Part 3: Proposals for changes to registration application requirements

16. We frequently receive registration applications that do not contain all the information we need and that do not follow the registration guidance. This results in inefficient use of OfS resources and those of the provider concerned, as we need to engage with each other, sometimes repeatedly. This creates knock-on delays to our assessment of well-prepared and complete applications that are subsequently submitted.
17. The objectives of this proposal are:
    1. To set out the requirements for a provider’s initial submission of its registration application in one place to support providers to prepare applications correctly.
    2. To set out the submission requirements associated with proposed new initial conditions C5 and E7.
    3. To set out, as far as possible, the information we are likely to need during our assessment of a provider’s registration application, not just in its initial submission, to reduce the amount of clarification and further information needed during our assessment and so reduce avoidable delays.
    4. To enable the OfS to quickly and efficiently reject registration applications that do not contain all the information required to enable us to assess whether a provider meets the eligibility requirements and initial conditions of registration, driving up standards of applications.
    5. To prioritise our resources on those providers that submit applications that fulfil our information submission requirements and minimise the amount of time we spend on those that do not.
18. To achieve these objectives, we propose to introduce requirements under section 3(5) of HERA to ensure that all registration applications include the information the OfS needs to make a decision on registration.
19. Section 3(5) of HERA⁶ grants the OfS the authority to determine the form of an application for registration, the information to be contained in it or provided with it, and the manner in which an application for registration may be submitted.
20. Under the proposed requirements, we could reject incomplete applications, streamlining the process and reducing the need for extensive back-and-forth with a provider. If deficiencies are not addressed within a defined timeframe, an application could be swiftly rejected. This approach would provide a clear and unambiguous signal to providers to ensure that they are prepared before submitting an application.
21. We think that by efficiently rejecting applications that do not meet the registration requirements, we can focus our efforts on assessing applications from providers that have been well prepared and contain the required information.
22. We think that the approach we have set out in Proposal 1 will support us to achieve our objectives. However, we think that this proposal would need to work in conjunction with some of the other proposals in Part 3 of this consultation to be fully effective. The proposed restriction on the resubmission of a registration application if a provider has received a final decision to refuse its application (Proposal 5) would, together with Proposal 1, provide an even stronger incentive for a provider to engage carefully with registration requirements and consider its readiness to submit a registration application.

6 See Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

23. We propose that the requirements for a registration application would be set out in a notice under section 3(5) of HERA that specifies the manner and form of a provider’s application for registration and the information to be contained in or provided with it. This would include:
    1. A full list of the documentation and information to be submitted as part of a provider’s initial application for registration and during the course of the registration process.
    2. A list of matters that a provider must report during the registration process in order to ensure that the information submitted remains materially up to date.
24. The notice would also include a requirement that the information contained in a provider’s registration application, or provided with it, must be accurate. We clarify how we would treat applications containing inaccurate information in the blue box at paragraph 31.
25. The proposed section 3(5) Notice is set out in Annex A of this document (Part 3 of the consultation). The requirements of the proposed notice are explained in detail together with the alternative options considered in Proposals 2, 3 and 4. This notice also includes the proposed submission requirements for proposed new initial conditions C5 and E7. The requirements themselves are explained in the consultations about the initial conditions (Part 1 for C5 and Part 2 for E7).
26. Annex B of this document (Part 3 of the consultation) includes a table explaining which of the proposed elements of the section 3(5) Notice align with existing OfS registration guidance (Regulatory advice 3)⁷ and which elements are different, including where we propose to require new information.
27. We propose that the section 3(5) Notice, if adopted, would apply to any new application for registration made after publication of our decisions following this consultation.
28. We propose that it would not apply to an application from a registered provider to change its category of registration. For applications to change category of registration, we propose that we would issue a bespoke section 3(5) Notice setting out the information we required that provider to submit according to its circumstances. In general, we require a provider that is already registered with the OfS to submit less information for this type of registration application, because we already hold regulatory information about that provider through routine monitoring. For example, the OfS will already hold audited financial statements for any provider that has complied with the requirements of the OfS’s Annual Financial Return⁸ within the past year, so a provider would not have to resubmit these statements.
29. A registered provider seeking to change registration category would still be able to refer to the general section 3(5) Notice to understand the maximum information likely to be required for any application.
30. More information about how we would implement these proposals can be found in the proposal ‘How we would implement the proposals in this consultation’⁹ in the introduction to this consultation.
31. We have outlined in the box below how we propose the section 3(5) Notice would operate in practice:

Publishing decisions to refuse registration to a provider

32. Our current policy is that we would normally expect to publish any decision to refuse registration to a provider. This is because we consider there to be a fundamental principle that our regulation should be transparent.¹² However, the OfS can use its discretion in deciding whether to publish any decision, including a decision to refuse registration. We consider a range of factors in deciding whether to publish information, including the public interest, the student interest and the provider interest in making that information public. If we adopt the proposals in this consultation, we would consider whether or not to publish any decision to refuse registration to a provider because it had not complied with the requirements for a registration application. We may consider that these factors apply differently to a situation in which a provider had not complied with the requirements of a registration application than a situation in which a provider had not satisfied one or more of the initial conditions of registration, following our assessment.

Support for providers

33. We recognise that providers need to familiarise themselves with a substantial amount of guidance before starting to develop an application for registration. While this may initially seem challenging, we think it serves as an essential foundation, ensuring a provider has the necessary information to navigate the process effectively and meet the required standards.
34. We currently provide the following information to support a provider applying for registration:
    1. Detailed guidance available on our website, including updated regulatory advice for the registration of English higher education providers.¹³
    2. Responses to individual queries from providers via correspondence, including when they request an access key to the OfS portal.
    3. Where required, calls or virtual meetings to clarify particular issues, usually after an application has been submitted.
35. In making the proposals in Part 3 of this consultation we recognise that some providers may benefit from an opportunity to discuss their upcoming application and ensure that they have fully engaged with, and understood, the OfS’s requirements in detail. Given our proposal to introduce new submission requirements, we propose to offer the following support:
    1. A pre-application virtual meeting for any provider seeking registration. We propose to set out this offer in revised registration guidance. We would envisage setting up the meeting either at each applicant’s request, or when an applicant set up an account on our application portal (if it had not already requested the meeting).
    2. The pre-application meeting would signpost the provider to our registration guidance and all registration requirements, including the section 3(5) Notice (if we have adopted it following this consultation), and give an opportunity for the provider to ask questions and for us to provide clarifications. Our engagement will not include business or strategic advice.
36. We may also consider other engagement and support such as webinars and workshops. In all cases we will need to balance the most effective use of our resources alongside sector needs.

Question 1a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that the OfS should issue a decision under section 3(5) of HERA, which would establish the requirements for an application for OfS registration? Please give reasons for your answer.

Question 1b: Do you have any comments on the proposed section 3(5) Notice set out in Annex A of Part 3 of this consultation

Question 1c: Do you agree or disagree that the proposed pre-application support would be beneficial to a provider applying for OfS registration? Please explain why.

7 See Regulatory advice 3: Registration of English higher education providers with the OfS.

8 See Regulatory advice 14: Guidance for providers for the Annual Financial Return.

9 See: Proposal: how we would implement these proposals in this consultation.

10 See Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

11 Proposed section 3(5) Notice is contained in Annex A.

12 We describe how we make decisions about what information to publish in Regulatory advice 21. See Regulatory advice 21: Publication of information.

13 See Regulatory advice 3: Registration of English higher education providers with the OfS.

37. We considered whether alternative options would enable us to achieve the objectives we have set out in paragraph 17. These alternatives are set out in Annex C:
    1. continuing the current arrangements
    2. offering enhanced pre-application support.

Question 1d

Do you support any of the alternative options we have set out in Part 3, Annex C, Proposal 1, or do you have any other proposals? If so, please explain and provide reasons for your view.

38. We have also considered alternative options for some of the individual information requirements proposed within the section 3(5) Notice. These information requirements and the alternatives we have considered are explored in Proposals 2, 3 and 4, alongside explanations of why we think each requirement is appropriate. A summary is shown in Table 1 below. Each requirement addresses distinct aspects of our registration assessment and objectives, and our provisional view is that adopting only a subset of these requirements or adopting one of the alternatives we have considered for each requirement would fail to achieve our overall aims. For completeness we have also listed the proposed new initial conditions C5 and E7 and explained where respondents can find more information about the alternatives considered in relation to those proposals.

Table 1: Summary of new proposed submission requirements for a registration application and where alternative options have been considered