‘Just give me my money back!’ student demands
January 3, 2010 by Claire KnightPosted in: From the Courts, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
A University of Cincinnati student says the school owes her a refund. But school officials denied that request. Here’s what happened:
A student who lived in Siddall Residence Hall was diagnosed with asthma. Her doctor attributed the onset to mold and mildew in her dorm.
The student lived on the 10th floor. Turns out, leaky showers on the 11th floor caused mold and mildew to build up — and eventually weakened the ceiling of the 10th floor so much that it collapsed.
The student says the school should reimburse the $5200 she paid in dorm fees to pay for inhalers and other future medical bills.
The university’s associate director of housing and food services denied the student’s request because she didn’t move out of the dorm within the first three weeks of the quarter, the time frame required for full reimbursement as specified in the university’s housing contract.
The student’s appeal is pending.
Should the school reimburse the student? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
HigherEdMorning delivers the latest HigherEd news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HigherEd professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HigherEdMorning!
Tags: University of Cincinnati
Loading ...
January 6th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Of course they should. They are responsible for not providing the safe and secure housing that any reasonable person would expect to receive. The student is the customer of the dorm-leasing entity, and must be treated so that they are delighted by their purchase. Ethically, too, this is an easy choice:
Is it right to cause a person to suffer through both health problems and the financial cost of treating them, or is it right to reimburse the person for losses suffered through failure to maintain a leased property in reasonable manner?
I wish all ethical dilemmas were this simple.
January 6th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Absolutely they should. Not just from an ethical sense of responsibility, but from a PR standpoint as well. Another example of enforcing the letter of the law and not the intent of the law.
I agree with Thom, I wish all of these were this simple.
January 7th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Yes they should! They are responsible for not providing a healthy environment for their students.
January 8th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
The roof collasped? the floor was unsafe? mildrew was growing in the dorm? look at the facts! of course the University is liable. This is a “no brainer!” I see a lawsuit with many libilities in question. The University needs to settle now before they end up paying more and losing students. Have they not forgotten who runs any university? The students do with the income they bring. HRM
January 14th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
The school must recognize this is an issue they caused and need to correct. Did the contract say if you don’t move out in the first three weeks then we supply an unhealthy atmosphere. Shame on them – I support the student 100%. Sock it to them!!!
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Not keeping up with standard maintainance on things like leaky showers can lead to unforseen consequences. It sure wasn’t the student’s responsibility to diagnose the problem and premptively move out during the first three weeks of the quarter to guarentee a full refund. Sorry Cinci, time to pay up!
April 7th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Maybe, but I see the timing of the events as crucial to this lawsuit.
When was the university made aware of the leak and how long
from then did the ceiling fall? When did the student move in.?
When did the ceiling fall in comparison to the student’s problems?
When did the ceiling fall and when did the repairs happen?
When the university handle the repairs and was there a provision
made available to get the students out of the area during the
construction and did this student take advantage of the other
accommodations?
There is not enough information to say the university is at fault.