The London College of Finance & Accounting, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A Tier 4 sponsor must be accredited to offer a course leading to an approved qualification when the course is offered. Later accreditation does not cure the earlier breach. Failure to register students with the awarding body may justify discretionary revocation where it prevents them obtaining the approved qualification. A significant number of students with invalid English-language test results may reasonably raise suspicion that the sponsor failed to assess their ability and intention to study. The sponsor must provide cogent evidence capable of allaying that suspicion. The Secretary of State may continue investigating, reconsider the evidence and issue further reasons, provided the sponsor knows the case and has a fair opportunity to respond.

The claimant, a Tier 4 sponsor offering higher education courses to non-EEA students, challenged the Secretary of State’s decisions suspending and then revoking its sponsor licence. The decisions followed evidence that 54 students sponsored by the claimant had obtained invalid TOEIC certificates, and concerns that courses had been offered without the necessary accreditation or student registration.

The claim was heard as a rolled-up judicial review hearing. The issues were whether the accreditation and TOEIC-related conclusions involved material public law error, whether revocation was lawful and reasonable, what relief should follow, and whether the Secretary of State had acted inconsistently with the published Sponsor Guidance.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had not shown a sufficiently arguable case for permission to apply for judicial review. The court’s function was supervisory and concerned legality, Wednesbury reasonableness and procedural fairness.
2. The claimant had offered places on a course leading to a CMI qualification before it was accredited by CMI. The Sponsor Guidance required the sponsor to be able to ensure that the main course led to an approved qualification at the time it was offered. It was insufficient that accreditation might later be obtained. This fell within the mandatory ground for revocation in Sponsor Guidance §165(k).
3. The claimant had also failed to register students with CMI within six weeks of the start of their courses. Following R (Cranford College Ltd) v SSHD, [2015] EWHC 1090 (Admin), that failure was very serious and justified consideration of discretionary revocation, although it did not itself fall within the mandatory ground. In the context of the licence as a whole, revocation on that separate ground was not unreasonable.
4. The assignment of CAS to 54 students with invalid TOEIC results gave rise to reasonable suspicion that the claimant had failed to assess their ability and intention to study and to monitor them after enrolment. The claimant bore the practical burden of allaying that suspicion. Its evidence did not do so. The Secretary of State was entitled to rely on the number of affected students, the absence of reports of inadequate English, and the limited value of later or alternative qualifications. Continued sponsorship of students who had obtained invalid certificates demonstrated a breach of sponsor duties justifying revocation.
5. The changing reasons and continuing review of the evidence did not make the process unfair or inconsistent with the Sponsor Guidance. The claimant had been informed of the concerns and had opportunities to respond. A flexible and evolving investigation was permissible, and could avoid repetitive judicial review claims. The decision letters were sufficiently intelligible and contained no material error of law.