ISL0003

Written evidence submitted by The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) has a perspective on franchise provision as the independent student complaints review body and as part of the regulatory framework for higher education in England and Wales.

We recognise that the Committee’s call for evidence is focused on student loans issued to those studying at franchised higher education providers. The information that we are able to contribute from our experience around franchise provision, drawing on our understanding of the franchise sector from our membership, sector engagement and wider student complaints, is broader than this but we hope will still be helpful.

Under the Higher Education Act 2004 (as amended by subsequent legislation), a diverse range of higher education providers are covered by the OIA Scheme. Our membership of around 850 providers includes industry-specific independent providers, initial teacher training providers, further education colleges and universities across England and Wales. Providers and awarding organisations that do not come within OIA Scheme under the Higher Education Act and have not joined voluntarily are not currently covered by our Scheme.

Students at providers that are not in our Scheme cannot access independent redress for their complaints. We believe all students should have access to independent redress, regardless of where they are studying and whether or not they are receiving public loan money. Independent review of complaints is not only important for the student or students involved but can also highlight systemic issues that might otherwise not be identified. Where we identify potential systemic issues, we share information as appropriate with others in the wider regulatory framework.

In our experience of franchise provision, we see some inconsistency and different understanding of terminology. We find providers on both sides of a partnership can be confused by the “franchise” and “validation” terminology and often use the terms interchangeably, potentially leading to confusion around responsibilities. Broadly we find providers use the term “sub contractual” to mean both these types of arrangements even though contractual arrangements and responsibilities are likely to be different depending on the nature of the partnership. We have also seen instances where students are not clear that the provider they are studying at, and the awarding organisation, are not the same.

We have developed a section of our Good Practice Framework focusing on delivering learning opportunities with others. This was first published in 2017 and we will shortly be publishing an updated version. The section sets out guidance including case studies on handling complaints, academic appeals and other student-facing internal processes in this context. It is principles-based and intended to support providers to develop and follow fair processes, and to be a tool to help providers evaluate their processes. We know that providers do not always make it clear to students how or when they can bring a complaint internally, to the OIA, or when it should be directed to a partner, or what the routes are for other internal processes. Our updated guidance is intended to support providers in making this clearer to students and encourages providers in a partnership to agree the principles at the outset of the relationship.

When we review a complaint involving a partnership, we consider which provider has responsibility (or where both providers have some responsibility, which aspects are the responsibility of which provider). We normally do this by looking at the partnership agreement or similar contract which should reflect the relevant regulatory guidance. In our experience the detail and clarity of these varies across the sector. To support improved practice we have expanded guidance on considering complaints, appeals and other internal processes through the life cycle of a partnership, particularly around key points in partnership relationships and when those might come to an end. We also find many franchisees are not always fully aware of their responsibilities upon entering a partnership, which usually includes membership of the OIA.

We have seen that students and sometimes providers are not clear what access they have to their registered provider’s students’ union and support since a franchise partner is less likely to have an independent support of its own.

We do not see many complaints from students relating to fraud. However, if a student is suspected of fraudulent activity, it is important that they are treated fairly, the issue is investigated appropriately and procedures are properly followed.

Finally, whilst we understand the concern about fraudulent activity in franchise provision, it is also important not to lose sight of issues affecting students who are legitimately funded through loan money or who are self-funding, such as making sure that they are receiving clear information about the partnership relationship and responsibilities as well as routes to redress and support when things go wrong.

We believe there needs to be a better understanding of terminology, responsibilities and roles in franchise relationships and clearer information for students. We hope that our Delivering opportunities with others guidance goes some way to support providers in partnership arrangements to think about the issues which can impact students.

February 2024