Proposals for a new approach to consumer and student protection

Proposal 2: Establish principles and requirements that are consistent with treating students fairly

41. As part of the proposed overarching requirement to treat students fairly, we are suggesting that a provider would need to act in accordance with the following principles:

• promote students’ understanding of their consumer rights
• deliver the provider’s commitments relating to higher education and ancillary services
• proactively identify and plan for risks that could affect the delivery of higher education and ancillary services, and act early if those risks materialise
• enable students to access timely, clear and effective advice to navigate complaints handling and redress processes
• act in good faith
• deliver higher education and ancillary services with reasonable care and skill.

42. These principles are grounded in consumer protection law, draw on our regulatory experience and similar principles of fairness used by other sector regulators.
43. We propose that the new condition should also include specific requirements that a provider must comply with, to treat students fairly. These would include positive requirements (things a provider must always do) and negative requirements (things a provider must never do).
44. Our proposed positive requirements focus on the clear, accurate and comprehensive provision of information to students.
45. Our proposed negative requirements largely mirror the requirements in the ‘OfS prohibited behaviours list’ that applies to providers seeking registration under initial condition C5.²⁶ The list, as drafted, covers behaviours in relation to the following:

• key documents (for example, a provider’s terms and conditions and other relevant policies and processes)
• conduct and omissions (for example, information a provider publishes and its marketing practices)
• course change policies
• complaints processes
• refund and compensation policies
• fake reviews.

46. In addition to the behaviours set out in the OfS prohibited behaviours list, we propose that we would also consider aggressive commercial practices to be unfair.
47. The proposed positive and negative requirements broadly reflect relevant existing provisions of consumer protection law,²⁷ and guidance for higher education providers published by the CMA.²⁸ Our initial view is that drawing on legislation (and related guidance) in this way means that a provider should already be aware of many of the negative and positive requirements we are proposing.
48. For those providers that are already in compliance with the law and guidance, complying with our proposals (including the principles) should be relatively straightforward. However, we anticipate that the overarching obligation to treat students fairly will necessitate a cultural shift in the sector as we will require providers to consider the overall effect of their arrangements on students as a whole and for specific groups of students.
49. Proposal 2 would be implemented by provisions C6.4 and C6.5 of the draft condition, which set out:

• principles of fairness (C6.4a – d)
• positive requirements related to the OfS information requirements list (C6.4e)
• negative requirements related to the OfS prohibited behaviours list (C6.5a)
• negative requirements related to aggressive commercial practices (C6.5b).

50. We welcome feedback on the relevant parts of the condition (C6.4 and C6.5) and on the associated guidance, both of which are at Annex C. We also welcome feedback on the OfS information requirements list and OfS prohibited behaviours list, both of which are at Annex D.

Why are we making this proposal?

51. The inclusion of the principles is designed to give providers clarity on the outcomes they should aim for when treating students fairly. We believe this will support senior leadership teams to make any necessary cultural changes, ensuring that students’ interests meaningfully inform their decisions and that providers take a proactive role in helping students understand their consumer rights. In our view, a broader duty to treat students fairly – combined with these positive principles – is more likely to drive meaningful cultural change than relying solely on a list of prohibited behaviours, which risks encouraging a ‘tick box’ approach to compliance.
52. From a student’s perspective, the principles can serve as a useful framework to clarify what they should reasonably expect from their higher education provider and how to raise concerns when those expectations are not met. We examine each principle in more detail below.
53. We also consider it is important to prescribe specific requirements in certain areas to give clarity to providers and to ensure alignment with consumer protection law. This will also ensure a consistent baseline of protection for students across a diverse higher education sector.
54. First, we are proposing to specify information requirements to improve quality and consistency of information across the higher education sector (we refer to these below as ‘positive requirements’). This is because the information that applicants and students receive from a provider (or agents acting on its behalf) influences and supports their decision making. They should consistently receive clear, accurate and comprehensive information, and we think this is not always happening in practice (see Proposal 1, paragraph 29).
55. Second, we are proposing to specify behaviours that are, in our view, clearly inconsistent with treating students fairly (we refer to these below as ‘negative requirements’). Our initial view is that setting out behaviours that we will always consider to be unfair will provide clarity about our ‘red lines’ (our strict, non-negotiable requirements). We think this will benefit providers and students. Providers will understand our regulatory expectations and should operate in compliance with them. Students will be able to hold their providers to account where they see behaviour that falls short of our expectations.
56. Both the positive and negative requirements we are proposing broadly reflect key elements of existing consumer protection law and CMA guidance adapted to the higher education context. However, our proposed requirements differ from (and in some cases extend beyond) consumer protection law in places to:

• support a best practice approach; and
• address the power imbalance between students and providers (see Proposal 1, paragraph 27).

57. We have identified below, in the detail of the proposal, where our proposed requirements would go beyond existing legal requirements and the reasons for this (paragraph 83, Table 1 and paragraph 94, Table 2).
58. We have also highlighted in Tables 1 and 2 where we have drawn on specific aspects of CMA guidance in drafting our proposed requirements and the reasons for this.

Detail of the proposal

Principles of fairness

59. We propose to require providers to meet fairness principles. These exemplify the behaviours we would expect from a provider that is treating students fairly. We propose that these principles sit within, and providers must interpret them in light of, the overarching requirement to treat students fairly. When determining how to comply with each principle, the ultimate question should always be whether the provider’s approach results in fair treatment of students.
60. The draft guidance in Annex C, provides more details and illustrative examples for each of these.

Promoting students’ understanding of their consumer rights

61. Our experience and the research we have commissioned indicate that many students do not engage with or understand the contracts that they enter into with a provider. Broad surveys of people’s behaviour with contracts show that 68 per cent of consumers do not read or fully understand the contracts they sign for certain services.²⁹ Many students are young and relatively inexperienced as consumers and consequently their understanding of contractual terms, complaints processes and redress mechanisms is likely to vary widely. Further, some characteristics – such as socioeconomic background – may limit the ability of specific student groups to engage with their consumer rights or protect their own interests.³⁰ We expect a provider to take this into account. Recent findings from OfS-commissioned research show that 40 per cent of students said that they did not or could not understand or describe their rights.³¹
62. We do not consider that students can be treated fairly if they do not understand what is being offered by a provider, the costs and implications of entering into a contract, or the rights available to them.
63. Under this principle, we propose that we would require a provider to take all reasonable steps to promote students’ understanding of their consumer rights.³²
64. For example, this would mean providing and communicating sufficient information to students that is clear, accurate and comprehensive and to ensure students understand the higher education and ancillary services that are being promised. This would also mean communicating information in a way that all students can understand, at the point that they need it and in a form that genuinely helps their decision making. We would expect a provider to ask itself: ‘Have we done enough to promote students’ reasonable understanding of the higher education and ancillary services we are offering to make an informed decision based on the information we have provided?’

Proactively identifying and planning for risks that could affect the delivery of higher education or ancillary services, and acting early if those risks materialise

65. Higher education is not a one-off transaction but a long-term commitment, where failure to deliver higher education or ancillary services can have significant negative consequences for students.
66. We propose that we would require a provider to take all reasonable steps to proactively identify and mitigate risks to the delivery of higher education and ancillary services. We would also require a provider to act early if those risks materialise to ensure students are protected from the potentially significant negative impact of failure to deliver these services. Examples of taking all reasonable steps would include:

• ensuring reasonable planning and resourcing for continuity of delivery
• taking proactive steps to mitigate harm once disruption occurs
• offering redress
• providing early warning and communicating clearly with students about the nature and timing of any disruption and providing timely advice so they are not left to navigate disruption alone.³³

Enabling students to access timely, clear and effective advice to navigate complaints handling and redress processes

67. As set out in paragraph 61, recent student research that we commissioned found that 40 per cent did not or could not understand or describe their rights.³⁴ Such students are unlikely to be able to exercise their rights by complaining.
68. The same research found that, of those students who had never made a complaint to their provider, 1 in 4 were not confident about how to make one, with 36 per cent citing a lack of time or energy to go through the process. We consider that the inherent power imbalance between a provider and a student means that some students may find it difficult to make a complaint due a student’s dependency on a provider for progression, fear of adverse consequences or limited confidence in the decision-maker’s independence from the subject matter of the complaint.
69. During our engagement with the OfS’s Student Interest Board, students highlighted a need for support to help them better understand and navigate the complaints handling process.³⁵
70. This proposed principle aims to ensure that when problems arise, students are informed and able to exercise their consumer rights to complain and engage in a provider’s complaints process.
71. To comply with this principle, we would require a provider to take reasonable steps to enable students to access timely, clear and effective advice to navigate complaints handling and redress processes. Reasonable steps would include ensuring students have access to free, independent and confidential advice and support to assist them throughout the process, including offering advice and support to understand how the complaints process works.

Delivering the provider’s commitments relating to higher education and ancillary services

72. The decision about where and what to study is a significant choice for students. The principle above would require a provider to provide and communicate information to students that is clear, accurate and comprehensive to ensure students understand the higher education and ancillary services that are being promised. It is then incredibly important that a provider delivers in line with the commitments it has made to students. For this reason, we are proposing the inclusion of this principle.
73. During our engagement with students, most identified ‘delivering the provider’s commitments or what was promised’ as among the most important of the fairness principles set out in this section.³⁶
74. This principle would require that a provider delivers the higher education and ancillary services in the manner and form it has committed to, unless unavoidable circumstances arise that are caused by factors outside of its control.³⁷ This principle is caveated to reflect the wording in paragraph 5.37 of the CMA’s guidance on consumer protection law.³⁸
75. We propose that a provider’s commitments referenced in this principle include all information given to students by the provider, or a representative acting on its behalf, to encourage students (or anyone with an interest in studying) to study at the provider. We propose that this should include written, verbal or visual information, such as offer letters and contracts, a provider’s website, other marketing materials and statements made by agents or representatives acting on a provider’s behalf.

Acting in good faith

76. In consumer protection law a contract term is considered unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, the term causes a significant imbalance in the consumer’s rights and obligations, to the detriment of the consumer.³⁹ Given the significant time and investment made by students in their higher education, the inherent imbalance of power that already exists, and the long-term nature of the student-provider relationship, we propose that a provider must act in good faith in all its dealings with students.
77. Examples of acting in good faith would include taking into account students’ interests and avoiding behaviour that misleads or disadvantages students. It would also include avoiding behaviour that takes advantage of the power imbalance in its relationship with students. If things go wrong, a provider should address this promptly through appropriate action, which may include providing compensation.

Delivering higher education and ancillary services with reasonable care and skill

78. To ensure students consistently receive services that meet their reasonable expectations of a higher education provider and are delivered competently and fairly, we propose that the principle of ‘reasonable care and skill’ should underpin the delivery of higher education and ancillary services. This means that we would require a provider to perform its services with the level of care and skill that could reasonably be expected of a higher education provider, regardless of the eventual outcome for an individual student. Illustrative examples of this include:

• A student may ultimately receive a refund (a positive outcome), but if the process took much longer than the provider’s refund policy indicated and required the student to disclose unnecessary personal information, the service would not have been delivered with reasonable care and skill.
• A provider may have a written process for reviewing published information to ensure accuracy, but if staff fail to follow it and a student relies on inaccurate information when choosing a course (a negative outcome), the provider may not have met this standard.

79. To determine whether a provider delivers higher education and ancillary services with reasonable care and skill, we propose to consider the following non-exhaustive factors (explained further in the draft guidance):

• whether a provider follows its own policies and processes, and if not whether any deviations are reasonable in the circumstances
• whether a provider behaves constructively (for example, not creating unreasonable barriers or obstacles)
• whether the provider takes advantage of its authority over students.

80. We consider that our existing quality and standards conditions (B conditions) may be relevant to reasonable care and skill in respect of the subjects taught. For example, where a provider delivers out-of-date course content, this may be relevant to B1 (Academic experience),⁴⁰ and where it has insufficient numbers of appropriately qualified staff this may be relevant to B2 (Resources, support and student engagement).⁴¹ Where concerns about ‘care and skill’ intersect with other OfS conditions of registration, we propose to determine the most appropriate route to address these on a case-by-case basis.

Requirements of fairness

81. We propose that in addition to the principles above, a provider would also need to comply with specific requirements to treat students fairly under the condition. We propose that these should include positive requirements (things a provider must always do) as well as negative requirements (things a provider must never do).

Positive requirements

82. We propose that information provided to students must be clear and accurate, and that certain defined information must be provided to students in a comprehensive manner. For the avoidance of doubt, we are proposing that these requirements would apply to the provision of information to students by a provider and by other parties (for example, other providers or agents) acting on its behalf.
83. We propose to set out these positive requirements in an ‘OfS information requirements list’, which would form part of the condition – see Section 1 of Annex D (‘Proposed OfS list of information requirements and prohibited behaviours’). As set out in Table 1 below, this list broadly reflects certain provisions in consumer protection law and CMA guidance, which we think should support provider compliance, as set out at paragraph 47 to 48. In some cases we are proposing to go beyond existing law and guidance and the table highlights where this is the case and the reasons for this.

Table 1: Proposed OfS information requirements and corresponding consumer protection law or guidance

Additional detail on our proposed approach

84. We are proposing to introduce requirements that have a different effect compared with similar provisions in consumer protection law in the following ways:

• The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) uses negative framing. We are proposing positive requirements, for example, ‘information must be clear’ rather than ‘information must not be unclear’.
• In the DMCCA, misleading actions and misleading omissions are unfair only if they are ‘likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that the consumer would not have taken otherwise as a result of the practice’.⁴⁷ We are proposing to decouple requirements about the provision of information from any assessment of the likely impact on a transactional decision. For example, information must always be clear and accurate, not only where failure to do so is likely to cause a student to take a different decision.

85. This proposal takes into account the power imbalance that is inherent in the provider-student relationship and information asymmetry that exists. The proposal does this by putting the onus on providers to ensure the information is always clear, comprehensive and accurate, irrespective of the effect on a student’s decision to choose a course.
86. This is important because students are often inexperienced consumers who will receive a high volume of information prior to making a decision about a course or provider. Our initial view is that a provider should be striving to provide the best possible information.
87. We consider that good information provision is essential to enable students to make well informed decisions about what and where to study. These decisions carry significant consequences, particularly given the practical and financial challenges associated with switching once a course has started. Yet the nature of higher education means that most students have limited firsthand knowledge or experience of what they are committing to and must rely heavily on the information supplied by the provider. This information asymmetry makes it especially important that providers ensure the information they give to students is clear, accurate and comprehensive.
88. Further, we consider that a student should receive clear and accurate information from their provider throughout their higher education experience. We are therefore proposing that clarity and accuracy requirements (see Annex D⁴⁸) would apply generally to information provided to any prospective, current or former student, as defined in the condition.⁴⁹ For example, we consider it is important that a provider communicates clearly and accurately with an individual student about an ongoing complaint or when it is consulting with a group of students about proposed changes to their course. Related policies and processes should be clear and accurate, and a provider’s correspondence and communications on related matters, should also be clear and accurate. For the avoidance of doubt, we are not proposing that the clarity and accuracy of the academic content of a student’s course would be in scope of the requirements.

Negative requirements

89. We propose to require that a provider (or any third party acting on its behalf) must never engage in certain unfair behaviours. These behaviours would be:

• those defined in a ‘prohibited behaviours list’ (see paragraphs 92 to 96 and Table 2 below);
• all aggressive commercial practices (see paragraphs 97 to 101 and Table 3 below).

90. As set out in the following paragraphs (and in Table 2 and 3 below), many of the negative requirements we are proposing broadly reflect specific provisions in consumer protection law and aspects of CMA guidance. This includes the content of the OfS prohibited behaviours list (which also forms part of initial condition of registration C5) and the additional prohibition of aggressive commercial practices that we are proposing. As set out at paragraph 47 to 48, our initial view that this will make compliance relatively straightforward.
91. As set out in Table 2, we are proposing prohibited behaviours in relation to course changes and refunds and compensation, which do not specifically reflect provisions in consumer protection law or CMA guidance. We think it is important to include negative requirements in these areas to guard against specific additional risks to students compared with consumers in other sectors, particularly due to the challenges of ‘switching’ courses or providers.

Prohibited behaviours list

92. We are proposing to include a prohibited behaviours list as part of the condition. We have provided the draft list in Annex D: Proposed OfS list of information requirements and prohibited behaviours (see Section 2). The list was originally created as part of initial condition C5 and we are proposing to apply most of the same provisions for ongoing condition C6.
93. For the avoidance of doubt, we are proposing that the prohibitions set out in the list would apply to the actions and omissions of a provider and other parties (for example, other providers or agents) acting on its behalf.⁵¹
94. As shown in Table 2, the proposed OfS prohibited behaviours list broadly reflects certain provisions in consumer protection law and related guidance, with some differences. The table highlights where we are proposing a different approach to consumer protection law and associated guidance and the reasons for this.

Table 2: Proposed OfS prohibited behaviours and corresponding consumer protection law or guidance

95. The prohibited behaviours list we are proposing for C6 is similar to the list that applies to initial condition C5. However, we are not proposing to apply the ‘clarity and legibility’ provisions in the prohibited behaviours list for C6. This is because we are instead proposing to incorporate these into the ‘clarity and accuracy’ requirements of the proposed new information requirements list. As set out above (in Table 1), we consider that framing these requirements positively will encourage a more positive ‘best practice’ culture.
96. We propose to publish a single OfS prohibited behaviours list that would apply to initial condition C5 and proposed ongoing condition C6, specifying which sections apply to which condition (see Section 2 of Annex D: ‘Proposed OfS list of information requirements and prohibited behaviours’).⁵⁹

Aggressive commercial practices

97. We propose that the use of aggressive commercial practices would always be unfair.
98. We propose that a commercial practice would include, but not be limited to, advertising, marketing and recruitment activities and a provider’s operation of its complaints handling, refund and compensation processes.
99. We are proposing that aggressive commercial practices would include, but not be limited to, the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence.
100. Specific behaviours related to pressure selling are included in the OfS prohibited behaviours list that is already in force for initial condition C5 (and that we are proposing should form part of ongoing condition C6).⁶⁰ However, initial condition C5 does not contain the broader requirement related to aggressive commercial practices that we are proposing to introduce for ongoing condition C6. Our initial view is that it is appropriate that an ongoing condition should include a requirement that would allow us to consider aggressive commercial practices more broadly and enable us to take action where we see this.
101. Our proposal broadly reflects similar aggressive practices provisions in the DMCCA, but with some key differences. Table 3 highlights where we are proposing a different approach to the DMCCA and the reasons for this.

Table 3: DMCCA provision and our proposals on aggressive practices

Alternative options considered

102. We have considered alternative options to this proposal, which are set out in Annex B. These are to:

• only establish principles and requirements with no overarching requirement to treat students fairly
• only establish principles
• only establish requirements
• only establish negative requirements
• more precisely reflect consumer protection law in our proposed requirements.

Notes

²⁶ OfS, ‘OfS prohibited behaviours list’, 2025. We are proposing that requirements in the current prohibited behaviours list related to ‘clarity and legibility of information’ would instead be covered under a proposed new provision related to ‘clarity and accuracy of information’.

²⁷ For the avoidance of doubt, our proposal is that any judgments made in relation to the proposed new condition (C6) would be regulatory judgments, not consumer protection law findings.

²⁸ Unless stated otherwise, ‘CMA guidance’ in this document refers to Gov.UK, ‘Higher education: consumer law advice for providers’, May 2023.

²⁹ University of Law, ‘More than two thirds of people don’t read their contracts’, March 2024.

³⁰ Considered by the Student Interest Board at its meeting on 10 February 2026.

³¹ OfS, ‘OfS explorations: Consumer rights’, 2025, paragraph 1.

³² By ‘take all reasonable steps’, we mean that a provider must take all steps that are reasonably practicable in the circumstances to achieve the intended outcome, and what a reasonable provider in the sector would do.

³³ This expectation is already reflected: OfS, ‘OfS regulatory statement on industrial action’, 2025.

³⁴ OfS, ‘OfS explorations: Consumer rights’, 2025.

³⁵ Student Interest Board, 27 January 2026.

³⁶ Student debrief, 27 January 2026.

³⁷ This is defined in the draft guidance.

³⁸ Gov.UK, ‘Higher education: consumer law advice for providers’, May 2023.

³⁹ Gov.UK, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Section 62(4).

⁴⁰ OfS, ‘Securing student success: Regulatory framework for higher education in England’, last updated November 2022, available at Regulatory framework for higher education in England - Office for Students, see paragraphs 332A to 332U in the PDF document.

⁴¹ OfS, ‘Securing student success: Regulatory framework for higher education in England’, see paragraphs 332V to 333R

⁴² Gov.UK, ‘Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024’, Section 226.

⁴³ Invitation to purchase is a concept in consumer protection law that refers to any communication detailing a product’s characteristics and price allowing consumers to make a purchasing decision.

⁴⁴ Gov.UK, ‘Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024’, Section 230.

⁴⁵ Gov.UK, ‘Higher education: consumer law advice for providers’, May 2023, paragraph 4.11. CMA guidance provides a list of course-related information that is likely to constitute ‘material information under the CPRs’. While CMA guidance predates the introduction of the DMCCA, we are proposing to reflect the content of paragraph 4.11 in the OfS information requirements list. This is because a) it provides sector-specific guidance to illustrate what is likely to constitute material information; b) it is guidance that providers should already be familiar with and have regard to; c) our initial view is that the information contained in the list is information providers should be making available to students in an invitation to purchase.

⁴⁶ Gov.UK, ‘Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024’, Section 227.

⁴⁷ Gov.UK, ‘Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024’, Section 225(4).

⁴⁸ Annex D, Proposed OfS list of information requirements and prohibited behaviours, Section 1: OfS information requirements list, see in particular PB.1a.i, ‘ensuring that information provided to students related to higher education and ancillary services is clear, accurate, intelligible, legible and unambiguous’.

⁴⁹ See Proposal 3, paragraphs 107 to 113.

⁵⁰ Actions may include, for example, including unfair terms and conditions in a student contract. Omissions may include, for example, failing to provide information about additional course costs in a timely way, or at all.

⁵¹ See Gov.UK, ‘Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2’.

⁵² We have included a list of the legislative provisions that we are not proposing to include in the OfS prohibited behaviours list (see Annex B: Alternative options considered, paragraph 15).

⁵³ See Gov.UK, ‘Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024’, Schedule 20.

⁵⁴ We have included a list of the legislative provisions that we are not proposing to include in the OfS prohibited behaviours list (see Annex B: Alternative options considered, paragraph 15).

⁵⁵ OfS, ‘Regulatory framework for higher education in England’, paragraphs 381 to 396.

⁵⁶ See Gov.UK, ‘Higher education: consumer law advice for providers’, May 2023, in particular Annex A: Checklist summaries of Chapters 4, 5 and 6. While CMA guidance predates the introduction of the DMCCA, the DMCCA does not contain specific provisions related to complaints handling.

⁵⁷ OIA, Good Practice Framework.

⁵⁸ Gov.UK, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Schedule 20.

⁵⁹ In doing so, we propose to amend the ordering and structure of the list that currently applies to initial condition C5. This would be a purely presentational change and would not alter the substance of the requirements that currently apply to providers seeking registration. However, should we make any changes to the substance following this consultation, we propose to reflect such changes in the prohibited behaviours list that applies to C5.

⁶⁰ OfS, ‘OfS prohibited behaviours list’, 2025. For example:

• • ‘Applying pressure to elicit an immediate decision and deprive students of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice. This includes falsely stating that an offer for services will only be available for a very limited time, or that it will only be available for particular terms for a very limited time.’
  • ‘Making persistent and unwanted contact with students (or anyone with an interest in studying at the provider) by telephone, email, social media, or other means. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision is not intended to deter or discourage genuine contact with students where this is necessary, for example, for welfare checks where they have a prolonged period of absence.’

⁶¹ Gov.UK, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, s228(1).

⁶² Gov.UK, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, s228(b).

⁶³ Gov.UK, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, s225(4)(a).