The Written Agreement Clause Most CRICOS Providers Get Wrong
The written agreement is the document everything else hangs off — and the one most providers treat as a formality. Get a mandatory element wrong, write an unfair refund clause, or promise a complaints process you can’t evidence, and every enrolment under that template is at risk. Here are the five elements, the refund trap, and the register that proves your promises are real.
- Standard 3 requires a written agreement with each student before they pay or commence.
- Five elements are mandatory: course and fees, refund terms, the ESOS protections, complaints rights, and the student’s obligations.
- An unfair or unclear refund clause is the fastest way to lose a dispute at the Overseas Students Ombudsman.
- A complaints rights clause in your agreement is only defensible if the underlying process is documented and the register exists.
The five mandatory elements
- Course and fee details — the course(s), the total tuition, non-tuition fees, and when each is payable.
- Refund arrangements — the amounts and the circumstances, expressed clearly enough that a student knows exactly what they get back and when.
- ESOS protections — a statement that the agreement does not remove the student’s right to pursue other legal remedies, and a reference to the Tuition Protection Service.
- Complaints and appeals rights — a pointer to your internal process and the independent external avenues.
- Provider and student obligations — what each party must do, including reporting and conduct expectations.
The clause that voids disputes is a refund term that is silent on provider default or that tries to retain fees in circumstances the law protects. If your agreement says “no refunds” in a situation where a student is legally entitled to one, the clause is unenforceable — and worse, it signals to an auditor that your whole template is non-compliant.
A refund clause is not where you protect your revenue. It is where you prove you understood the student’s rights before you took their money.
The ESOS protections that sit behind the agreement
Pre-paid fees and the 50% position
The ESOS framework limits how much tuition you can require before a course commences. As a working rule, you should not require more than 50% of the total tuition fee before the student starts, unless the course is 24 weeks or shorter (where the full fee may be collected). The detail and any exceptions sit in the ESOS Act 2000 and associated regulations — verify the current position before you set your payment schedule.
The complaints rights clause — and what it commits you to
Element four is the one most providers underestimate. Listing complaints and appeals rights in the written agreement is not just a disclosure — it is a promise to the student that the process exists, is accessible, and will be followed.
When a student escalates to the Overseas Students Ombudsman, the Ombudsman does two things: reads the written agreement to see what you promised, then asks for your complaints register to see whether you delivered it.
If your agreement names an internal complaints process but your register is empty, incomplete, or non-existent, the gap between promise and evidence is the finding.
This is where RTOs get caught not on the agreement itself, but on the operational reality behind it. A complaints rights clause without a maintained register is an unsubstantiated promise — and auditors treat unsubstantiated promises the same way they treat missing documentation.
- One master agreement template, version-controlled, reviewed annually.
- Refund table with worked examples for each scenario — student default, provider default, visa refusal.
- Payment schedule that respects the prepaid fee limit.
- Signed (or verifiably accepted) before any payment or CoE issue — with the date captured.
- A complaints and appeals process that is documented, accessible, and backed by a register that shows it is actually used.
- A plain-language version available in the languages of your main student intake countries.
The common finding is timing, not content: the agreement exists, but the CoE was issued, or money was taken before it was signed. Standard 3 is explicit that the agreement comes first. Use the audit tool below to pressure-test your template.
Agreement audit
Tick each element your current written agreement clearly contains. A compliant template scores 100%.
Compliants , Appeals and Feedback Register Checklis
The register CRICOS providers use to back up the complaints rights clause in their written agreement — structured for Standard 3 compliance, formatted so that any Ombudsman request or ASQA audit has a complete evidence trail ready to produce.
Your agreement makes the promise. The register proves you kept it.
Keep going — read these next
Why ASQA Is Now Reading Your Genuine Student Files Line by Line
Your Agent Is About to Become Your Biggest Compliance Liability
The three pieces of agent evidence ASQA traces first — and when you must sanction an agent.
Under-18 Welfare: The Holiday Period Gap That Quietly Breaches the National Code
Continuous welfare, CAAW, and the weekends and holidays that most providers fail to cover.
Not sure where you're exposed?
Book a 30-minute confidential compliance call. We walk your scope, your registration history, and the three Standards most likely to surface in your next audit.
About the author
Ben Thakkar
15+ yrs experienceCompliance, Training & Business Specialist · VET Advisory Group
Ben Thakkar is a Compliance, Training, and Business specialist in the education industry. He has held senior management roles, including General Manager, with leading Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and Universities. With over 15 years of experience, Ben brings extensive expertise across audits, funding contracts, VET Student Loans, CRICOS, and the Standards for RTOs 2025.
