Fertility Unregulated Middlemen Pose Risks

Heartbreak and Lost Savings: The Perilous Rise of Britain's Unregulated IVF Middlemen

Prospective parents are facing urgent warnings about a new breed of concierge-style clinics in the fertility sector that are unregulated. The alert follows the collapse of a prominent company that left a trail of customers lacking their promised treatments or financial refunds. As more people pay for IVF privately, these online concierge firms have positioned themselves as essential middlemen. They connect patients with doctors and donors, promising a seamless journey to parenthood. However, a significant regulatory gap leaves these patients exposed.

The UK's fertility authority, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), has stated that because these digital-first businesses do not perform the procedures themselves, it falls outside its legal jurisdiction. The HFEA is now pressing for new legislation to be enacted to bring these services under regulatory control and safeguard vulnerable patients. The consequences of this loophole are not abstract; they are measured in shattered hopes and drained bank accounts. For dozens of families, the dream of a child has turned into a financial and emotional nightmare.

A Patient's Crushing Loss

Syreeta Sandhu's journey into the world of concierge fertility services ended with a staggering loss of nearly £15,000. Her experience encapsulates the high stakes for patients navigating this new landscape. The initial shock and upset have since hardened into deep frustration and then intense anger. Feeling utterly powerless, she found herself caught in a situation no hopeful parent should ever have to face. Her story serves as a stark illustration of the potential fallout when innovative service models operate without oversight.

A 40-year-old mother of two, Syreeta’s path to this point was already fraught with difficulty. She had endured the emotional toll of four unsuccessful IVF rounds and also the heartbreak of five separate miscarriages, hoping she could have a third child. It was this history of struggle that led her to Apricity Fertility, an online firm that presented itself as a modern, supportive solution. The company's promise of expert coordination and a network of established clinics offered a renewed sense of hope.

The Sudden Collapse

Syreeta entrusted Apricity with her funds and her hopes. The company connected her to a suitable egg donor and arranged services with the respected King's Fertility clinic to carry out the medical procedures. With her treatment scheduled to begin last December, everything appeared to be moving forward. Then, without any warning or explanation, the clinic abruptly cancelled her appointments. The silence from the company was deafening, leaving her in a state of confusion and anxiety.

The devastating news came not from a person, but from a notification on the company's mobile app. Apricity declared it would halt all its activities on the first of January. Scrambling for answers, Syreeta contacted King's Fertility directly. The clinic informed her that due to privacy regulations, it was unable to view her medical records or any information about her egg donor. Crucially, King's had never received payment from Apricity, meaning her treatment was unable to begin.

Image Credit - BBC

The Human Cost of Delay

For anyone pursuing fertility treatment, time is an invaluable and non-renewable resource. She remarked that when on this type of medical journey, every single month is crucial. The desire to build a family can lead people to do almost anything, often involving significant financial investment. The emotional and monetary pressures create a vulnerability that unregulated companies can exploit, whether intentionally or through mismanagement. The process is not merely transactional; it is deeply personal.

Finding medical professionals who inspire confidence is a long and arduous process. Syreeta described spending the better part of a year building a relationship based on trust with her care team. That foundation of trust was shattered overnight. The abrupt disappearance of the support structure she had come to rely on left her feeling abandoned and betrayed. Her experience underscores the profound emotional investment that patients make, an investment that goes far beyond the financial cost.

A Growing Private Market

The demand for IVF paid for by individuals in the United Kingdom has seen a notable increase. The quantity of private cycles saw a rise between 2009 and 2019, hitting a total of 50,000. After a brief decline in 2020, the figure climbed to slightly more than 59,000 for 2021. This trend reflects a shifting landscape in fertility care, where more individuals are shouldering the costs themselves. A key driver of this shift is the inconsistent provision of NHS-funded treatment across the country.

This inconsistency is often described as varying significantly by location. National guidelines recommend a certain number of IVF cycles for eligible patients, but local Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) have the final say on funding. This results in a fractured system where access to care depends heavily on a patient's address. Some areas may offer three cycles, while others offer only one or have stricter eligibility criteria, pushing many desperate couples toward the private sector.

The Rise of Concierge Clinics

Into this growing market have stepped the concierge clinics. These companies offer a range of logistical services, such as linking patients to egg or sperm donors and putting them in touch with physicians. They also handle administrative tasks like scheduling consultations and coordinating the dispatch of medicine. Their business model is built on convenience, appealing to patients who may feel overwhelmed by the complexities of the fertility process. It is difficult to determine exactly how many of these firms function within the UK, although industry specialists think their numbers are increasing.

These services are distinct from the established "satellite" arrangements common in the fertility field. In a satellite model, a patient might have initial consultations with their local GP or a nearby clinic before travelling to a larger, specialised centre for the main IVF procedure. Concierge companies, however, typically lack any physical premises. Crucially, they do not themselves keep gametes or embryos in storage, which is the central reason they currently evade regulation.

A Regulatory Black Hole

The HFEA, the fertility sector's regulator, is issuing active warnings to patients concerning these new types of services. The authority has made it clear that its protective measures do not cover companies that operate purely as intermediaries. The core of the issue lies in the current legislation, the HFEA, which is now more than three decades old. The law grants the HFEA power to regulate facilities that physically handle or store human gametes and embryos.

Clare Ettinghausen, a director at the HFEA, commented that the repercussions following Apricity's closure demonstrate a critical flaw in the existing law. She argued that the legislation fails to mirror the modern variety of fertility treatment options available today. The HFEA is therefore advocating for a comprehensive overhaul of the HFEA. The proposed changes would broaden the HFEA's powers, allowing it to oversee these digital platforms and other new service models, thereby closing the dangerous regulatory gap.

Image Credit - BBC

The Scale of the Aftermath

Syreeta Sandhu is not alone in her predicament. She is among 52 clients left out of pocket by the sudden failure of Apricity. The total debt owed to these clients amounts to a significant £119,000. The task of managing the company's extensive debts has fallen to a liquidator, Cork Gully, which was appointed by creditors in February 2025. The firm's filings show it officially entered voluntary liquidation, confirming its inability to meet its financial obligations.

The prospect of patients recovering their money appears bleak. In correspondence with affected clients, Cork Gully has managed expectations downwards. The liquidator's assessment stated it was improbable that any funds would be available for distribution to the patients. This grim forecast leaves dozens of families facing not only the emotional pain of their interrupted treatment but also the severe financial blow of losing thousands of pounds with little hope of recovery.

A Cross-Border Struggle

The impact of Apricity's collapse was felt across the UK. In Belfast, 32-year-old Beth Rodgers found her plans thrown into chaos. Beth has a rare genetic disorder, Turner syndrome, which prevents her ovaries from making eggs. To have a child, she needs an egg donor. A significant deficit of available donor eggs in Northern Ireland compelled her and her partner to look further afield, leading them to find a donor based in England through Apricity's services.

After careful consideration, the couple sent £4,600 to Apricity. The company successfully paired them with a donor, and they began to feel that their dream of starting a family was within reach. The service seemed to provide a vital link, bridging the geographical and logistical gaps that stood in their way. Their story highlights how these concierge services appeal to patients facing complex, cross-border fertility challenges, for whom expert coordination is especially valuable.

A Wall of Silence

Beth's discovery of the company's demise was impersonal and alarming. She noticed a comment within a Facebook group that mentioned "the Apricity news" and wished well for those affected. This was the first she had heard of any problem. A complete lack of official word from the firm was noted, with no email or phone number provided. The silence from the firm that had taken her money and her trust was absolute, leaving her and her partner isolated and distressed.

While the couple was able to reclaim some of their losses through insurance, their insurance did not reimburse everything. A fee of £385 for a doctor's consultation and £985 for the donor's compensation were irrecoverable. However, the financial loss was secondary. For Beth, the most significant setback was the loss of time. The process of finding a donor and preparing for treatment had been long and emotionally taxing. The sudden collapse meant she was back at the beginning of that arduous journey.

The Journey Resumes, With Caution

Now, Beth has restarted her treatment, but this time with a fully regulated clinic. Her new path illustrates the complexities many patients face. Her new plan involved consultations with a physician in the Republic of Ireland and then a trip to Manchester for the embryo transfer. This fragmented journey, involving travel between three different countries, highlights the lengths to which patients must go to access the care they need.

Her first transfer attempt was unfortunately unsuccessful. However, a primary advantage of her new, regulated arrangement is the security it provides. Her insurance will cover a subsequent IVF attempt using another egg donor, offering a clear path forward. This stands in stark contrast to her experience with Apricity, where the collapse of the intermediary left her with no treatment, no clear answers, and a partial financial loss.

Savings and Hopes Lost

The dream of parenthood can lead couples to make huge financial sacrifices. A man, identified only as Jonathan, and his wife sought services from Apricity following five prior unsuccessful IVF attempts. They were emotionally and financially drained but remained determined. They used their personal savings and also secured a loan to pay Apricity £10,000 for a treatment package that they hoped would finally bring them success. Their story is a powerful reminder of the deep desire that drives people to invest so much in fertility treatment.

Their hopes were dashed when the company went under. Like the other clients, they received a letter from the liquidator, Cork Gully, with the devastating news. Jonathan confirmed that they were told there was no probable likelihood of recovering their money. The financial loss has had a profound impact on their lives. He explained that they have been unable to resume their treatment because they are still attempting to arrange the necessary funding.

The Deep Financial Aftermath

The financial devastation for families like Jonathan's cannot be overstated. A recent study found that the average cost per IVF cycle in private clinics can be nearly £13,000. Losing such a significant sum is a catastrophic setback. The challenge of raising the necessary finance for another attempt becomes a monumental hurdle, delaying or even ending their chances of starting a family. The high cost of private treatment makes the market ripe for new models that promise affordability or convenience.

This financial pressure can make patients more susceptible to "deals" or multi-cycle packages that seem more economical upfront. However, as the Apricity case demonstrates, making advance payments for multi-cycle deals to an unregulated intermediary carries immense risk. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has produced guidance on consumer law for fertility clinics, stressing the need for fair practices and transparent information, but this guidance struggles to reach unregulated digital-first entities.

A Search for Accountability

In the wake of the firm's failure, questions of accountability have come to the forefront. The person serving as chief executive for Apricity when it closed did not offer a comment about why the business went under or if clients would see a refund. This lack of response from the leadership has only compounded the frustration of the affected families.

However, a co-founder and former chief executive of the company, Caroline Noublanche, did provide some insight. She explained that Apricity had encountered unexpected and terminal financial problems in December after a scheduled investment was retracted. While this explains the financial trigger for the collapse, it offers little comfort to the patients who have lost their money and their chance for treatment.

An Expert's Legal Warning

The legal ambiguity that allows these concierge services to operate is a point of major concern for experts in the field. Professor Emily Jackson, an academic focused on medical law and ethics at the London School of Economics, clearly articulated the problem. She explained that while a licence is required to perform procedures working with embryos and gametes, no such licence is needed to simply arrange these services online. This is the loophole through which these companies operate.

Professor Jackson offered straightforward advice for those considering their options. She stated that it would be wise for people to choose treatment at a clinic licensed by the HFEA. The reasoning is simple and compelling: licensed clinics have legal and ethical responsibilities towards their patients. These duties become particularly crucial should an unforeseen closure occur, providing a safety net that is entirely absent in the unregulated space.

The Protections of Regulation

The difference in patient protection between a licensed clinic and an unregulated intermediary is stark. A closing HFEA-licensed facility is held to specific duties. It has to supply patients with information and confirm they receive adequate support. This includes helping them move to another facility to continue their treatment. These protocols are designed to prevent the kind of chaos and abandonment seen in the Apricity case.

Furthermore, a licensed clinic has a critical duty to ensure the safety and security of all gametes and embryos held in its storage. This is a fundamental aspect of the regulatory framework, guaranteeing that the most precious biological materials are protected. For patients using a concierge service, their gametes or embryos are held by a separate, licensed clinic. However, when the intermediary collapses, the contractual and data-sharing link is broken, leaving patients struggling to access their own materials.

Government Acknowledges Gaps

The issue has not gone unnoticed at the government level. A representative from the Department of Health and Social Care acknowledged that these digital or "virtual" clinics are not currently under the HFEA's jurisdiction. They confirmed that government ministers have met with the authority's chair to discuss these new regulatory issues. The government is actively reviewing the HFEA’s suggestions on how to update the country's fertility laws.

In the interim, the official advice for patients is one of caution. The department urges anyone considering these digital providers to perform extensive research before they commit to any course of action. This advice, while sensible, places a heavy burden of due diligence on patients who are already in a vulnerable position. It highlights the urgent need for systemic reform to provide robust, automatic protection for everyone seeking fertility treatment.

The View from a Partner Clinic

Dr Ippokratis Sarris, director at King's Fertility, was contracted by Apricity to provide Syreeta Sandhu's treatment. As a result of the collapse, his clinic is now a creditor of the business. Dr Sarris believes that more concierge-style clinics are likely to appear in the future. He sees the trend as a response to patient demand for greater convenience and also flexibility in how they access healthcare.

He argued that the trend towards more digital and remote healthcare is an unavoidable development in the modern world. In his view, this is what patients increasingly want and prefer, and it is important not to withhold that option from them. His perspective introduces a nuanced view, suggesting that the model itself is not inherently flawed, but that its implementation requires responsible management and, crucially, a regulatory framework that can adapt to innovation.

Essential Advice for Patients

Given the current risks, patients must be extremely vigilant. Dr Sarris advises individuals to conduct diligent research before selecting any provider. He specifically warned against the dangers of making advance payments for multi-cycle deals, a practice that left Apricity's clients particularly exposed. It is wiser, he suggested, to investigate how long a facility has been in operation and to understand its ownership structure, whether it is part of the NHS, privately owned, or backed by private equity.

This advice underscores a central theme: informed choice. Patients should feel empowered to ask critical questions. How are my funds protected? What happens if the company ceases trading? Who legally holds my data and my medical files? Who is responsible for the safety of my gametes or embryos? Answering these questions can help prospective parents differentiate between a trustworthy, regulated provider and a potentially risky, unregulated intermediary.

Shaping the Future of Fertility

The emergence of new service models in the fertility sector presents both opportunities and challenges. Dr Sarris wisely concluded that while the industry should not oppose this evolution, a collective responsibility exists to guide its development with care. This calls for a collaborative effort between innovators, medical professionals, regulators, and lawmakers. The goal must be to create an environment where technology can enhance patient choice and convenience without compromising safety or financial security.

The central conflict is between the fast pace of digital innovation and the slower pace of legislative reform. The case of Apricity Fertility serves as a powerful case study of what can happen when regulation fails to keep up. As the fertility sector continues to evolve, the challenge will be to create a legal framework that is flexible enough to accommodate new ideas while remaining rigid enough to protect the vulnerable.

A Call for Urgent Reform

The stories of Syreeta, Beth, and Jonathan lay bare the human cost of this regulatory failure. Their experiences paint a vivid picture of the distress and financial hardship that can result when hopeful parents place their trust in the wrong hands. The collapse of Apricity is a clear and urgent signal that the current laws are no longer fit for purpose in the digital age. The loophole that allows concierge services to operate without oversight must be closed.

The government's review of the HFEA legislation is a welcome development, but action must be swift and decisive. For the dozens of patients still waiting for answers and refunds, any changes will come too late. But for the thousands who will seek fertility care in the years to come, modernised laws will provide the essential protection they need and deserve. The journey to parenthood is challenging enough without the added risk of financial ruin and regulatory neglect.