Office for Students
Consultation

Part 1: Proposals for new initial condition C5 - Treating students fairly

Published 06 February 2025

Proposal 7: Remove initial condition C3 (and replace with initial condition C5) and Proposal 8: Publication of documents after registration

What are we proposing?

We propose that initial condition C5 would replace initial condition C3 (Student protection plan) and a provider assessed under initial condition C5 would publish its student-facing documents within two weeks of its registration.

  1. Under current initial condition C3, a provider’s student protection plan sets out its assessment of risks to continuation of study for students and the measures it will deploy to respond where it considers these risks are ‘reasonably likely to crystallise’. We approve the plan if we consider it is ‘appropriate for [the OfS’s] assessment of the regulatory risk presented by the provider and for the risk to continuation of study of all of its students’.
  2. If a provider is registered, it must publish its approved student protection plan to satisfy ongoing condition C3 and, if risks to continuation of students crystallise, the provider must ‘take all reasonable steps to implement the provisions of the plan’ and inform the OfS.
  3. On 1 April 2021 we introduced ongoing condition C4, which applies to most registered providers and which we can use when we assess that there is a material risk that a provider will fully or substantially cease the provision of higher education in England.33 Using ongoing condition C4, we can issue student protection directions, including requiring a provider to produce and comply with the provisions of a market exit plan. A market exit plan is a detailed document setting out plans and arrangements for any or all of the following:
    • teach-out
    • student transfer
    • exit awards
    • information, advice and guidance
    • complaints
    • refunds and compensation
    • archiving of academic records.
  4. This means that we no longer rely on the provisions in condition C3, and in a provider’s student protection plan, to ensure that it is taking steps to protect the interests of students if it is facing a material risk of market exit; condition C4 gives us a much more powerful tool to act in these circumstances.
  5. Our proposal to implement new initial condition C5, means that each provider seeking registration would be submitting a suite of student-facing policies and documents. This would include a policy (or policies) setting out the circumstances in which the provider may make changes to courses (including qualifications, modes of study, teaching location and facilities). It would also submit further detailed contractual information, and its refund and compensation policy. Our view is that, collectively, these documents cover the issues that present risks to continuation of study for students, and the measures a provider would put in place in response to these risks. Our proposals mean that we would assess the content of these documents at registration to ensure that they are clear, comprehensive and fair.
  6. Taken together, this suite of student-facing documents would therefore constitute a provider’s student protection plan, and this proposed approach would provide improved protection for students if their course was not deliverable, either at all or in the manner advertised. We are also therefore proposing (Proposal 8) that a provider should publish these documents as its student protection plan in an easily accessible location for students to access, following its successful registration.
  7. We are not proposing that this would include policies relating to a scenario in which a provider fully or substantially ceases the provision of higher education. We have set out how we will continue to use ongoing condition C4 to manage the risk of whole provider closure under Proposal 9.
  8. Expecting a provider to publish the suite of student-facing documents that we have assessed as part of its registration application would replace the need for a separate student protection plan. We would therefore remove initial condition C3 and replace it with the requirements of initial condition C5. This would remove the need for a provider seeking registration to submit an assessment of the risks to continuation of study for its students and tailor its response to these risks in a (condition C3) student protection plan. We consider that our proposed approach would offer stronger protection because it would ensure that information available to students is more comprehensive, rather than focused on a risk assessment that may become out-of-date over time. At the same time, our proposal would reduce the burden placed on a provider during the registration process, as a detailed assessment of risk, and a separate student protection plan, would no longer be required.

33 See OfS, ‘Regulatory notice 6: Condition C4 – Student protection directions’. Condition C4 applies to all registered providers, except further education bodies (as defined in section 4 of the Technical and Further Education Act 2017) as these can be subject to the special administration regime in place for further education (detailed in Part 2 chapter 4 of that Act).

  1. Current student protection plans rely on a provider’s self-assessment of risks to continuation of study for students that it may not accurately represent, whether deliberately or because of its own optimism biases or oversights. Where risks are identified as low, measures to mitigate them may be minimal.
  2. In the current environment, circumstances may change quickly and even a student protection plan that accurately represents risks at the point of registration may later become out-of-date and inaccurate. The current approach therefore risks giving a false impression of stability in what is now an increasingly changing environment. In practice, the process of updating and reapproving a student protection plan approved under initial condition C3 is not always sufficiently dynamic to keep up with the changes we are seeing in the sector at present.
  3. In our experience of working with providers at risk of closure (and our experience of using the provisions in ongoing condition C4), far more detailed planning is necessary in these circumstances than is possible in hypothetical terms when a provider applies for registration and is required to meet the requirements of initial condition C3.

Proposal 7: Remove initial condition C3 (and replace with initial condition C5)

  1. There is a substantial overlap between the documents we propose to assess for initial condition C5 and the content of a student protection plan approved under current initial condition C3. We suggest that replacing initial condition C3 with the requirements of initial condition C5 would therefore represent a streamlined (as well as a strengthened) approach. Table 3 compares the content of a student protection plan (initial condition C3) and the proposed submission requirements for initial condition C5.

Table 3: Comparison of student protection plan requirements (C3) and proposed submission requirements (C5)

Current initial condition C3: Student protection plan requirements

Proposed initial condition C5: Documents we propose to require

Provider’s self-assessment of the risks to continuation of study for its students (likelihood of risk crystallisation and severity of impact).

Range of risks to be included:

  • [The provider as a whole is no longer able to operate or no longer intends to operate.]34
  • The provider is no longer able to award the qualifications for which its students are registered because the OfS has varied or revoked the provider’s degree awarding powers, or a validating partner has withdrawn validation.
  • One or more of the locations at which the provider delivers courses to students is no longer available.
  • The provider is no longer able to deliver courses to students in one or more subject areas and/or departments.
  • The provider is no longer able to deliver one or more courses to students, particularly if course closures are likely in the next three years.
  • The provider is no longer able to deliver material components of one or more courses, particularly if there are areas of vulnerability, such as single person dependencies for teaching.
  • The provider is no longer able to deliver one or more modes of study to students, particularly if withdrawal of a mode of study is likely.
  • The provider is no longer able to recruit or teach a particular type of student.

For those risks that the provider considers are reasonably likely to crystallise:

  • Mitigations that are in place to respond to risks, should they crystallise.
  • Including steps the provider will take to ensure that mitigations are fair and reasonable for students, taking into account the diversity of students and their needs.

We are not proposing to require submission of a risk assessment.

Template contracts that set out terms and conditions for the provision of higher education, including terms related to any additional costs that may apply (including but not limited to additional fees to resit exams).

Policy (or policies) relating to the circumstances in which the provider may make changes to:

  • Courses (including changes to material components or content of a course, changes to subjects offered and course closure).
  • Qualifications to be awarded (including circumstances where a validating partner has withdrawn validation).
  • Mode of study (including full-time, part-time, online and hybrid provision, and including measures to address the needs of specific student groups, including accessibility needs).
  • Teaching location and facilities (including closure of a campus, building or other facilities and including measures to address the needs of specific student groups, including accessibility needs).
  • Course fees and other related fees or charges (for example, additional fees to resit exams).

Information about the provider’s refund and compensation policy

Policy (or policies) that set out the terms for refund and compensation for higher education students.
  1. We are not proposing to require a provider’s self-assessment of risks to continuation of study. Instead it would need to have policies that cover all the matters set out in Table 3. This is because:
    1. A provider’s own statement of risk may not accurately reflect its situation in reality.
    2. The current risk environment is different from, and more dynamic than, in 2018 when initial condition C3 was introduced, and a provider’s risk assessment can quickly become out-of-date as its circumstances and operating environment change. This can mean that the measures in its student protection plan are no longer sufficient.
  2. Our initial view is that decoupling our proposals for student protection plans from a provider’s risk assessment would provide a more consistent and robust approach. This is because a provider would be required to set out specific and explicit approaches to circumstances, such as course changes, more comprehensively than would be the case if it were focusing only on areas for which it has identified higher risks. Our initial view is that these additional requirements are balanced by the proposal that no self-assessment would be required, which represents a reduction in burden. We have set out our approach to whole provider closure under Proposal 9.
  3. While current initial condition C3 does not require submission of a refund and compensation policy, our initial view is that each provider should have such a document, and it is arguably easier to submit this to the OfS than to summarise or explain the provisions as is the current requirement under condition C3. In practice, we currently request submission of refund and compensation policies during the assessment process for initial condition C3, particularly where provisions are unclear in a provider’s draft student protection plan. We suggest that our proposals represent a more streamlined approach for a provider and for the OfS in using resources in an efficient, effective and economic way.

Proposal 8: Publication of documents after registration

  1. We propose a provider would be expected to publish its suite of student-facing documents (or a collated list of active and publicly accessible links to these documents) on a single page on its website, to allow easy access and a ‘one stop shop’ for students. We propose that these documents would be expressly labelled as the provider’s student protection plan, and we have included a template with standard wording that we propose a provider would publish, alongside its documents (see Annex E). By ‘student-facing documents’ we mean those documents identified under Proposal 6, except a provider’s declarations and submission checklist. In publishing its documents, a provider would be making a public statement about the services students should expect to receive. Our view is that this would provide transparency for students and assist them in holding their provider to account where services are not delivered as promised.
  2. We are proposing that each provider would be asked to provide evidence of publication (a web link to the relevant publicly accessible web page) to the OfS within two weeks of its registration. Where a provider does not do so, and we are concerned that it has not published its student-facing documents, we would consider imposing a specific ongoing condition to compel publication.

34 We have set out further information about how we will continue to manage the risks of whole provider closure under Proposal 9.

  1. We have included alternative options that we have considered in Annex B. These are to:
    1. Continue to impose initial condition C3 alongside proposed initial condition C5.
    2. Continue to impose initial condition C3 alongside proposed initial condition C5 but with amended submission requirements.

Questions

Question 7: Do you agree or disagree with our proposal to remove initial condition C3 (student protection plan) and replace it with the requirements of proposed initial condition C5? If you disagree, please give reasons for your answer.

Question 8: Do you agree or disagree with our proposal that, following successful registration, a provider should be expected to publish the student-facing documents it submits as part of its application to register? If you disagree, please give reasons for your answer.

Respond to Part 1 of the consultation
Published 06 February 2025
Help us improve your experience

Describe your experience of using this website

Improve experience feedback
* *

Thank you for your feedback