The Office for Students (OfS) has published the rules for its new free speech complaints scheme, which will open on 1 September 2026.

Alongside the rules, the OfS has updated its freedom of speech regulatory guidance in response to the University of Sussex judgment.

The scheme covers staff (including academics), applicants for academic posts, visiting speakers, and non-student members, with students continuing to fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.

The scheme is free to use and not retrospective, applying only to actions or inactions on or after 1 September 2026. 

To bring a complaint, an individual must demonstrate they have suffered adverse consequences – which doesn’t have to be financial – as a result of a provider's action or inaction that they claim, or gives rise to a question as to whether, has constituted a breach of the provider’s free speech duty.

The OfS would normally expect to publish information about the free speech complaints it receives, creating reputational exposure for institutions regardless of the specific recommendation made. It expects to complete most complaint reviews within six months.

It has also amended Regulatory Advice 24 in response to the University of Sussex judgment, clarifying the relevance of Convention rights and proportionality within the three-step framework and introducing new worked examples.

Bradley Evans, Senior Associate in the higher education team at UK and Ireland law firm Browne Jacobson, said: “With the scheme opening on 1 September, the groundwork needs to start now for universities to prepare. 

“One of the most significant aspects of the rules is the breadth of the visiting speaker definition. If an internal approvals process has, in substance, blocked a speaking engagement, that person may qualify as an eligible complainant regardless of how the decision was framed. 

“Institutions that rely on events approval mechanisms to manage which speakers appear on campus should not assume those processes offer automatic protection – and the case for keeping detailed records of speaker decisions, and the reasoning behind them, is now a regulatory imperative.

“Providers should also not underestimate what a 'partly justified' finding means in practice. It is a formal regulatory determination that the institution breached its duties, and the reputational exposure that comes with a published adverse finding applies regardless of the specific recommendation made.

“There is also an urgent need to look at internal complaints handling. The rules allow a complaint to be accepted once 90 days have elapsed since an internal process began, meaning providers with slow or poorly structured internal procedures face a real risk of OfS involvement before any internal outcome has been reached.

“Alongside the new scheme, the revised Regulatory Advice 24 needs to be reviewed and existing compliance frameworks updated to reflect the updated approach to proportionality – again, before September.

“Providers that act now, rather than waiting for enforcement to prompt action, will be in a significantly stronger position if a complaint or investigation arises.”