Proposals for a new approach to consumer and student protection

Proposal 3: Include all students, higher education and ancillary services in scope of the condition

103. We propose that the condition would apply to:
     • All students regardless of mode or level of study and the manner of delivery (for example, education delivered online, face-to-face or a combination of both). This includes prospective, current and former students, as well as students on apprenticeships or other employer-sponsored courses.
     • Offering, marketing and provision of higher education and ancillary services, including by a third party on behalf of a provider (and where higher education is delivered to students outside the UK).
104. Proposal 3 relates to provisions C6.1 and C6.2 of the draft condition, which set out the scope of the condition in relation to the above. Where relevant, the proposal also refers to the definitions set out in the draft condition at C6.8.
105. We welcome feedback on the proposed scope and definitions to be used in the condition (C6.1, C6.2 and C6.8) and on the associated guidance, both of which are at Annex C.

Why are we making this proposal?

106. Paragraphs 107 to 143 explain why we propose to define each element of the condition’s scope in the way suggested.

Detail of the proposal

Students

107. We are proposing that the definition of ‘students’ in the condition would include prospective, current and former students. It would also include students studying as part of their employment. As our proposal for the scope and definition of students is the same as for initial condition C5, our rationale, which we set out below, is largely the same as in our consultation on that condition.

Prospective students

108. We propose that a provider’s relationship with a prospective student should be in scope from the point that an offer is received. We consider that this is when the provider’s actions (or failures to act) have the greatest potential to affect a student.
109. For example, if a provider fails to inform an individual about additional course costs by the point of offer, this omission may influence (and could be decisive in) the individual’s decision about whether to accept the offer.
110. Under the proposed definition, ‘prospective students’ applies only to people who have received an offer and from the point an offer is made. However, we propose that all marketing information available to any individual (including those at a pre‑offer stage) should also fall within the scope of this condition (see paragraphs 124 to 125 for further detail on ‘information about the provider’).⁶⁴ A provider cannot determine in advance whether published information will be relied upon by a ‘prospective student’ (as defined in the condition). As such, and because this information is relevant to ensuring students are treated fairly, a provider must ensure that all pre‑offer information complies with the requirements of the condition.

Former students

111. We consider that a provider’s responsibilities may not end on the day a student completes their course. We therefore propose that former students should be in scope where a current relationship exists (for example, where a complaint is ongoing).
112. The intended scope of the relationship does not include a provider’s ongoing relationship with its alumni. However, we propose that, where an alumnus seeks to access reasonable information related to their previous study, the individual would fall within the scope of ‘former student’. This might be the case where an individual requests evidence of their study, such as a degree certificate or transcript. We propose that this would fall within the scope of ‘former student’ regardless of the lapse of time.

Students studying as part of their employment

113. We propose that all students would be in scope of the condition, no matter who pays their fees or whether their study is employment‑ This includes, but is not limited to, apprenticeship students.
114. This is because all students make a significant investment of time and effort and have similar legitimate expectations, regardless of who makes the tuition fee payments. For example, apprenticeship students and others studying as part of their employment may:

• expect a fair, accessible complaints and redress process, even if they are not entitled to claim or receive a refund of tuition fees.
• independently contract with a provider for non‑academic services (such as use of provider‑owned sports facilities) and expect those services to be delivered fairly.

Provision of higher education

115. We are proposing that the provision of higher education should include all modes and methods of delivery and higher education delivered through partnerships in the UK and overseas. As this proposal is the same as for initial condition C5, our rationale (as set out below) is largely the same as in our consultation on that condition.

All modes and methods of delivery

116. We propose that the ‘provision of higher education’ should be broad in scope, including all higher education courses, at any level and with any volume of learning (including standalone modules and microcredentials). We propose that this would include face-to-face, distance learning and a combination of both methods. This reflects the approach we have taken to regulating quality and standards through the B conditions of registration.⁶⁵
117. We propose to define the provision of higher education as a ‘service’, whether or not tuition or other fees are charged and whether the education is provided on a ‘for profit’ or a ‘not for profit’ basis. We believe providers should deliver the same level of service to students (and should provide access to appropriate remedies when things go wrong) regardless of the fee arrangement and business model.

Higher education delivered through partnerships

118. We propose that all higher education delivered ‘by, or on behalf of, a provider’ should be in scope, including all forms of partnerships.
119. This would mean that responsibilities extend to both teaching (delivery) partners and lead providers in subcontractual (franchise) arrangements. In addition, more than one registered provider may be responsible for complying with the condition for the same students. This proposal aligns with our existing regulatory approach under the B conditions,⁶⁶ initial condition C5,⁶⁷ and our new requirements related to the oversight of subcontractual partnerships.⁶⁸
120. By holding all providers accountable for consumer protection, we aim to ensure all students have clear and consistent information to support their choices about what and where to study and how to pursue complaints or redress if things go wrong.

Transnational education

121. We consider that all students should be treated fairly no matter where they are studying. As such, we propose that higher education provided ‘by, or on behalf of, a provider’ should include UK-based and non-UK-based students, and courses delivered through partnership arrangements within the UK and internationally.
122. This approach is consistent with our existing position on transnational education.⁶⁹ It also reflects the approach we have taken to regulating quality and standards through the B conditions of registration.⁷⁰

Offering higher education and providing information

123. We propose that offering higher education and ancillary services would be in scope of the condition. This is because we think it is important to capture marketing and advertising activities that happen before courses and services are delivered. These activities influence student decision making about which provider (and course) a student applies to and ultimately where they choose to go.

Information about the provider

124. ‘Offering’ higher education and other services would include a provider’s marketing activities and the information it publishes to attract anyone with an interest in studying at the provider (as included in the proposed definition of ‘information about the provider’).
125. We propose that ‘information about the provider’ should be broad in scope, to capture any information that applicants and students might rely on. This could include, for example, emails or other forms of communication with individual students, presentations delivered at open days, or any written material distributed or otherwise used to inform communications with students and applicants (for example, scripts for recruitment phone calls).

Use of agents

126. Our initial view is that, where an agent is working on behalf of a provider it would be appropriate to hold the provider accountable for the agent’s actions. This is consistent with our approach to the subcontracting of higher education where the OfS holds a registered provider accountable for the quality and standards of provision delivered on its behalf by another provider.⁷¹
127. We consider a provider should be undertaking due diligence to assure itself that agents operating on its behalf treat students fairly. A provider should influence agent behaviour and intervene where necessary in the interests of students.
128. Our proposal includes any agent working within the UK or internationally, seeking to recruit domestic or international students. We recognise that, where agents operate in other jurisdictions, other legislative and regulatory rules may also apply to them. However, we consider it is appropriate to regulate an English OfS-registered provider, in relation to services delivered on its behalf, wherever these services are delivered.
129. We are not proposing to hold a provider accountable for:

• the actions of ‘rogue’ agents that claim to be operating on a provider’s behalf without its the permission. Where the position is unclear (and where we are considering further regulatory action), we propose to investigate to establish the facts, including seeking evidence from the provider. In any case, we would also expect a provider to be monitoring the risk of rogue agents operating in its name and taking steps to minimise harm that could arise from this.
• services delivered by an agent through a direct arrangement with a student that the provider is not party to.

130. We are aware that other bodies place requirements on providers in respect of agents, including in relation to fraud and the protection of public funding. For example, the government announced in May 2025 that Student Route licence holders will be required to adopt the Agent Quality Framework (AQF).⁷² It is our initial view that our regulatory role from a consumer protection perspective does not conflict with the interests of other bodies.
131. Under Proposal 4 (see paragraphs 193 to 197) we would require a provider to publish (and keep up-to-date) a list of agents that work on its behalf. However, we are not proposing any routine reporting to the OfS on the use of agents. Including agents within the scope of the condition would allow the OfS to take action if, for example, third party notifications give rise to concerns about compliance with the proposed condition.⁷³

Provision of ancillary services

Definition of ancillary services

132. We propose that the provision of services ancillary to higher education would be in scope. We propose to define these as services that are part of a student’s higher education experience. This would include, but not be limited to, the provision of library services, disability support packages, scholarships, accommodation and sports facilities.
133. In proposing this, we recognise that several factors may influence a student’s decision about what and where to study, and their higher education experience once studying. These may include educational and financial support, accommodation and non-academic facilities that are on offer. Where the information provided about ancillary services is unclear or inaccurate, this may affect a student’s choice of provider or course. Where the terms of service are unclear or unfair, this may influence a student’s higher education experience.
134. We are proposing to include an illustrative list of important services in the definition of ‘ancillary services’ in the condition. We propose that this should be non-exhaustive because the services and facilities each provider offers will differ. However, we are not proposing to include services and facilities that a provider offers that would not reasonably be considered part of the higher education experience (for example, an onsite launderette or coffee shop). Our initial view is that such facilities are unlikely to be central to a student’s decision about what and where to study or have a significant influence on their student experiences.

Inclusion of accommodation

135. Accommodation is an integral part of the higher education experience for students. In recent polling, 79 per cent of students said they had been promised access to a well-equipped campus, facilities and accommodation but fewer than half thought they had got what they were promised.⁷⁴
136. We therefore propose to include the provision of accommodation to students in the condition, to ensure students are treated fairly.
137. We recognise that most higher education providers offering accommodation are already subject to expectations through the UUK/GuildHE Accommodation Code of Practice,⁷⁵ or the ANUK/Unipol Code of Standards.⁷⁶ These codes cover some things that are unlikely to fall within the scope of our proposed condition (for example, repairs and maintenance, and health and safety matters). However, there are some areas of overlap, for example, in relation to the marketing of accommodation and provider-student contracts.
138. As set out at paragraph 39 (Proposal 1), we propose to cooperate with other bodies to avoid duplication where possible. We propose that this should include the administrators of relevant codes.
139. We propose to treat a finding of non-compliance with the UUK/GuildHE Accommodation Code of Practice or the ANUK/Unipol Code of Standards as a failure to meet the specific requirements set out in the proposed OfS information requirements list at PB.1a.iii.⁷⁷ For the avoidance of doubt, the OfS would not seek to determine whether a provider had complied with another body’s code. Rather, we would rely on determinations of non-compliance by the relevant code administrator. It would remain for the OfS to determine whether a provider has treated students fairly.
140. We are not proposing that a provider would be required to undertake any routine reporting to the OfS on the operation of its accommodation.

Inclusion of third party services

141. Our initial view is that, where ancillary services are provided on behalf of a provider, it would be appropriate to hold a provider accountable for the third party’s actions. It may be appropriate (and beneficial for students) for a provider to contract out certain services to third parties, but it is our initial view that it is right for the provider to retain overall responsibility.
142. It is our initial view that a provider ought to:

• undertake appropriate due diligence in choosing which contractors to work with
• assure itself that third parties will treat its students fairly
• responsibly oversee fair treatment of students; influence the delivery of third party services, and intervene where necessary in the interests of students.

143. Third party ancillary services are not in scope of the initial condition C5. For ongoing condition C6, we propose to go beyond this by including third party services in scope. This would allow the OfS to hold a provider accountable (and take regulatory action against it) where there is evidence of unfair practices undertaken by a third party acting on its behalf. We think it is appropriate that the scope of the proposed condition is different to the initial condition in this regard. This is because we are more likely to have evidence of whether these activities are effective and resulting in fair treatment of students through our ongoing regulatory activities than at the point in time a provider is seeking registration.

Alternative options considered

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

• exclude prospective and former students from the scope of the condition
• use a narrower definition of prospective students
• focus only on the provision of teaching (and exclude ancillary services from the scope of the condition)
• exclude third party ancillary services from the scope of the condition.

Notes

⁶⁴ This reflects the OfS’s existing position for initial condition C5, as set out at: OfS, ‘Reforms to OfS registration requirements Part 1: Analysis of consultation responses and decisions for new initial condition C5 – Treating students fairly’, 2025, paragraph 90.

⁶⁵ OfS, ‘Securing student success: Regulatory framework for higher education in England’, last updated 2022, see conditions B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B7 and B8.

⁶⁶ Conditions B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B7 and B8 as referred to above.

⁶⁷ OfS, ‘Securing student success: Regulatory framework for higher education in England’, last updated 2022, see Condition C5: Treating students fairly.

⁶⁸ OfS, Consultation outcomes: New requirements for the oversight of subcontractual arrangements in English higher education, 2026.

⁶⁹ We have previously set out that courses are subject to the same regulation whether students are resident in England or elsewhere and this applies across our conditions of registration. OfS, ‘Transnational education: Protecting the interests of students taught abroad’ (Insight brief #18), 2023.

⁷⁰ OfS, ‘Securing student success: Regulatory framework for higher education in England’, last updated 2022, see conditions B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B7 and B8.

⁷¹ See also paragraph 119.

⁷² See Gov.UK, Restoring control over the immigration system: white paper, last updated 2026.

⁷³ See OfS, ‘Notifications’, last updated 2023.

⁷⁴ OfS, ‘OfS explorations: Consumer rights’, 2025, research conducted by Public First, page 7.

⁷⁵ UUK/GuildHE, Accommodation Code of Practice.

⁷⁶ ANUK/Unipol, National Code.

⁷⁷ Under the proposed OfS information requirements list (see Annex D of this consultation), ‘the provider must comply with the following requirements relating to the clarity and accuracy of information… iii. if the provider asserts that it acts in accordance with a code of conduct, the code does not afford the provider any discretion in relation to the requirement, and compliance with the requirement is capable of being verified, ensuring that the provider acts in accordance with that code of conduct’, PB.1a.iii.