OfS fee reforms ‘should better hold regulator to account’

Universities have called for a complete overhaul of the English sector watchdog’s fees, arguing that proposed changes fail to demonstrate value for money and a risk-based approach. 

The Department for Education’s consultation on the Office for Students’ (OfS) charging model closed last week. Proposed changes include introducing a new price band for the largest providers, as well as either reducing the cost per student for smaller providers or introducing a flat fee for all institutions with a variable element based on student numbers.

But some groups representing English higher education providers have argued that the changes do not go far enough, instead advocating for a model that better holds the regulator to account. 

With some providers facing long waits for OfS services, such as approval for degree-awarding powers, and ongoing concerns over how investigations are handled, some have also questioned how the money being paid by registered providers to the regulator is used.

“Our view is that any changes to the Office for Students’ fee model must start with a more fundamental question about value for money,” said Susanna Kalitowski, director of policy at University Alliance.

She noted that the regulator has grown significantly in recent years, “with staff costs alone exceeding the income it raises through registration fees”. 

The OfS spent £42 million on staff salaries in 2025-26, up from £25 million in 2020-21. 

“At a time when they are facing considerable financial pressures, our universities are within their rights to ask whether the regulator’s growth has really been matched by better outcomes for students or providers,” Kalitowski said.

Paul Greatrix, director of Shakespeare Martineau’s higher education consultancy, described the increase in staff numbers as “extraordinary”, with the regulator being forced to hire more people to keep up with the growing amount of monitoring it was choosing to do. 

“The cost of the organisation is continuing to grow and the burden on institutions is continuing to grow,” he said. 

Providers also argued that there is currently no onus on the OfS to provide a good service or value for money, regardless of how much institutions pay out to the regulator. 

“The OfS should face financial consequences for failing to meet [a Service Level Agreement],” Independent Higher Education writes in its submission. “There must be an independent complaints and appeals process.”

It was also suggested by several groups that institutions that generate the greatest regulatory costs should be charged the most, rather than basing prices on the number of students a university enrols.

“We are not convinced that the proposed approaches establish a clearer relationship between fee levels, regulatory activity and risk,” the Russell Group writes in its submission. 

“We are particularly concerned by proposals which would further differentiate fees based on provider size without clear evidence that larger providers generate proportionately greater regulatory costs.”

Another group, MillionPlus, supported the idea of introducing a new band for the largest providers but argued that the proposed increase of £51,695 “would represent a substantial additional cost”.

“If this proposal is taken forward, further discussion with the sector would be necessary to determine fee levels that best reflect proportionality and fairness across all providers,” the group writes. 

Kalitowski added: “Before introducing new charges or restructuring the fee model, the OfS should demonstrate greater transparency, efficiency and accountability for how those fees are spent.

“Ultimately, we must remember that these costs are funded through students’ tuition fees. Every pound spent on a growing regulatory bill is a pound that could be invested in teaching, student support or the staff who deliver an excellent student experience.”

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com