Proposals for a new approach to consumer and student protection

Proposal 5: Remove requirements relating to student protection plans

199. We propose to remove ongoing condition C3 (Student protection plan). Currently, C3 requires a provider to produce a student protection plan, setting out its assessment of risks to students’ continuation of study and the measures it would deploy where it considers these risks are ‘reasonably likely to crystallise’.⁸³ Condition C3 also states that, if such risks crystallise, a provider must ‘take all reasonable steps to implement the provisions of the plan’ and inform the OfS.
200. Instead, we propose that students would be protected by a combination of new ongoing condition C6 and existing ongoing condition C4 (Student protection directions), which has been in force since April 2021.
201. If a provider is facing a material risk of institutional closure, we already no longer rely on a provider’s student protection plan to ensure that it is taking steps to protect the interests of students. In these circumstances, ongoing condition C4 gives us a more effective tool to act.⁸⁴ Using C4, we can issue student protection directions, including requiring a provider to produce and comply with the provisions of a plan for institutional closure (a ‘Market Exit Plan’).
202. We suggest that the documents we are proposing a provider would need to publish as part of new ongoing condition C6 (see Proposal 4) would together comprise a provider’s arrangements for student protection (excluding arrangements in the event of institutional closure). These documents would include a policy (or policies) relating to the provision that will be made for the protection of students in the event that a provider has to make changes to its courses, apart from where it is at risk of fully or substantially ceasing the provision of higher education.⁸⁵ Where we consider a provider is at material risk of closure, we would continue to use the provisions in ongoing condition C4 to require it to plan and implement appropriate student protection measures.
203. We also propose, in future, to amend other regulatory guidance that refers to ongoing condition C3.
204. We have specifically considered the impact of Proposal 5 on regulatory guidance for providers that wish to apply for New DAPs. Currently a provider applying for New DAPs has to submit an updated student protection plan for assessment and approval as part of its application.⁸⁶ Under Proposal 5, we would no longer require a registered provider to have a student protection plan. This means our proposal would have a consequential effect on the evidence requirements for providers applying for New DAPs.
205. If we adopt Proposal 5, we anticipate that we would need to consult separately on New DAPs evidence requirements. We plan to initiate a wider review of DAPs in the next year and we would review the supporting evidence that is required with a New DAPs application as part of this review.
206. In the interim, we propose that we would consult on appropriate evidence requirements with any provider wishing to apply for New DAPs after we implement the proposed new condition but before our wider review of DAPs has concluded.

Why are we making this proposal?

207. Where a provider has to make a change to a student’s course (including material aspects of the content, the teaching location or the qualification that will be awarded), this can have a detrimental effect on the student.
208. A provider should have plans in place to identify and plan for risks and act early if they materialise (as would be required by the proposed principles set out under Proposal 2). This would minimise the likelihood of changes. However, where changes are necessary, students should have access to clear and transparent information about how their provider will manage these changes, including how it will do so in the interests of students and in a way that minimises detriment.
209. Where a provider is ultimately unable to deliver its commitments and students do not receive what they were promised, providers should give students clear information about how to raise a complaint and pursue redress, including refunds and other financial compensation where appropriate and in the interests of the student.
210. Under ongoing condition C3, a provider’s student protection plan must be tailored to the specific circumstances of a provider and designed to mitigate any risks to the continuation of study that the provider considers are reasonably likely to crystallise. It is likely to include minimal information about measures to protect students in relation to risks that it considers less likely to arise. The protections a provider sets out therefore rely on its self-assessment of risks. A provider’s student protection plan may not accurately identify relevant risks. This could be due to a provider’s optimism biases, oversights or a more deliberate lack of transparency.
211. Even a student protection plan that accurately represents risks at a point in time may quickly become inaccurate in an increasingly changeable environment.⁸⁷ We have found that, in practice, the process of updating and reapproving a student protection plan is not always sufficiently dynamic to keep up with the changes we are seeing in the sector at present.
212. Under Proposal 4 (and as described above at paragraph 202), we are proposing that we would require a provider to have and publish a policy (or policies) that set out the provisions it would make to protect students if it has to make any one of a broad range of relevant changes, regardless of the associated level of risk.⁸⁸ Unlike the student protection plans required under ongoing condition C3, we are not proposing that these policies would need to include a self-assessment of risks.
213. We consider that decoupling a provider’s change policies from its assessment of risks at a point in time will support a more robust approach to student protection, more efficient use of providers’ resources, and more comprehensive and consistent information for students.
214. In our experience of working with providers at risk of closure (and of using the provisions in ongoing condition C4), far more detailed planning is necessary in these circumstances than is possible when undertaken on a hypothetical basis under the requirements of ongoing condition C3. For this reason, we are not proposing that a provider’s course change policies would need to cover the circumstances in which it is at risk of fully or substantially ceasing the provision of higher education and we are not proposing that these matters would be in scope of ongoing condition C6.

Detail of the proposal

215. Table 4 compares the requirements relating to the content of a student protection plan (ongoing condition C3) and the documents we would require a provider to have and publish under proposed ongoing condition C6 (as set out under Proposal 4).

Table 4: Comparison of student protection plan requirements (C3) and proposed publication requirements (C6)

216. Our initial view is that proposed policies related to ‘relevant changes’ would cover the key risks to continuation of study for students. As set out in Table 4 above, the list of ‘relevant changes’ that must be included in these policies is closely aligned with the list of ‘risks’ that a provider must assess in its student protection plan. The key difference is that a provider would need to set out clear plans for how it would ensure its students are protected if any of the ‘relevant changes’ occur, rather than only those that a provider considers are ‘reasonably likely to crystallise’. We therefore consider that the proposed policies provide an enhanced replacement for the student protection plan, when taken together with existing protections under ongoing condition C4 (and considering the challenge of maintaining accurate and up-to-date published information about risk, as described above at paragraphs 210 to 211).
217. As shown in Table 4, some of the proposed requirements do not directly correspond to (and go beyond) current C3 student protection plan requirements. However, our initial view is that these documents are, in any case, essential to students in understanding their rights and responsibilities in all areas of their student experience, as described under Proposal 4 and relevant to our objectives for a new ongoing condition, as set out under Proposal 1. Furthermore, our initial view is that, collectively, the documents listed in Table 4 provide better support to students when risks to their study crystallise. This is because they help students to understand their rights and how to complain and seek redress when things go wrong. We therefore think that the documents in Table 4 provide more useful and practical information for students than current C3 student protection plans.
218. We are not proposing that any of the documents listed in the table above would need to be approved by the OfS. Compared with ongoing condition C3, which requires a provider to publish an approved student protection plan, this would represent a more efficient, effective and economic use of provider and OfS resources. A provider would be able to update relevant policies whenever necessary, providing more up-to-date and accurate information, which would be more beneficial to students. While we are not proposing to ‘approve’ any of the provider’s documents, the content of these documents would, of course, still be relevant to our assessment of whether a provider treats students fairly.
219. If we adopt Proposal 5, there will be a consequential effect on other regulatory guidance that refers to ongoing condition C3 and we propose to amend relevant guidance in future.
220. We anticipate that we will need to make changes to the evidence requirements for a New DAPs application, as these currently require submission of an updated C3 student protection plan. As we intend to undertake a wider review of DAPs, we would consider, as part of this planned review, the evidence requirements for a New DAPs application. In the interim, we propose that we would consult individually with any provider wishing to apply for New DAPs, regarding appropriate evidence requirements.

Alternative options considered

221. We have considered an alternative option to this proposal, which is set out in Annex B. This is to continue to impose ongoing condition C3 alongside proposed ongoing condition C6.

Notes

⁸³ We approve the plan if we consider it is ‘appropriate for [the OfS’s] assessment of the regulatory risk presented by the provider and for the risk to continuation of study of all of its students’. A registered provider must publish its approved student protection plan.

⁸⁴ In April 2021, we introduced ongoing condition C4 (Student protection directions), which we can use when there is a material risk that a provider will fully or substantially cease the provision of higher education in England. See OfS, ‘Regulatory notice 6: Condition C4 – Student protection directions’, 2021. Condition C4 applies to all registered providers, except further education bodies (as defined in Chapter 4 of the Technical and Further Education Act 2017, Gov.UK) as these can be subject to the special administration regime in place for further education (detailed in Part 2 chapter 4 of that Act). 

⁸⁵ Under C6.6b.iii, of the proposed condition (see Annex C) we would require a provider to publish ‘a policy (or policies) relating to the circumstances in which the provider may make any relevant changes’. ‘Relevant changes’ are defined at C6.8l and include changes to courses, qualifications, mode of study, teaching location and facilities, course fees and other related fees or charges and types of students to be recruited or taught.

⁸⁶ OfS, Regulatory advice 12: How to apply for degree awarding powers, 2018 (operational guidance annexed to this regulatory advice was updated in August 2025).

⁸⁷ For example, there are increased risks to financial sustainability in the higher education sector compared to 2018 when we introduced ongoing condition C3. See OfS, ‘Financial sustainability of higher education providers in England: 2025’, May 2025.

⁸⁸ Under C6.6b.iii, of the proposed condition (see Annex C) we would require a provider to publish ‘a policy (or policies) relating to provision that will be made for the protection of students in the event that it has to make any relevant changes’. Relevant changes are defined at C6.8l and include changes to courses, qualifications, mode of study, teaching location and facilities, course fees and other related fees or charges and types of student to be recruited or taught.