Touchload Limited, the company behind Kings Oxford, was put into administration earlier this month under case number CR‑2026‑001318.

A formal notice records that joint administrators were appointed on Thursday, April 9, after the High Court order.

Kings Oxford is an independent, fee‑paying college offering GCSEs, A‑levels, foundation programmes and English language courses.

READ MORE: Six tips across Oxfordshire to close, council announces

Kings Oxford on Temple Road. (Image: Street View)

It teaches both UK and international students and provides day and boarding places.

The college operates from two campuses in Oxford: St Joseph’s Campus in Temple Road, Cowley, and a city centre site in St Michael’s Street.

A High Court administration order allows licensed insolvency practitioners to take control of an insolvent company, with the aim of protecting assets.

This is while options are explored for either rescuing the business, selling parts of it, or winding it up in an orderly way.

BTG Begbies Traynor (London) LLP is handling the insolvency of Touchload Limited with administrators, Stephen Katz and David Lawrence Birne, appointed.

READ MORE: Man ‘stabbed several times with knives’ as police arrest two in Oxfordshire

Companies House records show that Touchload Limited is a private limited company incorporated on September 11, 1987, with a registered office address in Brighton.

The company’s nature of business is recorded on the public register as general secondary education.

The most recent available filings show that the last set of accounts submitted by Touchload Limited covered the year ending December 31, 2024.

Those filings also state that the company remains listed as active, with its next accounts due by Thursday, October 1, 2026.

Kings Oxford is described in Oxfordshire County Council’s Family Information Service and other directory entries as a modern independent college for ambitious students.

READ MORE: Fears for Roman ruins as Ellen DeGeneres plans Cotswolds stables

Those entries say it offers a “supportive learning environment and community” and provides a range of academic and university preparation courses.

Kings Oxford forms part of the wider Kings Education group, which runs international colleges in the United Kingdom and the United States.

Information published by Kings Education sets out detailed tuition and accommodation fee tables for its colleges, including Kings Oxford.

According to Kings’ current official fee table for its UK colleges, A‑level and GCSE tuition at Kings Oxford is priced in the low‑to‑mid £30,000s per year.

For 2026–27, two‑year and one‑year A‑level programmes are listed at £33,120 per year, or £11,040 per term.

READ MORE: Jeremy Clarkson lands jet fuel dig amid ‘fuel crisis’ in UK

GCSE Year 10 is shown at £31,320 per year (£10,440 per term), while GCSE Year 11 and the Extended GCSE programme are each listed at £33,120 per year (£11,040 per term).

An Ofsted boarding inspection report for Kings Oxford, published in May 2023, rated the overall experiences and progress of children and young people as good.

The same report graded how well children and young people are helped and protected, and the effectiveness of leaders and managers, as good.

Insolvency notices advise anyone seeking further information about the administration of Touchload Limited to contact BTG Begbies Traynor in London.

Kings Oxford has been approached by this newspaper for comment and further information on the situation.

Ravical has published research showing that only 6% of UK accounting firms would use time freed up by AI and automation to generate new advisory revenue, highlighting a gap between firms’ growth ambitions and their ability to deliver advisory work at scale.

The findings are based on responses from 500 senior decision-makers at accounting firms with more than 50 employees. They challenge the assumption that greater efficiency in compliance work will naturally lead firms to expand higher-margin advisory services.

In practice, most respondents said it would not. The data shows that 94% of firms would not use additional time created by AI or automation to grow advisory revenue.

Instead, firms pointed to structural barriers within their organisations, including skills gaps, inadequate preparation infrastructure and a lack of repeatable processes for turning advisory opportunities into income.

Half said the main obstacle was a mismatch between compliance and advisory capabilities. The research found that firms are generally well set up for process-led compliance work, but are less prepared to identify, develop and convert advisory opportunities consistently.

That matters because advisory work is widely seen as the next source of margin growth. The survey found that 89% of firms believe advisory services will drive future margin expansion, while 48% said expanding advisory is their main strategic focus over the next three years.

Yet many appear unable to match that ambition with delivery. Compliance work is predictable and process-driven, making it easier to standardise and automate, while advisory work depends more on judgement, context and commercial understanding.

Respondents recognised that distinction, with 89% agreeing that compliance scales through automation while advisory relies on individual expertise.

In practice, many firms still depend on systems and workflows built for compliance. As a result, advisory work remains tied to individual effort rather than a repeatable model that can be rolled out across teams and clients.

Ravical’s data suggests the problem is not identifying advisory openings in the first place. Almost all respondents, 96%, said they were confident they could spot advisory opportunities across their client base.

But firms also said they were losing business. On average, respondents estimated that 33% of their clients’ potential advisory spend still goes to competing providers.

That gap between identification and conversion appears central to the report’s conclusions. Firms may believe they can see the opportunities, but many lack the internal structure needed to capture the revenue consistently.

When asked how they would use time freed up by automation, respondents gave answers that underlined the pressure on existing operating models. They were as likely to put that time into clearing compliance backlogs, cutting working hours or reducing headcount as they were to direct it towards advisory services.

The research found that 28% would use extra time for compliance backlogs, 26% for reduced working hours and 17% for headcount reduction. Those choices suggest efficiency gains may be absorbed by operational demands rather than redirected into new services.

Joris Van der Gucht, chief executive officer and co-founder of Ravical, said the results point to a deeper issue in the profession.

“There’s a clear assumption in the market that if firms free up time, advisory growth will follow.

“What our data shows is that the constraint isn’t time, but whether firms are equipped to use that time differently.”

Advisory gap

The figures also come at a time when many firms report strong underlying performance, with respondents pointing to growing revenue per client and solid compliance margins.

Even so, the report argues that those conditions may not last. If growth continues to depend mainly on compliance work and existing pricing strength, firms could struggle over time to build a broader service mix.

Van der Gucht said the profession has spent years making compliance work more efficient, but advisory services require a different operating model.

“The industry has spent years optimising compliance delivery.

“The next phase is different. It’s about building the systems that allow advisory services to be delivered consistently, rather than relying on individual capacity.”

A crash barrier is expected to be installed on the ring road between Redbridge Park and Ride and Heyford roundabout this summer to protect cyclists and the northern side of the bridge over Weir Mill Stream.

Cars, vans and lorries illegally parked on the A423 walking and cycle path (Image: Anna Railton)

For several years, cars and lorries have reportedly posed a danger by parking illegally off the national speed limit road on the shared walking and cycling path.

Now, a crash barrier, which is expected to be installed this summer, will protect those travelling by bike.

Robin Tucker. (Image: Submitted)

Robin Tucker, chairman of the Oxfordshire Cycling Network said installing the crash barrier “sounds like a good plan that should have happened long ago.”

He said: “The ring road cycle track, which is a great asset for Oxford, providing a safe and almost continuous route around two-thirds of the city, from Wolvercote to Kennington, is being ruined by a tiny minority of drivers.

“All driving creates some danger for people but about 50 people a year are killed on pavements by cars, so this is unacceptable and should be strongly enforced against.”

He raised concerns about crashes, which he says are rare but possible.

Mr Tucker added: “There is a smashed down signpost at the start of the gap which shows the possibility of an out-of-control vehicle leaving the carriageway and I have been met with vehicles driving up and down the cycle track which is off-putting, turning the safe space for cycling into a place for danger.”

Where vehicles exit on to the national speed limit A423 off the walking and cycle path (Image: Anna Railton)

He also raised general safety concerns as the vehicles re-enter the ring road across a grassed-verge and kerb.

READ MORE: Motorised underpass preferred option for Bicester crossing

Jane Gibb, infrastructure and operations lead at cycling campaign group Cyclox, said the group has raised repeated concerns but welcomes the plans.

She said: “Installing a crash barrier is a straightforward safety improvement that should already be in place.

“It should prevent vehicles from accessing the cycle track and address this issue directly and may also have the added benefit of reducing glare from car headlights for people using the route.”

Paul Troop, a cyclist and chairman of Bicester Bike Users’ Group, described using the route as “unpleasant.”

He said: “Drivers parking there illegally have obstructed the pedestrian and cycle paths and have dug up the grass verges, leaving the paths muddy, obstructed, and dangerous to use.

“Those drivers cause a safety hazard when they drive over the verge to exit into a 70mph dual-carriageway, also illegally.

“The crash barrier is primarily to protect the integrity of the bridge from out of control drivers, but will also have the consequence of discouraging this sort of irresponsible driving.”