With the government’s white paper having a clear policy ambition and focus on higher technical (level 4 and 5) courses, and a pledge to simplify the regulatory framework for higher-level study, gaps in regulatory oversight are still exposing an increasing number of students to risk.
The Office of the Independent Adjudicator has today published public interest case summaries, where we have named the two providers concerned, in order to highlight the impact of differing regulatory systems leaving gaps for individual students.
The recent closure of Applied Business Academy (ABA), as detailed in my previous Wonkhe article, shows an ongoing vulnerability where students cannot seek an independent review of their awarding organisation’s actions. This is the case if they are studying for HE qualifications awarded by an Ofqual-regulated awarding organisations as these, unlike universities, are not required to be OIA members.
While Ofqual regulates the quality and standards of qualifications, it does not oversee student protection, welfare or institutional accountability in the same way the OfS does for registered providers, even where the provider is only validating courses.
In our experience this regulatory fragmentation leaves students vulnerable. All HE students should be afforded the same protection and recourse as well as the ability to complain about both their delivery and awarding organisation whoever their awarding body is.
Highlighting the consequences
In the case of ABA, when the Department for Education instructed the Student Loans Company to suspend tuition fee payments to ABA there were over 2,000 students enrolled on the Diploma in Education and Training (DET) awarded by City and Guilds or the Organisation for Tourism and Hospitality Management. ABA also ran courses through partnerships with two universities which were not subject to any regulatory concern.
Since ABA was registered with the OfS, all eligible students could access public student loan funding including those on the DET course. However, when ABA collapsed their route for complaint and level of redress and support was unclear and very different. The DET students lacked the institutional safety net of an OfS-regulated validator. Despite receiving positive feedback and assurance from ABA during their studies, students were told at the time of the closure that there was insufficient evidence to meet qualification requirements, leaving them with no qualification and a debt they would have to repay.
By contrast, those on courses validated by or franchised from the University of Buckingham or Leeds Trinity University were offered a range of protections and mitigations including, various supported transfer options to localised provision with matched timetabling, transferring to the universities or identified alternative providers. They also benefitted from reimbursements for travel costs to alternative premises or were provided with free transport. Students could also access a record of achievement to support other transfer or exit, webinars and dedicated phone lines with individualised welfare support and guidance sessions. The OIA, to date, has received no complaints from students on these courses.
Equal funding, unequal accountability?
We have also today published a case summary about Brit College which was OfS-registered and only ran courses which were awarded by Ofqual-regulated awarding organisations, prior to its existing higher education courses being de-designated.
Although it has not closed, it has stated on its website that where the OIA has awarded compensation or refunds, “Brit College is currently unable to meet these awards due to financial constraints” and has yet to pay our recommended compensation to any impacted student.
The students we have received complaints from had completed all the work that had been set, and they had not been given any indication by the college during their studies that the work was not sufficient or was not at the required standard. Nine months after completing the course the college told students that they would need to undertake substantial further work. As Brit College remains open but has refused to pay compensation, it has been formally found in non-compliance with our recommendations.
In both cases, since the awarding organisations are not within OIA membership we are unable to review any complaints from students about their acts and/or omissions in the time prior to de-designation, as we would if their courses were awarded by universities.
When the system fails
The fall out is not just administrative; it is deeply personal. Students are often shocked and distressed to be denied compensation, especially when we have found in their favour. They often feel confused about the lack of protection available to them and, having chosen to study at an OfS-registered provider, feel they have been misled.
This is compounded when they hear about students at the same provider studying for different qualifications where expectations of the validators are student focused. The qualifications studied via Ofqual-regulated awarding organisations are often gateways to teaching or a technical profession. When a provider fails and there is no one to turn to, they not only lose their tuition fees and time spent studying, but also their career trajectory, and often they cannot afford to take out further loans to start again.
In the words of one student impacted:
I completed the DET course as required, maintaining 100% attendance, submitting all coursework and observations on time, and consistently communicating with ABA. In addition to the course fees, I spent money on travel to attend the course, further increasing the financial burden. Despite fulfilling all my responsibilities, I’ve been left without a qualification and have been unable to get a resolution for nearly two years…
What makes this even more distressing is that I have already started repaying the loan to Student Finance from my personal income – for a course that did not result in a qualification. This feels incredibly unfair and adds to the emotional and financial pressure I am under. I am paying for something I did not receive through no fault of my own.
Fixing the fault lines
This is not an isolated incident – it’s a symptom of a sector under strain. With the government’s targets directly referring to higher technical qualifications, backed by the development of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to give “equal access to student finance for higher level study,” it should now take action to ensure equal access to student protection.
Without this, students on higher technical and other level 4/5 courses will continue to have less access to individual remedies and redress than their counterparts studying for an award from a university.
We note that back in 2020 the DfE expected “all awarding bodies and providers which own an approved Higher Technical Qualification to join the [OIA] scheme” – yet five years on this expectation remains unmet. We have since worked with Ofqual who have confirmed that awarding organisations being in membership of the OIA Scheme is compatible with Ofqual regulation (this was also a recommendation in our recent joint report with SUMS on managing the impact of higher education provider closure).
Without OIA membership, students unable to complain to the OIA about their awarding organisations will not have access to independent remedies and redress, unlike those studying for university-awarded qualifications.
Most importantly, in our experience, this is not made clear to, or understood by, students when they embark on their higher education journey.
We reiterate that this is a student protection gap that urgently needs resolving for students who deserve that same protection. All students – regardless of their awarding organisation – should have access to the same safeguards and redress. That means all awarding organisations in receipt of public money joining the OIA scheme and making student protection, and the obligation to put things right for students, a non-negotiable part of higher education policy.
