Part 3: Proposals for changes to registration application requirements

136. The current published timeline for registration, based on a positive assessment, is 46 weeks from the point we confirm an application is complete. During the registration process it is not uncommon for matters to change at a provider while our assessment is underway. Some of these changes may affect our assessment. In many cases the changes are neutral with respect to compliance, that is the provider still meets the initial conditions of registration, but the changed information results in us having to reassess a particular element of the provider’s application to ensure that the assessment and recommendations to decision-makers are accurate and relevant. Other changes may negatively affect our assessment. We need to know about changes that are relevant to our assessment of whether a provider meets the initial conditions of registration. The list of matters we require to be reported is an exhaustive list, set out in Table 6 below.
137. Many providers keep the OfS updated about changes to their applications. However, over time situations have arisen during registration assessments where we have become aware of a particular matter but the provider applying for registration has not reported it to us or has not done so in a timely manner.
138. Where a matter has been reported late and has had a material impact on our assessment, we have had to spend further time and resources requesting and reviewing further relevant information and redoing our assessment. If matters had been reported more quickly this would have avoided abortive work. In a small number of cases, important matters have not been reported to us at all and we have subsequently become aware of them through third party notifications. We have had to investigate these before making a registration decision, which has taken considerable time. These situations affect our ability to plan our resources and to deliver assessments to predictable timelines. Sometimes a provider has not made us aware of important matters, which has created a risk that we wrongly assess that it is eligible, or wrongly assess that it satisfies a condition of registration.
139. We have therefore set out a list of matters that we propose must be reported to us during the registration process (see Table 6 below). These matters could all have a material impact on the accuracy of our assessment of a provider’s compliance with the initial conditions of registration or its eligibility for registration. In considering which matters should be included for reporting in this proposal, we have considered real-life examples of situations we have seen in the past as well our current requirements for registered providers to report certain events or matters (‘reportable events’).²⁴
140. There is a different purpose for the information we are proposing to require a provider to report during the registration process. Reportable events are one of several sources of information we use to maintain an up-to-date risk assessment of each registered provider. They are an important component of a risk-based approach to regulation that enables the OfS to focus regulatory attention on those providers that are at greatest risk of breaching their conditions of registration.
141. By contrast, the matters we propose to require a provider to report during the registration process have the primary purpose of ensuring that the provider’s registration application remains materially up to date. We do not perform a monitoring function for an unregistered provider, and do not have a regulatory remit to respond to emerging risks for the purposes of directly protecting students at unregistered providers (until and unless we register that provider).

Question 4a: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to require a provider to report to the OfS specified matters that may affect a provider’s application to register? Please give reasons for your answer

24 We explain these requirements in our guidance on reportable events at Regulatory advice 16: Reportable events.

142. We propose to set out a list of matters that we require a provider applying for registration to report to us during the registration process. The proposed list is set out in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Proposed list of matters a provider applying for registration must report to the OfS, during the registration process

Question 4b: We would welcome views on the list of specified matters set out in Table 6. Are there other specified matters you think should be included, or matters listed that should be excluded? Please give reasons for your answer.

143. We have proposed that a provider must report these matters to us within 28 days of it becoming aware of the event occurring. Our initial view is that this period strikes an appropriate balance; it supports the OfS’s need to use its resources in an efficient and effective way and assess a provider’s application based on up-to-date, relevant information, but does not require reporting as quickly as is required for a registered provider because, as explained above, the purpose of reporting these matters is different. In practice, we would encourage a provider to report any of these matters to us as soon as possible as it will be in its interests that we have the correct information for our assessment without delay.

Question 4c

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed reporting deadline of 28 days for all the specific matters proposed to be reported to the OfS? Please give reasons for your answer.

144. We propose that the requirement to submit information relating to specific matters that may arise during the registration assessment process would apply to any new application for registration made after publication of our decisions following this consultation.
145. We propose that these requirements would not routinely apply to applications from a registered provider to change its category of registration as it will already be subject to the OfS’s reportable events requirements. However, if we consider it necessary, we may include some of these requirements in any bespoke section 3(5) Notice we issue setting out the information that a provider is required to submit as part of its application to change category of registration.
146. The proposals will require a provider to submit information about things that happen during the registration process. A provider will be required to submit information about these matters even if the matter has been resolved by the time the provider reports it; the provider can clarify any steps it has taken in response to the matter and, where appropriate, any resolution of the matter in its report. We propose that the notification should simply include the fact that a matter has occurred, rather than requiring additional information about it. While a provider is encouraged to provide contextual information, we can ask follow-up questions and seek clarification in writing if needed, once we are aware a matter has occurred.
147. We consider that this will keep the burden for the provider to the minimum necessary. Collating and submitting information if any of these events occur should be relatively quick and straightforward for any provider.
148. The proposed mechanism to impose this requirement is part of the section 3(5) notice set out in Proposal 1 of Part 3 of this consultation. The impact of imposing a requirement via a section 3(5) Notice is that we may refuse a provider’s registration application if it does not submit the required information (the proposed section 3(5) Notice is set out in Annex A of Part 3 of this consultation).
149. As set out above in Proposal 1,²⁶ if a listed matter occurs during the registration process and a provider does not report it within 28-days and the OfS subsequently becomes aware of it, we may provisionally refuse the provider’s application for registration on the basis that it has not complied with our requirements for an application.
150. We consider that requiring a provider to report a specific set of matters during the registration process ensures our assessment is based on the most current information. This approach has clear benefits, as it enhances our understanding of a provider’s application and may reduce the need for additional queries or the imposition of specific conditions at the point of registration. Promptly receiving updated information allows us to evaluate its impact on our assessment within the overall assessment timelines, minimising delays. It also lowers the risk of making decisions based on outdated information, such as incorrectly registering a provider or concluding that a provider meets an initial condition of registration.
151. In setting out clear scenarios in which we require a provider to report matters promptly, we aim to reduce the need for it to spend time considering and debating the type of matters to report and when this should happen, thereby reducing burden.

25 This consultation proposes to revoke initial condition E2 if the proposed initial condition E7 is adopted following the outcome of this consultation. Should the outcome of this consultation determine that proposed initial E7 is not adopted, then initial condition E2 would remain and Proposal 4 (if adopted) would apply to existing initial condition E2.

26 Paragraph 31.

152. We have considered alternative options to the proposal set out above. These are listed below and set out in Annex C of Part 3 of this consultation:
     1. continuing the current arrangements
     2. proposing a requirement for a provider to keep its application substantively or materially up to date
     3. proposing shorter reporting timeframes.

Question 4d: Do you think there may be any unintended consequences of adopting this proposal? If so, please explain your answer.

Question 4e: Do you support any of the alternative approaches we have outlined in Part 3, Annex C, Proposal 4 of this consultation, or do you have any other proposals? If so, please explain and provide reasons for your view.