No refund due to a critical tweet?

[Storydriven]

Hi,

I was removed from an online course today, as I wrote a negative tweet about the course. The email points to this clause in their contract:-

In addition, if a learner makes critical comments or allegations about the college or any individual(s) who work for it, on any social media channel, website or blog, whether using their own name or an identifiable alias, we reserve the right to:

(a) Remove them from their course(s), without refund of their fees, and

(b) Take legal action for defamation, malicious falsehood, breach of privacy, copyright or data protection laws, against any such person, whether or not they have used our Complaints Procedure (please also see clause 12.6).

I am just wondering if this is really legally enforceable? Surely I am allowed to say that a college is terrible, if said college is terrible without being banned and provided with the terrible service I unfortunately paid for?

I have just used a denial of service chargeback for the funds but expect they'll dispute that. But surely this sort of thing can't be enforceable?

Thanks.

[echat11]

Hi STORYDRIVEN

It's very harsh, they should be able to take criticism. If they were offended by it, they should ask you to remove it. It shouldn't effect your place on the course. Just because they have 'Terms and Conditions', doesn't mean they are 'fair'.

https://www.hants.gov.uk/business/tr...rtermsconsumer

[Ukmicky]

I would have thought that would be an unfair term under the Consumer contract regulations. Especially as they are not prepared to give u back your money . It also allows them to decide what is criticism. It’s too one sided.

Threaten them with court based on the above legislation or go onto the office for fair trading website. You should be able to make a complaint through them and they will deal with the company.

[des8]

Just wonder if a critical comment about a course is the same as a critical comment about the college

[Storydriven]

They did ask me to remove the tweet but only after kicking me off the course and threatening to instruct their solicitor with defamation charges.

I did the sensible thing, and set up Twitter Bots. One to repost the original tweet as a comment after every tweet they put out. A second to highlight how most of their testimonials are also staff members with side by side pictures of linked in CVs and the testimonials. A third to post screenshot of their principal denying that pieces of content existed on their sales page next to a screenshot of the said content existing. And fourth with a screenshot of their listed endorsements next to mosaic of said endorsements say I have never heard of them, in various ways. (Yeah, I actually wrote to them and asked.) All asking their licencing provides through tags why they provide them with licencing.

Pretty sure their SEO guy is having a full nervous breakdown. There bot hasn't has stopped posting every hour.

Yeah, I am petty and have too much time on my hands.

Pretty sure chargeback processors will overturn the disputed thing if the reason they provide has no basis.

The thing will never reach court, have a picture of their principal lying about false advertising claims by having changing the website's copy and denying it's existence. The guy has invalidated everything he says. Complete with time dates, and JavaScript time logs of changes. So, if I have to instruct a solicitor should be settled quickly.

Just wondered if there was any basis for that clause .

[des8]

A post you might find interesting: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...n_4147702.html

also those t&c's are part of a Consumer contract and are therefor subject to consumer rights Act 2015 which has a schedule listing terms which may be unfair. Worth a read!