OfS condition E10 tightens subcontracting requirements, and why student feedback evidence matters

Updated Sep 07, 2026

OfS announced condition E10 on 12 March 2026, with effect from 31 March 2026. It applies to registered lead providers in England meeting the condition’s scope: 100 or more students across relevant subcontractual courses, including cases where reaching that number is materially likely. The threshold is not more than 100. OfS announcement.

What the condition requires

The definition concerns arrangements in which the lead provider delivers no more than half of the total course delivery hours. There are exemptions, including specified public bodies, partners with degree-awarding powers, qualifying overseas provision and certain accredited professional courses. Providers should use the actual definitions and prospective trigger rules when assessing scope. Condition E10, clauses E10.1–E10.3 and E10.12.

An in-scope provider must maintain one subcontracting information source covering its existing and future relevant arrangements. This can summarise and reference other documents. It is not a requirement for a separate source for every partnership. The guidance expected implementation by 30 June 2026, with earlier readiness where new contracts or contract variations were entered after commencement. Historical versions must be retained for at least five years. Condition and guidance, E10.6–E10.7 and paragraphs 19–22.

The minimum content includes strategic rationale, due diligence, governing-body oversight, policies and adaptability. Specific policies cover complaints, whistleblowing, access to and verification of partner data, ongoing course monitoring, and protection if a partner underperforms or stops delivery. It does not explicitly prescribe a complaints-to-KPI mapping or one survey-analysis method. Minimum content requirements, sections a–e.

Where student feedback can help

Our practical suggestion is to trace a student concern from its original channel through review, escalation and recorded action. Keep that process alongside other oversight evidence. A comment-analysis report cannot itself establish compliance with E10.

Before comparing partners, document differences in questions, dates and response coverage. Decide who can inspect sensitive complaints and who receives only an aggregate summary. The student comment analysis governance checklist can support those decisions; it is not an OfS compliance template.

Correction, 7 September 2026: corrected the threshold and provider-wide information-source requirement, replaced incorrect source links, and removed an unsupported claim that the minimum content explicitly requires complaints data to feed partner KPIs. Added the implementation distinction and scope caveat.