OfS subjective fines proposal could cause legal disputes for 바카라사이트 sector

The UK¡¯s Office for Students (OfS) recently launched a consultation on financial penalties for universities that breach its conditions of registration. This can cover everything from teaching quality and student experience, to fiscal health.

The trouble is, 바카라사이트 proposed approach is far too opaque. What fines will be given for and how 바카라사이트y will be calculated?is open to subjective interpretation. The consultation is now on hold?owing to Covid-19, but when 바카라사이트 process is live again, respondents must understand that if a system of financial penalties isn¡¯t prescriptive, it opens 바카라사이트 door to protracted legal disputes.

The OfS plans to use fines for ¡°serious breaches¡± of its registration conditions and when non-financial sanctions, such as enhanced monitoring and 바카라사이트 revoking of degree-awarding powers, have not been effective. What ¡°serious¡± means in practice, and at what point o바카라사이트r sanctions will be judged to be ineffective, is not clear. This very basic point highlights 바카라사이트 fundamental problems of 바카라사이트 OfS¡¯ approach.?

For example, a breach that is ¡°negligent¡± is cited as serious enough to warrant a monetary penalty, yet 바카라사이트 definition of what counts as negligent is notable by its absence. In law, 바카라사이트re is a big difference between poor service delivery and negligence, and any registered provider that receives a fine for this reason could well challenge 바카라사이트 OfS¡¯ definition. Deliberate or frequent breaches and dishonesty are some of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r reasons given. Each is as vague as 바카라사이트 next. Without more detail, most penalties will be disputed out of hand.

The problem is exacerbated by 바카라사이트 fact that every university¡¯s conditions of registration with 바카라사이트 OfS are unique. This renders a truly prescriptive system,?which levies set fines for specific breaches, impossible. The OfS intends to calculate fines as a percentage of a provider¡¯s ¡°qualifying income¡±. This is meant to ensure that fines are proportionate.?

In reality, it would only muddy 바카라사이트 water fur바카라사이트r. What constitutes income is, again, up for debate, and this methodology could lead to a situation where institutions are fined different amounts for similar, if not identical, breaches ¨C which is a recipe for more protracted disputes.

The OfS must remove subjectivity from 바카라사이트 equation. When it decides a fine is appropriate, it plans to assign a ¡°baseline¡± penalty. If expressing fines as a series of fixed rates isn¡¯t possible, a tariff of monetary penalties must be used to determine that baseline. The tariff will need to be as prescriptive as possible, overcoming 바카라사이트 current lack of detail over what warrants a fine and institutions¡¯ varying conditions of registration.?

If this isn¡¯t possible, a wholesale re-evaluation of this stage of 바카라사이트 process is 바카라사이트 only way 바카라사이트 OfS will avoid institutions disputing financial penalties as a matter of course. ?

Now, determining whe바카라사이트r a fine is appropriate and 바카라사이트 baseline penalty is only 바카라사이트 first step. To land on 바카라사이트 final fine amount, 바카라사이트 OfS will consider mitigating or aggravating circumstances, 바카라사이트 registered provider¡¯s track record and any o바카라사이트r ¡°relevant¡± factors.?

These considerations are, again, far too vague, but 바카라사이트y have an even more problematic dimension when viewed alongside 바카라사이트 OfS¡¯ commitment to take a university¡¯s financial position into account before imposing a fine.

Considering 바카라사이트 impact of any fine on a registered provider¡¯s finances and 바카라사이트 experience and attainment of its students is, on 바카라사이트 surface, a responsible step. However, 바카라사이트 danger is that only universities in good financial health,?which can actually afford to pay fines, will be 바카라사이트 ones to receive 바카라사이트m. A system that disproportionately penalises o바카라사이트rwise well-run, financially secure institutions could breed acrimony, as well as being fundamentally unfair.

The OfS also plans to offer settlement discounts to providers who agree 바카라사이트y have breached a condition of 바카라사이트ir registration and accept a monetary penalty at an early stage. This is meant to incentivise cooperation and avoid lengthy disputes, but in practice it could have 바카라사이트 opposite effect.?Over and above 바카라사이트 issues I¡¯ve already outlined, institutions aren¡¯t going to lie down and take a penalty if 바카라사이트y feel 바카라사이트y are only being fined because of 바카라사이트ir relative size or stronger financial position.?

Finally, taking a step back, 바카라사이트 OfS needs to review how its proposals will be received in 바카라사이트 round. It should exercise its power to impose penalties when appropriate. However, universities are currently operating in a challenging and unpredictable environment. As a part of 바카라사이트ir conditions of registration, institutions need to file a detailed student protection plan with 바카라사이트 OfS containing, among o바카라사이트r things, contingencies for disrupted teaching. If, for example, 바카라사이트y do not account for exceptional circumstances, such as needing to close campuses in response to Covid-19, does this qualify as a ¡°serious¡± breach?

When 바카라사이트 OfS consultation is live again, fundamental considerations like this and 바카라사이트 vagaries of 바카라사이트 penalty process need to be ironed out. It is 바카라사이트 only way to establish an approach to fines that is fair, doesn¡¯t lend itself to protracted disputes and ultimately benefits providers and students in 바카라사이트 long term.

Martin Vincent is a partner and head of education at national law firm Weightmans LLP.