The fee letter is part of the promise: schools after the CMA’s July revision

01

A summer change with an admissions consequence

A family can accept a place months before the next bill arrives. Between those moments, the school may announce a price change, revise an included service or explain a condition that the family had not understood. That gap is commercially important even before a dispute arises. On 22 July 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority updated its unfair-contract-terms guidance following consultation, alongside its shorter customer-contract guide.12

The revision is a dated reason to revisit the parent agreement and the communications around it. It should not be described as the creation of a wholly new school-specific law.12

Our affordability coverage has examined the pressure on the price a family pays. This follow-up examines the commitment the family makes and how a school describes its freedom to change that commitment. A school needs sufficient certainty to plan provision; a parent needs enough information to choose and budget.

An agreement that transfers almost every uncertainty to one party can damage both trust and the reliability of the admissions forecast. Enforceability, clarity and the quality of the commercial relationship are connected questions, but they are not identical.

02

Charitable status does not answer the contract question

The CMA’s full guidance explains that not-for-profit organisations can fall within the definition of a trader; the assessment depends on the activity and circumstances. It is therefore unsafe to assume that charitable status alone places a fee arrangement outside consumer law.345

Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act sets the fairness test for covered terms and notices. Section 68 requires written wording to be transparent. Those provisions concern a defined legal relationship, rather than a general judgement about whether a school’s price is high or its educational offer is attractive.345

This distinction should shape internal discussion. A perfectly readable sentence can still allocate rights unfairly. A parent’s signature does not settle every question about the content. Equally, dissatisfaction with a fee increase does not automatically establish that the relevant term is unlawful. We have not adjudicated a contract or reviewed a named school’s compliance. The useful leadership response is a contextual review by the appropriate advisers, informed by how admissions staff, finance staff and the school website actually explain the same arrangement.

03

The moment when a change becomes foreseeable

The CMA addresses terms allowing a trader to vary a price or service. Its explanation emphasises the scope of the power, the reason for a change and whether the consumer can anticipate the practical effect. It also examines the reality of an exit route, rather than treating a nominal right to cancel as sufficient in every circumstance.3

These are general principles, not a prescribed notice period for schools. They matter particularly where the family’s decision extends across terms and the available alternatives may be constrained by timing.3

Consider a hypothetical family receiving a fee increase after a withdrawal deadline. The question is not answered by saying that one letter gave notice and another document contained a deadline. The documents interact. A review should establish what the family could know when it committed, which changes were contemplated, and what choices remained when the revised price became clear. This illustration makes no finding about a real school. It shows why reviewing each sentence separately can miss the commercial effect of the whole sequence.

04

Deposits and withdrawal income need an explanation

The short CMA guide warns against treating every deposit or prepayment as automatically forfeitable in all circumstances, and against disproportionate cancellation charges. A school should not turn that general guidance into the opposite blanket claim that no notice payment can ever be justified. The context, the wording, the circumstances of cancellation and the relevant loss all matter.2

Our interpretation is that a school should be able to explain the economic purpose of the term in plain language, with evidence supporting the basis on which it operates.2

That explanation also improves budgeting. Income expected from a withdrawal condition is different from income earned by delivering the next term’s education. If a plan depends heavily on contested or uncertain receipts, the apparent admissions position can overstate financial security. A prudent forecast identifies the uncertainty rather than converting a contractual assertion directly into available cash.

The same discipline applies to deposits: leaders should understand the purpose and conditions of the sum before treating it as unrestricted spending power. These are financial interpretations, not conclusions about a particular accounting treatment.

05

Consistency is a market advantage

The parent’s understanding forms across a sequence: an open event, an individual conversation, an offer, the agreement, a fee schedule and later correspondence. A carefully revised contract cannot repair every contradictory assurance elsewhere. The practical exercise is to follow that journey and identify material points at which two families could receive different explanations of the same commitment.

Correcting inconsistency reduces avoidable uncertainty for staff as well as parents. It also gives the school a firmer basis for explaining why a necessary change is reasonable within the arrangement actually made.

The July development therefore deserves attention beyond a legal filing cabinet. A transparent offer can make a demanding price easier to assess, while a poorly explained commitment can undermine an otherwise strong school.

By July’s end, the evidence establishes revised regulatory guidance and enduring statutory tests, not a national finding that school contracts are defective. The next meaningful update would be a relevant enforcement decision, court judgment or demonstrable change in the sector’s published terms. School Connection’s position is that commercial confidence is strongest when the school can explain the bargain before it needs to enforce it.

Leadership questions

Questions that turn the development into a governing conversation.

What we are monitoring next

Publication is the beginning of the watch.

• Relevant judgments or enforcement action.
• Changes in published school terms and fee communications.
• Evidence of recurring points of misunderstanding in admissions.
• A relevant judicial or regulatory finding would sharpen the assessment; documented clarity across the full admissions journey would strengthen confidence in implementation.

Continue the evidence trail

Read across the historical record

• After the VAT change, what would count as evidence of its impact? ↗

The continuing record

How the record develops

• The full school commitment starts before the offer letter ↗

  Adds October’s model-contract checkpoint and the separate price-presentation framework.

• Leweston’s closure reaches the first day of offered places. Continuity is still the test. ↗

  Follows the family commitment into a sudden transition, using the receiving school’s actual published fee, deposit and offer conditions.

• The December VAT appeal: the court timetable and the school decisions being made now ↗

  Examines how a school explains the existing financial commitment while the published court process remains open.