National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Fees) Determination 2022

The Determination is built around three main conceptual pillars: fee categorisation, waiver mechanisms, and set‑off rights. These concepts flow from the Act’s framework for financing the National VET Regulator’s operations.

Fee categories. The Determination divides fees into two component types for each service: an application fee, which covers the initial review and check of the application (a fixed amount, usually a few hundred dollars), and an assessment fee, which covers the substantive assessment or approval process. The assessment fee is either a fixed amount (e.g. $8,000 for initial registration assessment, $7,750 for course accreditation assessment) or an hourly charge of $250 per hour spent by an officer (as for renewal of registration assessment and change of scope assessment). The hourly rate leaves the total cost uncertain until the assessment is complete. For reassessment applications (item 8 of Table 1), the first four hours are free, and thereafter $250 per hour applies. This structure creates perverse incentives: the Regulator has no incentive to minimise hours, and the applicant bears all the risk of delay or over‑scoping.

Waiver provisions. Part 3 creates three distinct waiver scenarios. First, mandatory waiver (section 11): if an applicant withdraws an application in writing before the Regulator has commenced work, the Regulator must waive the fee and refund any amount paid. Second, mandatory waiver for combined change of scope and course addition applications (section 12): if an NVR organisation simultaneously applies to change its scope of registration under the Act and to add one or more courses under the ESOS Act, the Regulator must waive the ESOS application fee (Item 5 of Table 2) and the lesser of the two assessment fees (Item 6 of Tables 1 and 2). This is intended to avoid double‑charging when the two applications overlap, but it only applies if they are made at the same time. Third, discretionary waiver on special or unusual circumstances (section 13(1)): the Regulator may waive all or part of a fee if it determines that special or unusual circumstances exist making the fee unreasonable or inequitable, or if it would be uneconomical to pursue the unpaid fee. Section 13(3) explicitly notes that circumstances related to the COVID‑19 pandemic are included as potentially special or unusual. Section 13(4) expressly excludes three circumstances from being special or unusual: where the person required to pay ceases to exist; where the person ceases to be registered under the Act and the ESOS Act; or where the person ceases to carry on business as an NVR registered training organisation or registered provider. This means a defunct organisation cannot get its fees waived simply because it no longer operates.

Set‑off. Section 16 allows the Regulator to set off fees or charges payable by a person against any amount payable to that person by the Regulator under the Act, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Act 2012, or the ESOS Act. The example in the instrument illustrates how this works: an organisation pays a large annual registration charge, then has its registration cancelled, entitling it to a refund for the unused period. The Regulator can offset that refund amount against an unpaid compliance audit charge, reducing the net refund. This mechanism gives the Regulator a powerful administrative tool to collect debts without resorting to court action, but it also places the organisation at risk of losing anticipated refunds.

Delegated functions. Section 15 states that no fees are payable for goods or services provided by a delegate under subsections 224(2), 225(1) or 226(1) of the Act. These provisions relate to delegations of the Regulator’s powers. The practical effect is that if a delegate performs a service that would otherwise be charged (e.g. a review of an application), no fee applies. This may reduce costs for applicants in cases where the Regulator uses a delegate.

The Determination directly affects any entity that interacts with the National VET Regulator in the areas of registered training organisation (RTO) registration, ESOS provider registration, or VET course accreditation. This includes:

• Existing and prospective NVR registered training organisations. They must pay the fees in Table 1 for initial registration ($600 application plus $8,000 assessment), renewal ($320 application plus $250 per hour assessment), change of scope ($240 application plus $250 per hour assessment), and reassessment after adverse action ($1,000 application plus $250 per hour after four hours). The renewal assessment fee is hourly, meaning larger or more complex organisations face higher costs. Small RTOs with narrow scope may pay less but still face the same application and assessment fees for initial registration.

• Providers who wish to offer courses to overseas students under the ESOS Act. They must pay the fees in Table 2: initial registration ($600 plus $8,000), renewal ($320 plus $250 per hour), and adding courses ($240 plus $250 per hour). The fees mirror those for domestic registration, with the same two‑part structure. The ESOS function fees apply only to providers registered under the ESOS Act, which includes many VET providers. The dual registration pathway (both as an RTO and an ESOS provider) means that a provider seeking both must pay two sets of fees unless it qualifies for the fee waiver under section 12 for simultaneous change of scope and course addition applications.

• Applicants for VET course accreditation. These may include RTOs, industry bodies, or private developers of training courses. Table 3 fees apply: accreditation application ($1,100) and assessment ($7,750); renewal application ($1,100) and assessment ($7,750); and amendment of an accredited course ($1,145). Unlike registration fees, the accreditation fees are all fixed amounts, not hourly. This provides certainty but at a high flat rate; a small course update costs $1,145 regardless of the time spent.

• Persons seeking reconsideration of a decision under section 200 of the Act. The fee is a flat $1,000 (section 9). This applies to anyone who has received an adverse decision from the Regulator and seeks an internal review. The fee is mandatory unless waived under section 13 (special circumstances) or section 11 (withdrawal before work begins). This creates a financial barrier to challenging regulator decisions, potentially deterring legitimate appeals, especially by small providers.

• The National VET Regulator itself. The Determination authorises the Regulator to charge the fees, but also imposes obligations to waive or refund fees in certain circumstances. The set‑off power in section 16 gives the Regulator flexibility in debt collection. The Regulator must administer the waiver provisions, which requires factual assessments of whether work has commenced, whether applications are simultaneous, and whether special circumstances exist.

• Taxpayers and the wider economy. The fee structure is designed to shift the cost of regulation from general revenue to regulated entities. While cost recovery may be efficient in principle, the specific design can have distributional consequences. High upfront fees for registration and accreditation can act as a barrier to entry, particularly for new, small, or niche providers. The hourly assessment fees for renewal create ongoing uncertainty and may discourage providers from seeking scope changes. The waiver provisions are narrow: the special circumstances discretion is subjective, and the three exclusions in section 13(4) remove waiver for organisations that simply go out of business. This means that a collapsed RTO cannot recover fees paid shortly before it ceased operations.

The Determination imposes duties on both the National VET Regulator and on persons dealing with the Regulator. It also confers rights, particularly rights to fee waivers and refunds.

• Duty to pay fees. Applicants must pay the prescribed fees before or at the time of applying for registration, renewal, change of scope, accreditation, or reconsideration. The Determination does not specify a payment timeline, but the Act and administrative practice typically require payment upfront. Failure to pay may result in the application not being processed or, for existing registrants, possible cancellation under the Act.

• Duty to refund waived or overpaid fees. Section 14 requires the Regulator to refund any fee that is waived in whole or in part, if the person has already paid it. This creates a legal obligation to process refunds promptly. The set‑off mechanism in section 16 qualifies this by allowing the Regulator to offset unpaid amounts against the refund before paying the net amount. The organisation does not have a right to an unconditional refund.

• Duty to waive fees in specific circumstances. The Regulator must waive fees in three situations: (1) when an application is withdrawn in writing before work has commenced (section 11); (2) when a combined change of scope and course addition application is made (section 12); and (3) when a fee is paid for a reconsideration application that the Regulator does not consider because the decision is not reviewable (section 13(2)). These are mandatory. In the case of section 12, the Regulator must waive the ESOS application fee and the lesser of the two assessment fees. The organisation cannot choose which fee to have waived; the formula is fixed. The duty to waive in section 13(2) is triggered automatically, without discretion.

• Discretionary right to waive on special or unusual circumstances. Section 13(1) gives the Regulator a power, not a duty, to waive a fee in whole or part if it determines that special or unusual circumstances exist that make the fee unreasonable or inequitable, or if pursuing the amount would be uneconomical. This discretion is broad but not unbounded. The Regulator must consider the circumstances and make a determination. The instrument provides guidance by excluding three specific scenarios and including COVID‑19 pandemic circumstances as an example of what could be special or unusual. However, the wording “could cause the fee to be unreasonable or inequitable” indicates merely that COVID‑19 is not automatically excluded; it does not guarantee a waiver for any pandemic related disruption.

• Right to set‑off. The Regulator has a right to set off any fees or charges payable by a person against amounts the Regulator owes that person. The person has no right to object to the set‑off, but the set‑off is confined to amounts payable under the Act, the Charges Act, or the ESOS Act. The example in the Determination illustrates that the Regulator can reduce a refund by an unpaid compliance audit charge. This gives the Regulator effective leverage over organisations that may be entitled to refunds but also owe other amounts.

• Right to no fee for delegate services. Section 15 provides that no fee is payable for goods or services provided by a delegate under specified provisions. This is a limited right; only delegates acting under subsections 224(2), 225(1), or 226(1) of the Act trigger the right. If the Regulator itself provides the same service, the normal fees apply.

• Right to withdrawal before work commences. Section 11 gives an applicant the right to withdraw an application and obtain a refund of any Part 2 fees paid, provided the Regulator has not yet begun work on the application. The applicant must notify in writing. This right is valuable for applicants who change their mind quickly, but the line between “work has commenced” and “work has not commenced” may be unclear. The Regulator’s interpretation will determine the practical scope of this right.

The Determination itself does not create criminal offences or civil penalties for non‑payment of fees. Instead, enforcement occurs indirectly through the Act and related legislation. The key mechanisms are:

• Set‑off (section 16). The Regulator can use set‑off to collect unpaid fees without court action. This is a powerful tool because it can be applied against refunds owed to the organisation. The decision to set off is at the Regulator’s discretion; there is no requirement to seek the organisation’s consent. This creates a strong incentive to pay fees on time, as delaying payment might lead to a reduced refund later.

• Suspension or cancellation of registration. Under the Act, failure to pay prescribed fees or charges can lead to suspension or cancellation of an RTO’s registration. The Determination does not cite these provisions, but the Act (sections 36‑39 and 31‑41) gives the Regulator power to suspend or cancel for non‑compliance, including non‑payment of fees. The set‑off example in the Determination references cancellation of registration, which may itself lead to further financial consequences (e.g. loss of student enrolments, inability to claim VET FEE‑HELP or other funding).

• Debt recovery. If a fee remains unpaid and cannot be set off, the Regulator may recover it as a debt due to the Commonwealth under the Act (section 232(6) of the Act likely provides for this, though the Determination does not reproduce it). This would involve court proceedings, which are expensive for both sides. The special circumstances waiver in section 13(1)(b) (uneconomical to pursue) indicates that the Regulator considers cost‑benefit in chasing small debts.

The Determination does not prescribe any administrative penalties or late payment fees. That means an organisation that pays a fee late may not face an extra charge, but it may still face the consequences of non‑payment (e.g., application not processed, registration at risk). The absence of late fees is relatively lenient compared to many regulatory fee schemes.

The waiver provision in section 13(2) is a specific quasi‑enforcement mechanism: if a person pays a fee for a reconsideration application that does not relate to a reviewable decision, the Regulator must waive the fee. This protects applicants from paying for a review that the Regulator cannot conduct. However, the applicant must still apply and pay first; the waiver only comes after the Regulator determines non‑reviewability.

The set‑off power is the only enforcement mechanism explicitly articulated in the Determination. It interacts with the refund obligation in section 14, creating a net financial outcome for organisations. The example illustrates that set‑off can reduce a refund from $6,871 to $621, a reduction of over 90 per cent. That can be a significant penalty in effect, even though no penalty is formally imposed.

Overall, the enforcement architecture is designed to be administratively light: the Regulator uses set‑off as a first resort and retains the right to pursue debts. The absence of penalties may reduce the incentive to pay on time, but the other consequences (non‑processing, suspension, cancellation) are serious enough to encourage compliance.

The Determination does not operate in isolation. It is part of a broader legislative framework governing VET regulation in Australia.

• National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (the Act). The Determination is made under section 232 of the Act. The Act sets out the regulatory scheme for RTOs, including registration (Part 2), accreditation (Part 3), compliance, and enforcement. The fees in the Determination are payable for services provided under the Act. For example, the registration assessment fee under item 2 of Table 1 relates to the assessment under section 17 of the Act. The change of scope fees relate to Division 2 of Part 2. The reconsideration fee relates to section 200. The Determination also references the Act for definitions (section 3) and for the waiver provisions (section 232(5)(c)).

• National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Act 2012 (the Charges Act). The Charges Act imposes an annual registration charge on RTOs and a compliance audit charge. The set‑off provision in section 16 of the Determination explicitly covers amounts payable under the Charges Act. The example in section 16 refers to the annual registration charge of $8,245 and the compliance audit charge of $6,250. This means that the Determination interacts with the Charges Act by allowing the Regulator to offset these charges against refunds. An RTO’s total cost of regulation includes both the fees under the Determination and the charges under the Charges Act.

• Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (the ESOS Act). The Determination creates fees for the Regulator’s performance of functions as an ESOS agency (Table 2). The ESOS Act regulates providers of education to overseas students. The Determination uses definitions from the ESOS Act (e.g., “ESOS agency”, “provider”, “course” as defined in section 5AA of the ESOS Act). The waiver provisions in sections 11, 12, and 13 also apply to applications under the ESOS Act. Section 12 explicitly deals with joint applications under the Act and the ESOS Act, recognising the overlap. This interaction is crucial for providers that are both RTOs and registered ESOS providers; they must navigate two sets of regulatory fees.

• Other Commonwealth laws. The Determination may interact with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) because the Regulator is a Commonwealth entity. The fee amounts must be consistent with the PGPA Act requirements for cost recovery, though the Determination does not reference it. The refund provisions would need to comply with the PGPA Act and any Commonwealth policy on refunds and set‑offs.

• Repealed instruments. The Determination repeals two earlier fee instruments (Schedule 1). This means that from 1 July 2022, the earlier fee schedules are no longer in effect. Any application pending at that date would likely be subject to the new fees, though the Determination does not contain transitional provisions. The repeal consolidates the fees into a single instrument, reducing the risk of confusion between multiple instruments.

• State and territory VET regulators. The Determination only applies to the National VET Regulator (ASQA) for entities registered under the national system. Some states (Victoria, Western Australia) have their own VET regulators under different Acts. Those regulators have their own fee arrangements. The Determination does not affect them directly, but it may influence the fee levels set by state regulators.

The interaction with the ESOS Act is particularly significant because many RTOs also deliver courses to overseas students. The fee structure in Table 2 duplicates the structure in Table 1, meaning a provider seeking both domestic registration and ESOS registration would pay double application and assessment fees unless a waiver applies under section 12 for combined scope changes. The set‑off provision can also cross over between the two regimes, since section 16 covers amounts under both Acts.

The Determination is relatively new, having commenced on 1 July 2022. As of the text provided, there have been no amendments to this instrument. However, it replaced two earlier instruments:

• Australian Skills Quality Authority Instrument Fixing Fees No.1 of 2013 - This was the original fee instrument made under the Act after it commenced. It was repealed in full by Schedule 1 item 2.

• Australian Skills Quality Authority Instrument Fixing Fees Amendment Determination (No. 1) 2018 - This previous amendment instrument was also repealed in full by Schedule 1 item 1.

The structure of the current Determination reflects a consolidation and refinement of those earlier instruments. The repeal of the 2013 and 2018 instruments indicates that the Minister intended to start fresh with a single, streamlined determination. The new Determination incorporates specific waiver provisions (Part 3) that were not necessarily detailed in the earlier instruments, or at least not in the same form. For example, the explicit inclusion of COVID‑19 circumstances as a factor for special circumstances waiver (section 13(3)) was likely a response to the pandemic, reflecting an awareness of the financial stress on RTOs during that period.

The Determination does not include any transitional provisions for applications that were lodged before 1 July 2022 but not yet finalised. Practitioners would need to check the Act or any general transitional provisions in the legislative framework to determine whether the old or new fee schedule applies to pending applications. The absence of transitional rules creates uncertainty.

Future amendments are possible if the fee amounts need to be updated for inflation or if the scope of services changes. Because the Determination is a legislative instrument, any amendment would require a new determination signed by the Minister. The fee amounts are expressed in whole dollar amounts without an indexation formula, so they will gradually decline in real terms unless amended. This lack of automatic indexation may be intentional to keep nominal fees stable, but it also means that the Regulator’s cost recovery may erode over time, potentially leading to periodic larger increases rather than steady adjustments.

The Determination itself has not been the subject of litigation, based on the source text. No court cases are mentioned, and no litigation history is provided. The earlier instruments were also not cited in the text as having been litigated.

However, the Act under which the Determination is made has been subject to judicial review in various contexts (e.g., challenges to ASQA decisions on registration or scope). The fees set by the Determination could become relevant in litigation if an organisation challenges the reasonableness of a fee or the Regulator’s decision not to waive a fee. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) or the Federal Court may have jurisdiction to review decisions under the Act, including decisions to refuse a waiver under section 13(1). The Determination’s provisions on set‑off might also be challenged if an organisation argues that the set‑off was applied incorrectly or exceeded the Regulator’s power.

The specific exclusion of certain circumstances from special or unusual circumstances (section 13(4)) could be tested in litigation. For example, an organisation that goes into administration but continues to exist as a legal entity might argue that it has not “ceased to exist” and should still be eligible for waiver. The Regulator might construe “ceases to exist” narrowly to mean dissolution, but an administrator might argue it is not operational. This could be a point of dispute.

The mandatory waiver for withdrawal before work commences (section 11) could also generate disputes if the Regulator and applicant disagree on whether “work has commenced.” An applicant might argue that only formal assessment work counts, while the Regulator might consider preliminary checks as commencement. No case law on this determination is known, but analogous administrative law principles would apply.

Given the limited age of the Determination (since July 2022), litigation is unlikely to have progressed significantly. The earlier instruments may have been challenged, but no history is provided. The lack of litigation history does not mean the instrument is immune to challenge; it simply means no reported decisions exist at this time. The fee amounts are prescribed by legislative instrument and are likely to be upheld if they are within the scope of the enabling power.

The Determination contains several subtle features that could trap unwary applicants or regulatory professionals.

1. Hourly assessment fees for renewal and change of scope. Unlike the fixed fees for initial registration ($8,000) and accreditation ($7,750), renewal of registration assessment and change of scope assessment are charged at $250 per hour, with no cap. An organisation expecting a low renewal cost could face a large bill if the Regulator spends many hours. There is no obligation on the Regulator to estimate or cap the time. For change of scope, the hourly fee applies to the assessment (Item 6 of Table 1), and the application fee is only $240. The risk is that the assessment fee could far exceed the application fee, especially if the Regulator decides to conduct an audit or request extensive information.

2. Reassessment fees - first four hours free, then hourly. Item 8 of Table 1 provides that the first four hours of assessment for a reassessment request are free; after that, $250 per hour applies. This can be seen as a concession, but it also means that if the Regulator spends more than four hours, the organisation pays the full hourly rate for the excess. There is no limit on total hours. A reassessment request could be triggered by a previous unfavourable decision, and the organisation may already be under financial strain.

3. Special circumstances waiver excludes cessation of business. Section 13(4) explicitly provides that an organisation ceasing to exist, ceasing to be registered, or ceasing to carry on business does not constitute special circumstances for fee waiver. This means that if a provider pays fees and then goes out of business, it cannot get those fees refunded under the special circumstances provision. The only relief would be the very narrow withdrawal before work commences (section 11) or the mandatory waiver for non‑reviewable decisions (section 13(2)). For an organisation that closes after registration is cancelled, the fees are forfeit.

4. Set‑off can wipe out refunds. The example in section 16 shows that a $6,871 refund can be reduced to $621 because of an unpaid $6,250 compliance audit charge. An organisation entitled to a refund for an unused annual charge may not receive the full amount if it owes other charges or fees. The set‑off is at the Regulator’s discretion and applies across different Acts (NVETR Act, Charges Act, ESOS Act). Organisations should be aware that paying one charge may be offset against a future refund.

5. No fee for delegate services, but only for specific delegations. Section 15 states that no fees are payable for goods or services provided by a delegate under subsections 224(2), 225(1) or 226(1) of the Act. This is a narrow carve‑out. Not all delegate functions are covered; only those three provisions. If the Regulator uses a delegate for other purposes, the normal fee applies. Organisations may not know whether a particular service is being provided by a delegate or by ASQA itself, so they cannot easily rely on this exemption.

6. Simultaneous application requirement for waiver under section 12. To qualify for the fee waiver for change of scope and adding courses, the applications must be made at the same time. If an organisation first changes its scope and later decides to add a course under the ESOS Act, the waiver does not apply. The organisation must plan carefully to combine the applications. There is no provision for retrospective waiver.

7. Application fees are non‑refundable after work commences. Section 11 only allows fee waiver if the withdrawal occurs before the Regulator has commenced work. Once work has started, the fee is forfeited, even if the application is withdrawn immediately after that point. The determination of when work has commenced is factual. The Regulator may argue that opening the file or checking completeness constitutes commencement.

8. High fixed fees for accreditation amendments. For simply amending an accredited course, the fee is $1,145 (Item 5 of Table 3). This is a substantial amount for a minor change, especially for a single course unit. The fee is the same for any amendment, regardless of complexity. This may discourage providers from updating or improving course content.

9. No indexation. The fee amounts are fixed in dollar terms with no automatic review or indexation. This means they become less burdensome in real terms over time if inflation is positive, but it also means that the Regulator may ask for larger increases in future determinations to catch up. Organisations cannot predict future fees based on this determination alone.

10. Reconsideration fee of $1,000. This is a significant barrier to internal review of ASQA decisions. If the reconsideration is refused or the decision is not reviewable, the fee may be waived under section 13(2) if the application does not relate to a reviewable decision. But if the decision is reviewable and the reconsideration is unsuccessful, the fee is lost. Small providers may choose not to challenge a decision due to the cost, potentially leading to unjust outcomes.

Compliance with the Determination is primarily about paying the correct fee for each service at the right time and seeking waivers where applicable. The following steps are practical guidance for regulated entities.

Step 1: Identify the correct fee category. The service you require will fall into one of the tables: registration and renewal of NVR RTOs (Table 1), ESOS agency functions (Table 2), VET course accreditation (Table 3), or reconsideration of decisions (section 9). Check the fee name and service description. For example, if you are applying for initial registration as an RTO, you need to pay both the initial registration application fee ($600) and the initial registration assessment fee ($8,000). If you are renewing, pay the renewal application fee ($320) and be prepared for the assessment fee ($250/hour).

Step 2: Understand when hourly rates apply. For renewal of registration assessment (Table 1 item 4), change of scope assessment (Table 1 item 6), and ESOS renewal assessment (Table 2 item 4), the fee is $250 per hour. Keep records of all interactions with the Regulator to track time spent. Request an estimate of hours before proceeding, though the Regulator is not obliged to provide one. For reassessment (Table 1 item 8), note the first four hours are free; if the assessment goes beyond that, you will pay for each additional hour.

Step 3: Pay fees promptly. The Determination does not specify payment timing, but the Act and administrative practice require payment before the service is provided. Late payment may delay processing or lead to further action. Use the Regulator’s online systems or payment portal. Retain receipts and acknowledgements.

Step 4: Consider fee waivers. If you withdraw an application before work has commenced, notify the Regulator in writing immediately and request a fee waiver under section 11. If you are making a combined change of scope and course addition application, structure it as a simultaneous application to trigger the mandatory waiver under section 12. If you believe special circumstances exist (e.g. financial hardship, regulatory error, or COVID‑19 impact), apply to the Regulator for a discretionary waiver under section 13(1). Provide detailed evidence. Note the restricted criteria - ceasing business is not a valid circumstance.

Step 5: Monitor set‑off exposure. If you are entitled to a refund (e.g. cancellation of registration after paying an annual charge), be aware that the Regulator may set off any unpaid fees or charges against that refund. Check your accounts for any outstanding amounts under the Act, the Charges Act, or the ESOS Act. Pay those amounts promptly to avoid having your refund reduced. Alternatively, if you owe money to the Regulator, you may want to delay seeking a refund until the debt is cleared.

Step 6: Challenge fee decisions appropriately. If the Regulator refuses a waiver, you may seek internal reconsideration under section 200 of the Act (which itself incurs a $1,000 fee unless waived). Consider whether the decision is reviewable. If you believe the Regulator has incorrectly charged an hourly amount or misapplied a waiver provision, gather evidence and provide it in the reconsideration application. Judicial review in the AAT or Federal Court may be an option, but weigh the cost.

Step 7: Keep abreast of any new determination. The Determination has no sunset clause, but it may be replaced. Check the Federal Register of Legislation for updates. The fee amounts are not indexed, so future determinations will likely adjust them. Plan for potential increases.

Step 8: For delegate functions, confirm the service provider. If you receive a service from someone who appears to be a delegate, ask whether the service falls under subsections 224(2), 225(1) or 226(1). If so, no fee is payable. Do not assume all delegate services are free; section 15 is narrow.

Step 9: Maintain records. Retain copies of applications, payment receipts, correspondence about withdrawals or waiver requests, and any time records from the Regulator. If an hourly fee is charged, ask for a breakdown of hours spent. The Act may give you a right to access this information under freedom of information laws.

Step 10: Seek professional advice. The Determination interacts with the Act, the ESOS Act, and the Charges Act. A lawyer or qualified regulatory consultant can help navigate the fee structure, especially for complex applications or waiver requests. The cost of advice may outweigh potential savings, but in high‑stakes situations (e.g. renewal or reconsideration), it can be worthwhile.