopened, it is unclear why this stance is being maintained.

At the same SSLC meeting, the dean also claimed that there is no commercial printer that is capable
of reprinting the aforementioned hard copy materials at scale. However, the University of Law has
managed to print and deliver materials to their students at the university’s expense. We therefore
question the validity of the dean’s claim; it is very possible that BPP could have provided replacement
copies had it devoted more resources to searching for, and negotiating with, the relevant publishers.

A final point made at the SSLC in regard to reprinting materials for students was a matter of logistics,
with BPP stating that delivering materials to students would be impossible due to GDPR complications.
However, it seems to have escaped their thinking that if students ordered materials and input their
data into the publisher’s systems themselves, with the charge being made to or reimbursed by the
university, the appropriate consent would be given to the third party publisher, and the GDPR would
not be a problem. This option was brought to the administration’s attention as a question submitted
for consideration at this SSLC meeting but was dismissed with little acknowledgement.

3.2 CLASS SIZES

Covid-19 also saw a drastic increase in the size of our classes. The only warning of the increased class
sizes came through a two-sentence blurb on the BPP announcement page after schedules and course
tutors had already been changed. What used to be 15-person classes are now classes containing up
to 70 people, including students from other campuses. This contradicts the student handbook, which
specifies that SGS would be up to 20 people. Of course, we understand the difficulties faced by BPP:
many tutors have caring arrangements and other responsibilities that may preclude them from
teaching. However, it is unfair that the brunt of these unforeseen circumstances should fall on
students, who have every reason to expect a specific class size, when BPP could have, for instance,
sought to retain temporary part-time tutors to plug any gaps. The need for such part-time hiring is
particularly important when we see that the shortages of teaching staff were not, in fact, temporary.
Modules that are difficult to teach in large class groups, including solicitors’ accounts and PCR, still
have outsized groups compared to what was promised in the student handbook, despite the fact that
we were (at that point) three and a half months into lockdown. For the SSLC meeting on 4 June, we
were informed that this is a matter of practicality rather than policy, but no tangible promises have
been made as to when we should expect to return to normal class sizes.

As students who have now experienced both face-to-face teaching and online teaching, it is clear that
online teaching is a poor substitute for the type of in-person contact that we had previously. It is nearly
impossible to maintain the same level of participation: we no longer know all of the pupils in our class
(which can deter students who are shy or less confident in their point), and the frequent changes in
tutors breaks down familiarity and makes natural, flowing discussions more difficult. Most of us have
started at least partly self-teaching the material, as we cannot rely on classes to test and further our
knowledge in the way that they did pre-lockdown. We can only hope that our tutors and schedules
remain the same throughout the entirety of the elective term.

3.3 LOCATION PREMIUM

On a final note, given that the remainder of the course will be conducted online, there seems to be no
reasonable explanation as to why students are being charged a premium (of £4,400) to attend classes
in London. Moreover, students are no longer gaining any benefit from the facilities, the cleaning,
maintenance and security of which is undoubtedly reflected in our fees. We therefore believe that all
students should receive a partial refund that is based on the period of time they were unable to use
BPP facilities.

4 LEARNING SUPPORT

BPP’s support for disabled students has been non-existent. Learning support students have largely
gone uncontacted by the university’s Learning Support team following lockdown. The only
communications students received came just a few days before the first CPA assessments and
consisted of a confirmation of the amount of time students would be granted under their support
arrangements.

Learning support students received emails less than 48 working hours before their assessments in
Drafting and BLP, that informed them that their assessment dates had been moved to a different date
and time. Drafting was moved from the afternoon of the 14th of May to the morning of the 15th and
BLP Part 2 was moved from the afternoon of the 18th of May to the morning of the 19th. No explanation
of the rationale behind this postponement was given at the time. When contacted, the Learning
Support team suggested that this change was made because learning support student’s exams would
be unmanageably long as a result of the extra 25% assessment time given to all students and the
existing additional time offered under the university’s learning support arrangement. While this is a
fair explanation, the last-minute nature of the change left students unable to reschedule other, real-
world commitments, and scrambling to adjust their study schedules for their remaining exams.

There is also no reason for the last-minute nature of the rescheduling: the assessment dates and
student’s eligibility for extra time were known from the moment the university decided to provide
students with 25% extra time on the 14th of April. It is worth noting that these last minute changes
affected students who already face challenges under regular teaching and exam conditions.

5 INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

The needs of international students on Tier 4 visas has been largely ignored. The current projected
resit dates for exams during this period are scheduled for January 2021. The university has refused to
guarantee that the resit exam dates will fall less than two months after the end of the course, despite
this issue having been brought to the administration on multiple occasions in emails, revision sessions,
and SSLC meetings. Should the resit date fall after the projected expiry date of Tier 4 visas,
international students will be left in a difficult position. Even if they are able to extend their visas or
apply for short term study visas in the UK to take advantage of the university’s deferral policy, they
will bear the expense of any administrative fees needed to do so. This extra burden is unacceptable,
given that this deferral policy is the only solution for the IT issues mentioned above. We therefore
request the university commit to resit dates prior to mid-January, preferably in late autumn.

6 DISSATISFACTION WITH BPP’S RESPONSE

Overall, BPP University’s response to lockdown and coronavirus has only served to create an
environment of mistrust and anxiety for students, severely degrade the quality of teaching and
assessment, and push as many costs of adjusting to lockdown onto students.

Appended to the end of this letter is a summary of the University of Law’s response to lockdown. The
University of Law has successfully avoided many of the problems outlined in this letter. As they are
BPP’s closest competitor, we feel that this shows that our expectations as students are both
reasonable and achievable.

We therefore demand:

● Communication to take place through direct emails to students from this point onward;

● Reimbursement for any provable printing costs incurred by students as a result of lockdown;

● Reimbursement for the commercial print value of hard copy materials that students did not have
access to during the May and June assessment periods;

● Reimbursement for the printing credits with the university that we will be unable to use for the
remainder of the course;

● Reimbursement for the difference in fees between a student’s own campus and that of the lowest
cost campus to account for the loss of facilities;

● Reimbursement for the equivalent commercial print value of hardcopy materials for any
remaining classes or alternatively, allowing students to enter buildings under social distancing
conditions to retrieve materials, should they so choose;

● Commitment to the promised class sizes in the university handbook for the remainder of the
course;

● Compensation for the change in class sizes for classes that are larger than the 18-20 students
specified in the LLM LPS student handbook;

● Compensation for any classes that tutors were unable to attend that were not rescheduled after
the fact;

● Commitment to resit dates prior to January 2021.

SIGNATORIES
(LPC)
(LPC)
(LPC)
(LPC LLM)
(LPC LLM)
(LPC LLM)
(LPS LLM)
(LPC)

(LPC LLM)

(LPC LLM)
(LPC LLM)
(LPS LLM)
(LPS LLM)
(LPS LLM)
(LPS LLM)
(LPS LLM)

(LPC LLM)
(LPC)

(LPC)
(LPS LLM)
(LPC LLM)
(LPC)
(LPC LLM)
(LPS LLM)
(LPC LLM)
(LPS LLM)
(LPC LLM)
(LPC)

(LPS LLM)
(LPC LLM)
(LPC LLM)
(LPC LLM)
(LPC LLM)
(LPC)

(LPC)
(LPC)
(LPS LLM)
(LPS LLM)
(LPC)
(LPS LLM)

(LPC)

(LPC LLM)
 THE UNIVERSITY OF LAW’S RESPONSE TO COVID-19 AND LOCKDOWN
[All dates refer to when changes to procedure or policy were communicated to students]

Communication:
 Every update from the University of Law is communicated by the central university
administration to students via email first, with further explanatory emails being sent by program
directors and course leaders. These updates and notices are then also posted on an
announcements page that is dedicated to Covid-19 related changes.
 The University of Law intranet, ELITE, has an announcement page for class-specific changes. This
page can be consulted conveniently, because it doubles as the page that provides access to their
online classes.
 Students receive weekly emails from various departments (student finance, the library,
employability) informing them of changes and the resources still available.

Learning support:
 The Learning Support team contacted individuals via email on its own initiative.

Exams:
 Electives
❖ Elective exams are not being e-proctored and are being submitted as take-away exams
via Turnitin, in a similar manner to the BPP LPC Drafting exam (as described in version
1.3 of the User Guide on the VLE)
❖ Every student has received an extra hour (increased from 3 to 4 hours) to complete any
take-away elective exams.
❖ Elective exam dates have been amended; the exams now take place over a three week,
rather than a two week, window.
 CPA
❖ CPA exams have been delayed from June to August to allow in-person invigilation.
Should this still not be possible in August, the University of Law is arranging for an e-
proctoring provider to facilitate at-home exams in line with SRA guidelines.
❖ Under normal circumstances, all exams at the University of Law are open book. Students
are allowed to bring in two lever arch files and their textbooks. This policy will remain in
place for exams that may eventually require e-proctoring. The only portion of exams
that is closed book is the one hour multiple-choice portion of each of the CPA exams.
 Skills
❖ Oral skills courses, such as interviewing and advocacy, have been delayed but will be
conducted on the Collaborate function of Blackboard, the University of Law’s online
platform, in line with SRA guidelines (Apr 17) The University of Law is permitting the use
of PCs, phones, or tablets as well as the use of online materials.
❖ The Wills and Estates assessment has been delayed but will be conducted in a similar
format to the elective exams in June.
International students:
 Tier 4 visa holders have been given assurances that visas will be extended to cover the
completion of their exams.
 A new, dedicated section of the University of Law intranet has been created to update Tier 4
students on changes to government policy that can impact them.
 Free English practice sessions have been offered to international students. This was
communicated via an email on the 9th April.

Re-sits, deferrals, and other exam policy changes:

 If students do not wish to be assessed by at-home takeaway exams for their electives, they are
automatically deferred to the next sitting.
 A no detriment policy was implemented on the 8th April.
 If a student fails a takeaway exam in June, they are able to retake it in August, but will have to
apply for the concession.
 If students wish to resit on any later date, they must reschedule it themselves. Students are not
automatically enrolled onto later exam sittings.

Fees:
 The University of Law has not made an offer to reimburse fees.
 Students have been contacted by the University of Law student finance team about the
university’s financial hardship fund. This fund is available to students who may be facing
challenges paying their fees as a result of Covid.
 ULaw has created a specific Covid-19 short-term hardship fund in addition to the above. It is
primarily meant to enable access to online learning by facilitating access to the necessary
technology e.g. compatible laptops, webcams, etc.

Communication with administration:

 Points of contact have been signposted in communications from the university.

Classes:
 Classes have been moved online and hosted on Blackboard, using the Collaborate and Panopto
functions. The system has been described as very user friendly and allows for the creation of
breakout groups.
 Classes have been split into 2 stage sessions. In the first stage, students listen to a recorded
version of the SGS and complete their work individually. In the second “collaborative” stage,
student groups come together to discuss the activities with their module tutor.
 Attendance is recorded in the second stage of SGSs.
 If students wish to attend a different session, they must apply and provide reasons for doing so.
 Class schedules have not been changed.
 Tutors have not been changed.
 Class sizes have generally not been changed. When these changes are made, they are one-offs.
 ❖ e.g. A tutor was sick in Leeds. The tutor’s class attended an online session for London
students, increasing that class’s size from 15 to 40. This change was posted on every
student’s schedule almost a week in advance, and expressly communicated to students
24 hours in advance.
 Students were provided with formal guidance on how their courses would be altered and what is
now expected of them via email.

Printing and materials:

 The university has provided printing credits that allow students who do not have their textbooks
to order material containing University of Law Intellectual Property directly from the publisher.
Hard copy materials are home delivered.
 The order form is located on the home page of the university intranet, and students have
received three emails about ordering their missing materials.

General support:
 Wellness checks: Students have been asked by their tutors how they have been doing during the
beginning of each class. They have also been contacted by email multiple times since lockdown
began to ensure they are coping and able to study well.
 The university has reached out to all students by email to provide study skills sessions for any
students who are finding study at home to be challenging. These aim to help them improve their
time management and revision technique (March 18).
 The university has hosted virtual drop-in sessions to hear student feedback about how they are
coping and the challenges they are facing (April 22).
 The University of Law’s Vice-Chancellor contacted students by email to alert them to the
existence of well-being eBooks that had been licensed by the university (April 24).