Part 3: Proposals for changes to registration application requirements

153. As set out in paragraph 6, we encounter the following issues during our assessment of providers’ registration applications:
     1. Some providers fail to submit a complete application, or an application of sufficient quality, to enable us to undertake our assessment, in some cases due to a general failure to engage with the guidance available.
     2. Following closure of a provider’s application, the provider immediately or shortly afterward resubmits the same application without having addressed the weaknesses in the original application.
154. Around 40 per cent of registration applications do not comply with the requirements set out in our registration guidance when they are initially submitted.
155. Registration applications that do not follow the registration guidance and are poorly prepared adversely affect our efficiency. We find that where we have closed a provider’s application because it is incomplete, in some cases the provider resubmits an application quickly, without addressing the weaknesses we had identified (and often the amount of work required for it to address these weaknesses is significant). This means we are using our resources to assess poorly prepared applications multiple times.
156. Where we refuse registration because an application did not meet one or more initial condition of registration, we generally find that a provider needs to make substantial changes to address the concerns we have raised before it is ready to resubmit. In our experience, providers in this situation do not usually attempt to apply for registration again quickly.
157. Our aim is to incentivise any provider seeking OfS registration to submit an application that is well prepared and that contains all the information we require at the first time of applying. We also aim to prioritise our resources on providers that submit applications that fulfil our requirements and minimise the amount of time we spend on those that do not. We think that imposing a restriction on submitting a registration application following refusal will mean we can achieve these aims.
158. We have considered the appropriate length of time for this proposed restriction. Our initial thinking is that a timeframe of 18 months is appropriate because it balances considerations of regulatory efficiency and fairness in the following ways:
     1. An 18-month period gives a provider time for meaningful improvement to address the deficiencies in its previous registration application. It allows time for the provider to amend its documentation with the new processes or arrangements it is adopting. It can also implement the changes in practice and demonstrate that they are effective and, for a provider that is already delivering higher education, that it has sustained them over a period.
     2. An 18-month period would in most cases (even allowing for some delay) be sufficient time for the OfS to complete its assessment of any other registration applications submitted around the time that the provider was refused registration. We would therefore complete these other assessments before the provider we had refused registration could submit a new application. We think that it is fairest to assess and complete applications from providers that comply with our requirements the first time they apply before we assess applications from providers that did not.
159. In making this proposal, we have placed particular weight on the efficient, effective and economic use of the OfS’s resources.
160. We think that this proposal also encourages competition to access the regulated sector that is in the interests of students. In our experience, providers that invest time in understanding regulatory requirements, and that commit the resources necessary to comply, operate more effectively when they become registered than those providers that do not. We wish to facilitate access to the regulated sector for these providers.

161. If we decide to adopt this proposal, we would issue a notice according to section 3(5) of HERA that set out the definition of the ‘manner’ of a provider’s application. The definition of ‘manner’ would be: ‘An application may not be submitted within 18 months of receiving notification of a final decision from the OfS to refuse registration to the applicant or an applicant that is either the same entity or a new entity operating substantially the same higher education business as the previous entity’. This would mean a provider’s application would only be able to satisfy the section 3(5) requirements if it were submitted at least 18 months after the date of any final decision by the OfS to refuse registration to that provider.
162. The effect of this proposal on an unregistered provider would be that it would be unable to reapply for OfS registration until, at the earliest, 18 months after receiving a final decision to refuse registration. We propose that this restriction would apply to a provider that receives any final decision to refuse registration, whether that decision is because the provider had not complied with the proposed submission requirements or had not satisfied one or more initial conditions of registration.
163. We have considered the potential negative impacts of this proposal on a provider that would be temporarily unable to reapply. This proposal could have negative consequences for a provider that had been hoping to access specific benefits of registration by a particular date. This could also negatively affect prospective students who may plan to enrol at the provider if it secures registration within a certain timeframe. However, our initial view is that these potential impacts need to be balanced against the fact that if an application has been rejected, a provider will need to undertake work to fix the issue(s) that caused the rejection and that this is likely to take time. If this is not done effectively, any new application may result in another refusal of registration.
164. We propose that the OfS would consider procedural exceptions to this requirement. Some non-exhaustive examples are as follows:
     1. An issue which led to the refusal was due to a OfS technical or IT issue which had not been identified during the 28-day representations period.
     2. The OfS refused registration to a provider because it had not submitted information that was temporarily unavailable due to a situation beyond the provider’s control but which has become available again.
165. However, our proposal is that we would be less likely to consider an exception based on an argument that this restriction could result in detriment to a provider because it would delay its ability to apply to be registered.
166. We accept that it is the case that a provider will not be able to apply to be registered for a specific period (that is the proposal). However, our initial view is that the benefits of this proposal in incentivising a provider to prepare carefully for the registration assessment and submit a complete application when first applying, outweigh the negative impacts it may have, particularly given that the negative impacts would only be experienced by a provider that did not meet the OfS’s requirements for registration and not by a provider that did.
167. Our initial view is that our proposal will overall have a positive impact on the sector. All providers seeking OfS registration would be incentivised to engage carefully with the OfS’s regulatory requirements and application requirements and submit well-prepared applications on the first time of applying to avoid the proposed resubmission restriction. We think this will protect OfS resources to focus on registration applications that have been well prepared and follow the registration requirements and allow us to complete assessments on average more quickly than we can currently. Our initial view is that this would help facilitate entry to the regulated sector for those providers that are ready and able to comply with our requirements. This supports our strategic goals in relation to student choice²⁷ where prospective students can choose from a diverse range of courses and providers.

Which providers would this proposal apply to?

168. If we decide to adopt this proposal (with or without amendments) we propose that it would come into effect on 1 January 2026. This is later than the date we are proposing to adopt for the other proposals in this consultation.
169. The proposed restriction would apply to any new registration applications made on or after 1 January 2026, where the application on the basis of which the OfS made the final decision to refuse registration was also made on or after 1 January 2026. This means that only a registration application that was submitted after 1 January 2026 and that was subsequently refused would trigger the restriction on the provider reapplying.
170. We are proposing a later date because of the more significant impact it would have alongside the other proposals in this consultation and to avoid potential unintended consequences of implementing the proposals at the same time. Our initial view is that:
     1. The proposed 18-month resubmission restriction represents a procedural change with potentially significant consequences for providers. By deferring the implementation of this proposal, the OfS could ensure that providers have time to fully understand the implications of the restriction, before submitting any application.
     2. We are proposing a number of other changes in this consultation, including new initial conditions and new requirements for the information a provider would submit with its registration application. Our initial view is that it is important that providers have time to become familiar with any other changes that we adopt before this consequence of submitting an application that does not meet our requirements comes into effect.
     3. Delaying the implementation of this proposal will enable the OfS to ensure that any other new registration requirements are having the intended effect and producing no unintended consequences before this consequence comes into effect. If there were any emerging issues with the registration application process or providers being able to comply with our requirements within the first few months of any new requirements we adopt, we would also have the opportunity to reconsider or further delay the implementation of this proposal.
     4. We know that a number of providers may have been ready to apply for registration but have not been able to do so since December 2024 when we temporarily paused accepting new applications. If any of these providers wished to apply shortly after this consultation concludes, we think that implementing this proposal later will mean they are not disproportionately affected by a potential lack of familiarity with the new requirements.
171. Where a provider seeking registration is operating substantially the same higher education business as a previous entity that received a final decision to refuse registration, we propose that we would take into account the decision to refuse registration to the previous entity and apply the resubmission restriction to the (new) provider seeking registration. This approach is designed to ensure that a provider that receives a final decision to refuse registration cannot simply evade the resubmission restriction by, for example, changing the name of the entity that was refused registration. We set out further detail in this consultation at Part 2, Annex G proposed condition E7E and related guidance about the factors we would be likely to consider in determining whether a provider is, in our view, operating substantially the same higher education business as a previous entity if we were to implement this proposal.
172. The proposal would not affect a registered provider that wishes to submit an application to change its category of registration or because a proposed acquisition or restructuring of its business will change its legal form. This is because a provider in these circumstances would have received a positive registration decision in connection with its previous application, not a negative decision.
173. We propose that the resubmission restriction period would not apply to a provider that withdraws from the registration application process before the OfS has made a decision about its application. This is because we recognise that there are circumstances in which a provider’s application may need to materially change, or where a provider may reconsider whether and when it wants to be registered, not owing to any previous failure to engage with the registration requirements. We wish to encourage a provider to recognise such circumstances itself and take proactive steps to manage its application, including withdrawing from the process where appropriate, without penalty.
174. We have considered whether not imposing a resubmission restriction period for an application that has been withdrawn may risk a provider resubmitting the same, potentially poor-quality application within a short period. Our initial view is that this risk could be mitigated by taking into account a provider’s circumstances and any previous applications when considering any request to withdraw an application. This would include any past pattern of submitting and then withdrawing registration applications and providing clear communication about how we would expect any future submission to meet our application requirements.

27 See The OfS strategy.

175. In developing our approach to introducing a resubmission restriction period, we considered alternative options. These are listed below and set out in Annex C of Part 3 of this consultation:
     1. proposing alternative lengths of resubmission restriction
     2. allowing additional flexibility
     3. proposing differentiated resubmission restriction periods
     4. proposing a new initial condition of registration to restrict when providers could submit a new application.

Question 5a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to apply a resubmission restriction period to a provider with an application that was previously refused? Please give reasons for your answer.

Question 5b: Is there any other impact of this proposal or potential unintended consequences that we have not considered? If yes, please explain and provide reasons for your view.

Question 5c: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that the time frame for the resubmission restriction period is 18 months? Please explain and provide a reason for your view.

Question 5d: Do you support any of the alternative options we have outlined in Part 3, Annex C, Proposal 5 of this consultation, or do you have any other proposals? If so, please explain and provide reasons for your view.

Question 5e: We are interested in respondents’ views on a 12-month resubmission restriction. Do you think this is a better option than the proposed 18-month resubmission restriction? Please explain and provide reasons for your view.