The Rootes of students’ discontent

Freshers’ fortnight: A time of fun, new friends, partying and a lot of drinking. When this carefree fortnight ends you might not be certain if you picked the right course, but you are guaranteed to believe you picked the best accommodation – or have you?

Rootes is home to 924 Freshers each year and has a reputation of being one of the wildest places to live. Although shared bathrooms, shared showers and no communal space can be hell some of the time, we are all prepared to put up with it in order to keep our belongings in our space all year long.

So what if we are obliged to pay through the holidays? At least we can keep our belongings safely in our rooms and come back to them when we want.

However, this term students in Rootes L block woke up to find a very impersonal letter shoved under their doors, stating that during the Easter vacation they were required to clear their rooms of any personal possessions and remove all food and cooking equipment from kitchens. This short, impersonal and unapologetic letter sparked outrage. There was no mention of a refund or compensation, simply a short message stating that ‘essential maintenance’ had to take place and students had two options if they wished to leave their belongings at Warwick University.

The first option was to place all belongings inside a container, which would be placed in Car Park 6. The second option was to move into Cryfield for the Easter holiday, before having to move back again at the end of the holiday.

These options were extremely unsatisfactory. The first sounds more like an advert for students to have their possessions stolen, while the latter is, in essence, simply a reflection of the hassle one will have to go through if they’ve got to take their belongings home.
After contacting Warwick Accommodation I was given further details on why students had to leave their accommodation.

The email first stated students aren’t being removed from their accommodation because of maintenance as they had previously stated, but instead for a building survey. The e-mail explained Warwick Accommodation had also come to the conclusion refunding students would be fair, but only the total of £36.

This is just over 10 percent of the £332 students paid for four weeks accommodation in the Easter Vacation. This small refund is particularly frustrating for many students who feel they are virtually throwing £332 down the drain.

If we are prepared to pay for accommodation over the holidays in order to keep our possessions there, how can it be justifiable to take away that facility and still charge us? It’s rather like a hotel tossing you out for a few days but still charging you and saying “but you can always use the garage or go next door!”

Unsurprisingly, there is a lot of anger throughout the inhabitants of Rootes. As some students argue, the reason many chose Rootes was for the convenience of leaving their belongings over the holidays.

How long have Warwick Accommodation known the building was in need of maintenance? Why were students not warned when applying for accommodation or before they paid £1,245?

It is my belief that Warwick Accommodation have breached their side of the accommodation contract. It states that the University can only terminate the tenancy agreement if the Student has not paid for their accommodation, has breached their obligations, are not a legal student of the University, or if the Student is a risk to themselves or other people.

Any other change to the contract has to be agreed by both the University and the Student. Furthermore, the Civil Rights Bureau states that students living in University accommodation are considered ‘occupiers with basic protection’. Therefore the University cannot unjustly evict students if they have already paid rent for a certain time period.

Students feel betrayed and let down by the University. Their only hope is that if enough students continue to complain to Warwick accommodation, they will be forced to carry out their survey in the summer, but at the moment the future does not seem promising. Perhaps taking the matter up with the small claims court would make these cavalier decision-makers think again.
Those of us who have solicitors in the family can definitely consider this option. Forget sit-ins – they want a grown-up game: bring it on.