Consultation outcome

Consultation on changes to the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner's fee structure response

Updated 6 March 2025

Under the previous government, the Home Office in collaboration with the Office of the Immigration Service Commissioner (OISC) ran the fees consultation for a period of 12 weeks, which launched on 14 March and closed on 5 June 2024.

On 16 January 2025 the OISC rebranded as the Immigration Advice Authority and will continue to carry out the activities of the Immigration Services Commissioner.

The consultation was designed to help understand the impact of proposals to amend the structure of the fees charged by the IAA to its registered advisers, and to minimise the risks of any adverse impact. There has been no significant amendment to the structure of fee charging since the Immigration Services Commissioner was established in 2000, despite significant changes to the immigration system and the advice sector.

The level of the fees charged at present does not cover the cost of the regulatory activity, and the proposed changes to the fee charging model would achieve the aim of moving the IAA towards recovering the costs of regulation in line with HM Treasury Managing Public Money requirements.

The proposals were also designed to address issues with the fairness of current fee structure, the changing demographic of the advice sector, and the impact of charging only at the point of the application.

The proposals aimed to bring in changes to enable the IAA to operate an effectively administered fee structure, which encourages good practice and high levels of responsibility, which is sensitive to the potential earnings of business, but is also justifiable in the equality of burden of costs and use of its services.

The Home Office is grateful for all the responses to the consultation and has been noted by this government.

Executive Summary

This consultation, launched under the previous government was led by the Home Office in collaboration with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) as part of a review into the structure of the fees charged by the OISC to its registered organisations. The OISC has now rebranded as the Immigration Advice Authority (IAA) and will continue to carry out the activities of the Immigration Services Commissioner.

The fee structure is set by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The level of the fees should be set in accordance with HM Treasury rules on  Managing Public Money May 2023 which govern that fees should recover the full costs of providing a service to prevent a burden on the taxpayer.

To meet the objective of bringing fees in line with HM Treasury rules and to bring the charging model in line with other professional bodies, amendments to the structure of fees charged were set out in 3 proposals:

• proposal 1: new charges applied separately for organisations and individual advisers
• proposal 2: introducing charges to the non-fee charging sector
• proposal 3: introducing charges at different points or for specific services

Overview of the consultation responses

The survey was conducted online via Smart Survey. It included questions on participant demographics (including organisation type, funding sources, number of advisers, authorisation level) and questions designed to gather comprehensive qualitative feedback on understanding the impact of the three proposals in the consultation.

In total, 240 completed responses were received to the survey.

Proposal 1

Summary of the responses received on proposal 1:

• Nearly all respondents (95%) understood the new fee structure detailed in proposal 1.
• There were 175 responses received on the impacts of proposal 1.
• The majority of responses (77%) were negative, with a smaller number of respondents (18%) expressing positive, mixed or neutral sentiment. Financial impact, for example to operational costs and funding, was seen as a key issue, followed by impact on services and recruitment.
• Many of the negative responses related to significantly increased fees and the effect this would have on the charitable sector if proposal 2 went ahead.
• Positive responses were very limited but related to the potential for reduced fees, greater fairness of the charges and increased personal responsibility by individuals to the potential investment in maintaining high professional standards which can drive improvements in the quality of advice provided.

Proposal 2

Summary of the responses received on proposal 2:

• Nearly all respondents (93%) understood the new fee structure detailed in proposal 2.
• There were 137 responses received in relation to the impacts of proposal 2.
• The vast majority of these (91%) were negative, with only a small minority (3%) expressing positive, mixed or neutral sentiment. Financial and service provision impacts were the top areas of concern noted.
• The potential negative impact on services and/or service users was highlighted as a key additional consideration, with this being referenced by nearly two thirds (61%) of the 106 participants that responded to this particular question.
• Negative responses related to increased administrative and delivery costs resulting in withdrawal or reduction in services, lack of free advice provision and growth of a black market for immigration advice.
• A small number of positive responses were recorded, with comments from fee-charging respondents recognising the potential for cost recovery for the IAA and fairness across fees where the fee-charging sector were not subsidising the non-fee charging sector.

Proposal 3

Summary of the responses received on proposal 3:

• 88% of respondents understood the primary legislation changes detailed in proposal 3.
• 133 organisations responded to the first part of proposal 3, which addresses separating application and registration costs. For the second part of proposal 3, which looks at introducing charges for additional services, there were 145 responses.
• 79% said that moving to separate application/registration costs would have an impact on them or their organisation. 85% said that charging for additional services, would have an impact on them or their organisation.
• Some respondents did not understand the proposal, citing a lack of clarity and specificity with regards to the separation of fees and the additional charges that this could incur.
• Roughly 2 thirds (65%) expressed negative sentiment regarding the proposed separation of application and registration costs, with around a fifth (21%) expressing positive, mixed or neutral sentiment. Financial impacts were mentioned by half, although other areas of importance included operational, organisational, and broader (overall) impacts.
• Concerning the impact of charging for additional services, three quarters (75%) of respondents who commented on this aspect of the proposal expressed negative sentiment. The negative responses related to general financial impacts of additional costs, particularly where there was no specificity as to what those charges might be, and the complexity of administrative work in paying fees at different times.
• A few (13%) responses were received expressing positive, mixed or neutral sentiment. Positive responses related to separating application fees from assessment fees, flexible charging structures and possibly some improvement in training and overall service standards.

All Home Office policies are kept under review.