Hello. I'm Martin Lewis from MoneySavingExpert.com. And I wanted to just record a quick video about your rights when going back to university in this strange time of the pandemic.

Now, many people, both students and often their parents, have got in touch with me, saying, "Look, this is outrageous. I'm still being charged £9,000 in tuition fees, even though the university's saying all or most of the courses are going to be online. Can I get a refund?"

Well, I think to an extent you're right. Much of the experience of university is what you gain from being there,face-to-face, talking to lecturers, teachers, other students, and all the soft skills that you learn, whether it's being engaged in clubs and societies or student unions. So certainly I can understand the feeling of being disenfranchised by not being able to attend, and that you're not getting your money's worth.

However, governments across the UK - the UK Government and national governments - have all said as long as online courses offer quality and are fit for purpose, you are not due a refund merely because you are being taught online. Of course, in Scotland there are no fees, but it's a general point I'm making.

So that's the rule that we're hearing from government. My suspicion is that's been done for a couple of reasons. One - university finances are under stress, like any business's right now. They're struggling themselves due to Covid, and many universities have been struggling for funding anyway. And also because if you pay less tuition fees, there isn't enough money for the universities to run. Who makes up the gap? The Government.

Remember, the entire loan system was brought in because, in the past, the governments gave universities money rather than the student. Then students gave some of the money in the form of student loans, and governments paid the rest.

The shift towards £9,000 tuition fees - many people think that suddenly, from nowhere, the universities got a huge amount more money. No. They lost some of the grants they were getting, and it was replaced by being paid by students in the form of a loan. This was a shift of the burden from the state towards the individual, who, if they earn enough, would repay later.

I'm not going into my student finance talk. It's a big one. I've got a 60-minute video on it called Student Loans Decoded on Money Saving Expert. Have a watch of that. So, governments would have to make up the gap. Now, I've said what the Government perspective is. Of course, you're paying, arguably, for a service. I say "arguably", and I'll come onto why it's arguable later.

You're paying for a service, and you're not receiving what you thought you were going to get and what you signed up for. In which case, it is potentially challengeable in a court of law.

You would need a lawyer to go through that, but it would certainly be a potential test case for someone to go forward and say, "Am I getting the service that I paid for under tuition fees if I'm only learning an online course, when I signed up to an in-person university course?" Not been tested in law. I don't know what the result would be. But I'm sure it is open for someone to take that challenge. It is perhaps something a student union, the National Union of Students, or some other interested organisation could look at a test case, if there was enough weight behind it.

But there is a later point why, actually, I think people are over-worried about this tuition fee issue, and I'll come to that more.

So, it's always best to speak to the university if you're unhappy before making any decisions. Or speak to your university welfare office if you're struggling financially, or speak to the student union for representation on this. Hopefully, if there are many other students in a similar position to you, or with similar feelings to you, then it's something that the university can address on a wider scale.

But one of the important things to understand, surprisingly - it almost feels counter-logical - is that lowering tuition fees won't actually make any difference to the majority of students going to university in the UK. I'm going to focus this on the English system, which is where it's most pertinent, but similar principles apply.

Let me try and explain why. When you go to university, the Student Loans Company pays your tuition fees for you, in most cases. And then you have to repay in the April after, when you leave, 9% of everything above a threshold.

That threshold is currently £26,575. And you will repay 9% above that threshold for 30 years. If you earn below the threshold, if you earn less than £26,575 - I'm going to call it "the threshold" - then you don't repay anything in that year.

Now, the current stats are that 83% of students are not likely to repay what they borrowed - which is tuition fee loan, plus the living loan, plus interest - in full, within the 30 years. So they will, in some cases, partially pay that - repay what they borrowed, plus interest. In some cases they'll pay less. You'll repay what you borrowed. Some will repay less than they borrowed. Some, if they never earn over the threshold, will repay nothing at all.

Only the top 17%, generally, highest-earning graduates will repay, in full, what they borrowed at £9,000 tuition fees.

So what happens if we reduce tuition fees to £6,000 for this year... and it remains at £9,000 for your remaining years, because we hope - you know, fingers crossed, please, God - that everything's back to normal next year, you go to university, and everything's fine? What happens then?

Reducing your total loan by £3,000, for someone who takes the tuition fee loans and the full maintenance loan they're entitled to... won't make any difference in what you repay, in most cases, because you still won't earn enough to repay that £3,000 lower loan, plus interest over the 30 years. So you will still just repay 9% of everything you earn over £26,575, or "the threshold" this year, and as it raises in future years, each year for 30 years.

So you can have this big fight now. Now, total back-of-the-envelope, not really a proper calculation, just intuitively, if currently 17% of people will repay in full over the 30 years, then you would probably guess somewhere around 25-30%, maybe even less than that, would repay in full with £3,000 lower loan.

And maybe there's a few percent more who, while they wouldn't repay in full, will pay slightly less because of the £3,000, because they would nearly repay in full. So what we have, let's call it 30%. Thirty percent of people, the highest-earning graduates, would gain from slightly lower tuition fees for this year.

Let's say you reduce from £9,000 to £6,000, or even £9,000 to £4,500. Most won't. Most people going to university will not see any reduction in the amount that they have to contribute to their university education after they leave because of reducing tuition fees.

Now, I say this not to say it's cheap, not to say it's fair, but to say if it's really panicking you and making you angry, and it turns out there is nothing you can do - which is probably the most likely outcome, unless someone takes it to court and the court rules... then at least you can shrug your shoulders and say, "You know what? I'm only going to end up paying this full whack back if I'm a high-earning graduate afterwards."

In which case... Well, I mean, I always have this line that says, "I hope going to university costs you a shedload of money, because it will only cost you a shedload of money if you earn a shedload of money afterwards." So I hope that explains to you the premise.

Just one quick thing. We do have more on this on Money Saving Expert, but one other question, which is about accommodation. If you're told it's online and you thought you would need to be at university, and you don't now want to go, what are your rights?

Difficult one here again, I'm afraid. I mean, many halls of residence in the last term, pre-July, and over the Covid period, were giving people refunds. If you're staying in university accommodation, it is worth talking to the university about that, and the hall of residence: "You're telling me not to come. Why do I have to pay?" Again, difficult. You don't have a right. But universities tend to be more forbearing on that.

If, however, you have signed a contract with a private landlord, I'm afraid there is no causal link here. You have asked somebody to provide accommodation for you. You've paid a deposit. The accommodation is available for you. The service is there. The fact that your plans have changed, due to the university, not due to your fault I'm not saying this is anyone's fault, I'm being realistic - does not change the fact that you asked this individual for accommodation. This individual or this organisation. You have still signed up to have accommodation.

The best analogy I can give you is if you buy a tennis racket from a store and the tennis racket is not faulty, and you break your arm, you can't take the tennis racket back, saying it's faulty because you can't play. And unfortunately, that is the situation for renting.

Now, you know, there should be some forbearance. Talk to the landlord, see if you can come to an accommodation, meet somewhere in the middle. They may be able to get a rental holiday from their mortgage provider until 31 October, which gives them some help. If they've got a mortgage. They may not. But unfortunately, again, it is very difficult to find a way around, if you've agreed a tenancy with someone.

The fact that you don't want to go to where your university is because you no longer have courses there is not the landlord's fault, so it will be a question of negotiation. I hope many of them will understand. I hope many of them will put something in place, be forbearing, offer you a rate reduction, a rate freeze, something of that ilk, but forcing them to would be difficult.

There you go. I've seen I've been talking for nearly 11 minutes. That's quite a long time on the back of this. I hope it hasn't been too long and is understandable. I'm sorry I haven't got firm answers, but these questions are milling around with lots of people, so I wanted to get them out there.