Quick guide to the consultation on new registration conditions

We aim to publish our decisions in August 2025, coinciding with when we plan to reopen for new registration applications (see further information on temporary changes to registration and other applications).

Subject to the outcomes of the consultation, we would implement the majority of the proposals at the same time. This means that:

• New initial conditions C5 and E7 would come into effect, replacing existing initial conditions C1, C3, E1 and E2.
• All but one of the new requirements for a registration application would come into effect.

Our proposal that a provider could not apply for registration where it has had a previous application rejected within the past 18 months would take effect for registration applications received on or after 1 January 2026.

This timetable is subject to change and the outcomes of the consultation.

Proposed initial conditions C5 and E7 (and the proposed requirements for a registration application) would apply to providers seeking registration with the OfS. The new initial conditions would not apply to providers that are already registered. Existing ongoing conditions C1, C3, E1 and E2 would continue to apply to these providers.

Where a registered provider applies to change its registration category (from Approved to Approved (fee cap) or vice versa), this requires a new application to register (see further information on changing registration category or fee limit). The proposed new initial conditions would therefore apply to a registered provider in these circumstances, that is for the purposes of its application to change category of registration.

Where registered providers currently subcontract (franchise) provision to unregistered providers (or intend to do so in future), our proposed submission requirements and approach to assessment for initial condition C5 may have an indirect impact on these providers. We explain this further below (see questions on proposed initial condition C5).

Refusal to register a provider currently has no direct impact on its registered partners and this would continue to be the case if our proposals are adopted.

If information received during the course of a registration application raises regulatory concerns about a registered partner provider (for example, if our review picks up quality concerns it could raise questions about whether a lead provider has sufficient oversight of its partners), we would consider this in the same way as any other regulatory intelligence we receive and may decide to investigate further or to impose regulatory measures to address any concerns. 

We plan to engage with the sector to discuss the features of effective governance and consider where standards need to be raised. As part of this work we may consider whether any changes to the ongoing conditions relating to management and governance are necessary.

Similarly, we plan to consider our approach to student protection for registered providers and will want to ensure a consistent level of protection for students at all providers. Any proposals to align ongoing requirements for all registered providers, to ensure that all students are treated fairly on an ongoing basis, would form part of a future consultation.

Our proposals would not generally apply to any application for registration made before the date we publish our decisions following this consultation. This includes applications that we are currently assessing or that are currently paused.

We consider on an ongoing basis whether the initial or ongoing conditions applied to any individual provider are proportionate to the regulatory risk posed by that provider. This means that if we identified particular regulatory risks posed by a provider, including a provider with an application currently paused, we may consider whether to apply additional requirements as we do now. This could include consideration of whether the provider should be required to meet either or both of the proposed new initial conditions, or parts of these conditions, as part of their registration assessment. If we proposed to do this, we would consult on an individual basis with the provider affected.

We expect to reopen for all registration applications, including applications to change category of registration, in August 2025 (see our page on temporary changes to registration and other applications for further information).

Applying for degree awarding powers (DAPs) is not classed as a change of registration category. Change of registration category refers only to applications to change from the Approved category of registration to the Approved (fee cap) category (or vice versa) and applications for DAPs are therefore considered under a separate process. This means that our proposals would not apply to providers applying for DAPs, unless they were applying for registration or to change registration category at the same time.

We are not proposing any changes to the way the role of the OfS interacts with the important and complementary roles played by other bodies operating in this area.

Our proposed requirements are informed, in part, by consumer protection legislation, Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) guidance and the work of other relevant bodies. However, our requirements are separate and distinct. Any judgement made by the OfS in relation to proposed initial condition C5 would not be a judgement about a provider's compliance with the law or its compliance with the requirements of any other bodies. Our judgement would be about whether a provider satisfies our initial regulatory requirement to treat students fairly.

Other bodies have published guidance for higher education providers. For example:

• the CMA has published guidance on consumer protection law to help providers comply with their legal obligations.
• the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) has published a Good Practice Framework which sets out principles and operational guidance to support providers in relation to complaints.

These are valuable resources that we would encourage all providers to make use of. Providers seeking registration would need to continue to comply with consumer protection law and the requirements of other relevant bodies, alongside satisfying our proposed new requirements.

Our proposals do not include a requirement for a provider registered under initial condition C5 to report changes to key documents after registration.

In the consultation we propose that a provider would publish its key documents (its 'student protection plan') on a single page of its website following registration. Annex E of Part 1 of the consultation proposes template text to be included on the provider’s web page to explain that the OfS considered the provider’s documents when it was granted registration but that any subsequent changes would not have been reviewed but should maintain the same level of protection for students on an ongoing basis.

A provider registered under initial condition C5 would need to comply with ongoing condition C1 following registration, which means that it would need to demonstrate due regard to Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) or other relevant guidance on an ongoing basis. If concerns arose in relation to consumer protection, we would consider taking action under ongoing condition C1. This may include making a referral to National Trading Standards. We encourage a provider making changes to key documents to refer to available guidance, including that published by the CMA and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

We recognise that, in some cases we are proposing a higher standard than currently exists in consumer protection law. This is because we've considered ‘fairness’ broadly and have aimed to identify behaviours we think would always be considered unfair from the perspective of the average student, even if a provider considered that there may be reasons justifying one or more of these behaviours. This is particularly relevant to part a. of the proposed OfS prohibited behaviours list which has been informed by the ‘grey list’ of contract terms that may be regarded as unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

We would welcome views on any provisions we've proposed in the OfS prohibited behaviours list.

Initial condition C5 would not apply to providers that are already registered with us. However, the document submission requirements and approach to assessment we're proposing for this condition may have an indirect impact on registered providers that currently subcontract (franchise) provision to unregistered providers (or intend to do so in future).

We're proposing that a provider applying to register with the OfS and intending to deliver higher education through a subcontractual (franchise) partnership may satisfy the document submission requirements by submitting a combination of its own and any lead provider’s documents. We've identified in Proposal 6 of Part 1 of the consultation that this would be relevant to contracts for the provision of higher education and refund and compensation policies. We therefore expect that an unregistered provider that intends to deliver subcontracted (franchised) higher education provision would need to liaise with its lead provider(s) to request copies of terms and conditions and other relevant documents to submit to the OfS along with its other application documents. Our initial view is that to properly assess whether students are treated fairly, we need to assess all documents relevant to the higher education a provider seeking registration will deliver once registered.

If information received during the course of a registration application raises regulatory concerns about a registered partner provider, we would consider this in the same way as any other regulatory intelligence we receive and may decide to investigate further or to impose regulatory measures to address any concerns.

As is currently the case, if we identified concerns about a provider’s compliance with consumer protection law, we may consider making a referral to National Trading Standards.

Our proposals set out a definition of ‘relevant individuals’ who would be subject to the fit and proper persons requirement.

A full list of the proposed criteria that would be used to determine if a relevant individual is fit and proper in our view can be found in Annex F of Part 2: Proposals for new initial condition E7. Some of the matters which we will give particular consideration include whether the individual has been subject to adverse findings in civil proceedings, disciplinary proceedings or in relation to the inappropriate use of public funds; convictions for a criminal offence and disqualification as a company director.

Our initial position is that there are a specific set of matters that, where they apply to a relevant individual, they would be deemed not to be a fit and proper person (unless there are exceptional circumstances). These matters can be found in E7D.2 in Annex F of Part 2.

There are other matters that we would consider but may not automatically exclude the individual from being deemed as a fit and proper person, where those circumstances apply. These matters can be found in E7D.4 in Annex F of Part 2.

We are not able to disclose specific cases, but can provide some high level examples of issues that we have encountered.

This includes some providers describing inappropriate governance arrangements in their registration application, in some cases these appear to have been copied from other registered providers. For example, we have seen small providers describing complex multicommittee governance structures similar to those that might be expected for a large multi-faculty university. It is unlikely these arrangements would be appropriate or effective in a small provider and this does not allow us to assess how arrangements would actually work in practice.

While providers may find it helpful to look at the documents of other providers when developing their own governing documents, it is important that governing arrangements are appropriate for the size and shape of each provider. We want providers to tell us how their governance arrangements will actually work.

Another example of a scenario that we have seen at registration is where the senior leaders responsible for running the provider do not have a full understanding of the responsibilities that will be placed on the provider by being registered with the OfS, such as submitting data correctly, and on time, and notifying us if particular events occur. We have found that providers in these situations can struggle to meet the ongoing requirements of them, putting strain on the provider and creating risks for students.

Finally, we have seen instances where fraudulent activity could take place at providers due to a lack of sufficient governance oversight and internal controls. Ensuring effective oversight is particularly important where providers are operating business models that can be higher risk such as using recruitment agents, contracting teaching to other providers or operating in markets that are particularly competitive.

The proposals as they are currently drafted would require key individuals from every provider seeking registration to undertake an interview during the registration application process. The key individuals who would be interviewed are:

• the chair of the governing body
• the accountable officer
• the individual responsible for financial management
• the independent member of the governing body (for providers applying to the Approved fee cap category).

We anticipate that interviews would be undertaken during the initial assessment stage of the application process, but we will consider the sequencing of the interview carefully to ensure that the assessment process is as efficient as possible.

We are proposing to remove the requirement to produce self-assessments, and we've based the proposed submission requirements around documents we think a provider that is ready to be registered would already have. We think that providers should already have much of the material they will need to submit and therefore shouldn’t need to create documentation specifically for OfS registration.

We have sought to keep the submission requirements for the effective governance condition as narrow as possible. We are proposing to require only the documents that we think a provider needs to have in place to deliver a positive higher education experience for students, meet the responsibilities of being a registered higher education provider and safeguard public funds. This is our initial view and we welcome alternative suggestions in consultation responses.

When registration reopens, we anticipate that the length of time it takes for a provider to register with the OfS will be in line with our existing guidance (at least 41-50 weeks if no additional information is required during the process).

Where a provider does not submit an application which allows us to make a full assessment against the initial conditions or does not engage with us responsively, a registration application can take significantly longer. This can also be the case if an assessment is particularly complex or involves negative judgements.

When we reopen registration, we are likely to prioritise consideration of those applications that were paused, followed by any new applications that we receive.

We are carefully looking at our resourcing for registration from August onwards, including in light of the government proposals that could require some providers currently delivering in subcontractual (franchise) partnerships to register.  

Existing registration requirements can be found in Table 1 and Table 2 of Regulatory advice 3: Registration of English higher education providers with the OfS.

The list of requirements we are proposing to implement when registration reopens can be found in Part 3 Annex A: Proposed notice under Section 3(5) of HERA (these requirements are subject to the outcomes of the consultation which closes on 23 April 2025).

If the proposals we have made in the consultation are taken forward, the application process will not substantially change from the existing process.

The registration process will begin when a provider has submitted an application form and all the supporting documentation that we need in order to assess the provider against the initial conditions of registration.

We will first assess a provider’s eligibility for registration and, where the eligibility criteria are met, progress to a full assessment against the initial conditions of registration. We normally assess all conditions other than those that relate to quality and standards first, then refer the provider for a quality and standards assessment (for which the provider pays a fee).

Once we have completed our assessment against all initial conditions we will communicate the outcome of the provider’s application to the provider.

Read more about the existing stages of the registration assessment process and how the proposals in the consultation would affect these: Impact of proposals on registration assessment processes and timelines.

The proposed requirements relating to financial viability and sustainability (condition D) for a provider that is not yet operating would include:

• Financial and student number tables and a commentary to accompany these tables.
• Where a provider is dependent on financial support from a third party, a legally binding obligation of financial support and audited statements from that third party.
• Financial scenario planning, accompanying commentary and mitigating actions.
• Proposed condition E7 would require all providers to submit a business plan that includes information about the provider's proposed financial strategy.

These requirements are subject to the outcomes of the consultation.

Find more information on:

• Current financial submission requirements: See 'Guidance for providers about the financial information required for registration', an annex of Regulatory advice 3: Registration of English higher education providers with the OfS.
• Proposals for changes to the financial submission requirements: Part 3: Proposals for changes to registration application requirements.

Whether a provider needs to submit audited financial statements as part of its registration application (and how many years these audited statements are required for) depends on how long it has been in operation and delivering higher education. Details of the proposed submission requirements are set out in Part 3 Annex A: Proposed notice under Section 3(5) of HERA.

Where we require full audited financial statements, we require these even if it is not a legal requirement for the business to submit them to Companies House. We require financial statements to be audited by an independent external auditor before submission to us so that we can have confidence that this information has been independently verified according to appropriate accounting standards.

Our proposals would require a provider to submit information about any investigation of the provider, or any relevant individual at the provider, by or on behalf of any awarding organisation, awarding body, professional body, regulatory body, funding body, statutory body, enforcement body, public body or other higher education provider.

This would apply to any investigation opened or concluded within the 60 months preceding the date the provider applied for registration with the OfS.

Full details of this proposed requirement can be found in Proposal 3 of Part 3: Submitting information about historical and current investigations.

Paragraphs 74 to 88 of our regulatory framework set out the eligibility requirements for registration with the OfS. We strongly encourage providers to consider these requirements carefully before they prepare and submit an application. We also encourage providers to engage with us early if they are uncertain about any of our eligibility requirements. We are happy to discuss and provide clarification to inform a provider’s own view on the eligibility of its organisation.

However, prior to receiving a provider’s application, we cannot provide a formal decision about its eligibility. Such a judgement requires an eligibility assessment and includes an opportunity for a provider to submit representations if it disagrees with our judgement. Our eligibility assessment is informed by the documents submitted by a provider as part of its application.

The submission requirements for a registration application are not proposed to vary according to the size of a provider or its proposed provision (and do not currently). However we propose to take into account a provider's size in our assessment and we've specifically built this into our proposals.

For example, under proposed initial condition E7, we wouldn't expect to see small providers setting out complex multi-committee governance structures that aren't appropriate or realistic for their business model. We've sought to focus our requirements on a small range of documents we think all providers need to have, regardless of their size. Although all providers will be submitting the same documents, we don't expect the content to look the same for every provider.

In our recent consultation on proposals for a new strategy for 2025-30, we set out our intention to develop a new integrated approach to regulating quality. In discussion with the sector, we are currently in the early stages of developing our thinking around how the integrated approach might work. We expect there will be some reform to our current approach to the TEF, and this could impact on the timing of future TEF assessments. We will continue to work with sector groups, providers, and students over the coming months as we progress our initial thinking.

The current proposals on reforms to OfS registration requirements are, however, separate to the TEF and our development work around a new integrated approach to regulating quality.