Recommendation 25

The C&AG’s report identified that a provider had raised concerns with OfS about a franchised provider in May 2022, but DfE was not informed of the issue at the time.62 We asked witnesses why DfE was not told. OfS said that, in looking back, this is clearly a learning case, and it would work differently in future. When the provider first notified OfS of concerns, the full extent of the issues was not yet clear. When the scale of the issues became clearer, in autumn 2022 and into spring 2023, OfS brought DfE colleagues into the loop at that time.63 DfE told us that the point in the chronology that it found most worrying was that it was unclear whether, over the summer, the OfS and SLC had the same information and understanding of the situation. DfE, SLC and OfS recognise a lost 54 Q21, C&AG’s Report, Figure 8, Figure 9 55 Qq22–23 56 Q21 57 C&AG’s Report, para 2.24 58 Qq52–53, 73 59 Q18 60 Q21 61 Qq11, 65 62 C&AG’s Report, para 2.9 63 Q13 Student loans issued to those studying at franchised higher education providers 15 opportunity to put all the information together and make a collective decision on how to manage the situation. DfE acknowledged it gave cause for concern as, with different facts, the three bodies might have made a different decision.64