The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) opened a consultation in May 2026 to seek views on proposed changes to its Scheme, including how the Scheme is structured, the point at which someone may be considered a student for the purposes of the Scheme, and the time limit for bringing complaints.
The proposals form part of a broader move towards a more principles-led Scheme. Under the approach being consulted on, the current 23-point Scheme, which includes 130 sub-clauses, would be replaced by a shorter 13-point version. It would be supported by a shorter Explanatory Note, updated more regularly, in place of the current 15-page Guidance Document.
The consultation ran from 18 May 2026 to 31 July 2026. The OIA Board is expected to consider the outcome of the consultation before the end of 2026, with any revised Scheme intended to come into force in autumn 2027.
Our response
While we are supportive of efforts to make the Scheme clearer, shorter and more accessible, our response highlights concerns that the proposed shift to a more principles-based Scheme could come at the expense of procedural clarity, transparency, and predictability. The current rules help sustain confidence in the Scheme because they set out visible safeguards and clear expectations about how the OIA will act. If these provisions are replaced by a more discretionary approach, less precise procedural wording, or guidance that sits outside the Scheme itself, there is the risk that while the process becomes easier to read it will be harder to navigate in practice.
In our response, we argue that the proposed approach could have significant consequences for a range of stakeholders:
- For the OIA: A loss of some of the trust and confidence that currently comes from clear rules and transparent procedural commitments. If stakeholders are unable to predict how discretion will be exercised, OIA decision-making may be perceived as less consistent, transparent and accountable.
- For students: Those who most need clearly documented routes, timelines and safeguards may be least able to navigate a more discretionary process. This could disproportionately affect groups such as disabled students, students in crisis, international students, postgraduate researchers, students involved in fitness to practise cases, and those with complex complaints.
- For providers: Reduced procedural detail may create greater operational uncertainty and burden for staff handling complaints. This may be particularly challenging for providers with fewer complaints staff or limited experience of OIA processes, making it harder to advise students, assess proportionality, anticipate expectations, and manage reputational or compliance risk.
More broadly, we are concerned that both the proposed Scheme and the OIA's approach to consultation may signal a shift towards a less collaborative relationship between the adjudicator and the sector, with limited opportunities for meaningful engagement. IHE Members have consistently valued the OIA's openness, responsiveness and willingness to engage in constructive dialogue. However, the consultation process itself has limited the sector's ability to explain the rationale behind its responses or provide the kind of reasoned feedback that the OIA says it values, with the survey design offering little opportunity for substantive commentary on the questions posed.
Overall, we are disappointed that a consultation intended to provide greater clarity has not fully achieved its aim and has instead raised a number of questions. However, we remain strongly supportive of the adjudicator's role and welcome further engagement before the revised Scheme is finalised.
Read our full response using the download link below.