Students were approved for loans. Now they must repay them — because universities misclassified courses

Thousands of students who were approved for maintenance loans to fund their higher education now face demands to repay every penny — not because they misrepresented their eligibility, but because their universities misclassified their courses.

David Robinson, a nurse who completed a one-year postgraduate diploma in adult nursing at Edge Hill University, received a £10,538 maintenance loan to cover living costs during full-time study and clinical placements. The funding was approved by the Student Loans Company (SLC) and relied upon as legitimate financial support. Now, he’s been told it was never valid.

The SLC has determined that one-year postgraduate courses like Robinson’s are not routinely eligible for maintenance loans. But the error wasn’t his. His university — along with dozens of others — incorrectly categorised the course as eligible under funding rules. The SLC now says those courses fell under distance learning regulations, which disqualify them from such support.

Robinson is not alone. Around 22,000 students on weekend, part-time, and franchised college-taught courses have received repayment notices. Among them is teaching assistant Lou Osborne, who took out a £3,500 maintenance loan for an accelerated education degree at the University of Sunderland. She used the money for books and transport while working full-time. Now she’s been told to repay it immediately, with interest — and no long-term plan offered.

A mother of three in her fifties, studying health and social care through a franchised college in London, faces repaying more than £20,000. She said she couldn’t sleep after learning the final loan installment was cancelled and the rest might be clawed back. Her course, awarded by Oxford Brookes University, was taught on weekends under contract by a private provider.

The SLC says a “small number” of institutions incorrectly categorised courses as non-distance learning. It claims it will work with students to set up “affordable repayment plans where appropriate.” But for many, the damage is already financial and psychological.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has acknowledged the fault lies not with students but with universities — “through either incompetence or abuse of the system.” She urged institutions to support those now facing hardship.

Some universities, including Edge Hill and Oxford Brookes, have expressed concern and are considering legal action. They argue that students were approved through official channels and acted in good faith. Their qualifications remain valid, the universities say, even as the funding behind them is revoked.

Students used these loans to pay for essentials during study. Many chose these courses specifically because they allowed them to work while training for new careers in nursing and teaching. The retrospective reversal — after funds were spent and education completed — upends the basic assumption that approved student finance can be relied upon.

The final consequence: students who followed the rules now face repaying thousands, not because they broke them, but because the institutions that enrolled them did.