Why This Happened - The Franchise Model Explained
Why This Happened
The maintenance loan crisis did not come from a single error. It came from a structure. That structure is called the franchise model. Understanding it helps you see why you were affected and who is actually responsible.
What Is the Franchise Model
A lead provider is a university registered with the Office for Students. It has degree-awarding powers. It is responsible for course quality, student data, and regulatory compliance.
A delivery partner is where you actually study. GBS. Arden. Other campuses. They deliver the teaching. But they are not registered with OfS themselves.
The lead provider registers your course with SLC. The delivery partner teaches it. Your maintenance loan and tuition fee flow through the lead provider. Wonkhe's analysis confirms this structure clearly.
How the Money Flows
SLC pays your tuition fee directly to your lead provider. Not to your campus. The lead provider then passes a share to the delivery partner. Wonkhe reports that lead providers may keep only 10 to 30 percent. The rest goes to the delivery partner.
Your maintenance loan is paid to you. But it exists because your lead provider told SLC your course qualifies. That classification is what DfE says was wrong.
Who Classified Your Course
Your lead provider. They submitted the course data to SLC. They classified it as "in-attendance." Wonkhe confirms that lead providers bear regulatory responsibility for the accuracy of this data.
The delivery partner taught the classes. But the lead provider registered the course. That distinction matters for who you can hold accountable.
Why Providers Got It Wrong
Wonkhe identifies four possibilities. Some providers understood the rules but bet that enforcement would not happen. Others knew the classification was questionable but treated SLC's silence as approval. Some were already winding down weekend models. And some may genuinely not have understood the regulation.
Universities UK argued the rules were confusing. Wonkhe's response: the weekend carve-out is not a footnote. It is part of the operative definition in the 2011 Regulations. And the Secretary of State restated it explicitly in December 2024.
Why This Matters for You
Your complaint goes to the lead provider. Not to your campus. The lead provider registered your course. They classified it. They bear legal responsibility.
Wonkhe's latest analysis notes that providers are not telling students they may be entitled to compensation. Breach of contract arguments apply. Consumer protection law applies. But providers have no interest in raising this.
Your lead provider has an interest in keeping you enrolled. That keeps tuition fee income flowing. Wonkhe is direct: that interest does not necessarily align with what is right for you.
What You Can Do
Ask your lead provider in writing what support they will offer. DfE's letter told providers to put hardship funding in place.
Ask whether you are entitled to compensation for the misclassification. You enrolled based on information they provided. That is a consumer protection issue.
Free advice on how to proceed is available from NASMA and Citizens Advice.
Don't Miss Critical Updates
This situation is changing daily. Ministerial decisions, legal challenges, parliamentary questions. When something changes, you need to know immediately.
We will contact you directly when new information becomes available. No spam. Unsubscribe any time.
Sources: Wonkhe — full analysis · Wonkhe — financial emergency (31 Mar 2026) · Wonkhe — weekend courses and the law · Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 · NASMA · Citizens Advice