Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 4:05:29 GMT -5
The 22nd Chamber of Private Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice ordered Uniesp and the Birigui Higher Education Center, in the interior of the state, to compensate a woman who had her name denied and was charged for student financing. This Thursday's decision (15/8) sets compensation at R$10,000.
reproduction
Reproduction Institution did not define in the contract the extension of the term “excellence in academic performance”
According to the process, the National Union of Private Higher Education Institutions (Uniesp) charged overdue monthly fees from a student who signed a Higher Education Student Financing contract (Fies).
The institution said that the student obtained a grade of 7 in one of the subjects and, therefore, did not achieve academic excellence.
When analyzing the case, judge Roberto Mac Cracken, rapporteur, stated that the institution violated article 6 of the Consumer Protection Code by not defining in the contract the meaning or extension of the term “excellence in academic performance”.
The judge pointed out that the B2B Lead signed contract defined several responsibilities, such as demonstrating excellence in academic performance and class attendance. The documents gathered, according to the rapporteur, indicate that the woman “duly fulfilled her obligations”.
For the rapporteur, the inconvenience the woman suffered due to the undue charge goes beyond mere annoyance. “Once it has been established that the applicant has complied with all its contractual obligations, it is clear that it was the defendant who defaulted and, consequently, the obligation to bear the payment of the Fies financing must be imposed.”
Obligation in TAC
The Uniesp Group signed a Conduct Adjustment Agreement, in 2014, by the Federal Public Ministry with the Ministry of Education, with the National Education Development Fund (FNDE).
In the ruling, the judge considered that the TAC was based on a report that found irregularities attributed to Uniesp. Among the clauses established were: that the institution could not charge students for outstanding monthly fees; should bear the outstanding balance of Fies financing; would grant full scholarships for students with closed financing to complete their courses.
With the student's charge, the judge understood that there was a violation of the obligation established in the TAC and of objective good faith.