Ofqual fines awarding body for allowing colleges to investigate themselves

Ofqual has fined OTHM Qualifications £25,000 after finding the awarding organisation allowed colleges and training providers accused of malpractice to investigate themselves.

The penalty follows a two-year investigation by the regulator after it received a dozen allegations of malpractice involving OTHM Qualifications.

A notice of monetary penalty was today issued to the awarding body, which admitted to breaching ten separate conditions of its recognition over a three-year period, spanning conflicts of interest, malpractice investigations, record keeping, centre monitoring and reporting to Ofqual.

The exams regulator launched an investigation into the awarding organisation in February 2024, reviewing OTHM’s handling of alleged malpractice stretching back to 2018 when Ofqual’s reporting portal was launched.

OTHM admitted the breaches and entered a voluntary settlement on July 21, agreeing to pay the £25,000 penalty plus up to £10,000 of Ofqual’s legal costs.

OTHM has since drawn up an action plan and invested “significantly” in improving its systems and will regularly send Ofqual reports on how the improvements are working.

Ofqual concluded that a £25,000 fine reflected OTHM’s cooperation and corrective action and confirmed it fell within the statutory cap of 10 per cent of OTHM’s total annual turnover.

The regulator also noted OTHM had breached regulatory requirements in the past but while it did not result in enforcement action, it suggested a pattern of “similar” failings.

Amanda Swann, Ofqual’s executive director for delivery, said: “I’d like to remind awarding organisations that event notifications are a sign of good governance, not a sign of failure. When Ofqual is not kept informed, we cannot step in to protect learners.

“OTHM has acknowledged what went wrong and taken steps to put it right. We will be watching. But a £25,000 fine is a significant consequence, and it is meant to be. Qualifications only mean something if people can trust them.”

Centres allowed to investigate themselves

OTHM offers level 3 to 8 qualifications in subjects like business, health and social care, HR, tourism and currently delivers nearly 100 qualifications. Last year, it issued almost 11,600 certificates.

The awarding body submitted just one alert of a potentially serious incident to Ofqual, despite its own records showing several malpractice and maladministration events that met the threshold for reporting.

Ofqual found OTHM had directed multiple centres to investigate themselves involving alleged malpractice and in at least four cases, there was potentially a personal interest in the outcome from those carrying out the investigation.

On one occasion OTHM relied on evidence from a centre managing director who was implicated in the allegations.

In the case of a centre facing allegations of mis-selling qualifications and certificates, OTHM warned that “any proven malpractice or maladministration will result in sanctions being applied and could result in withdrawal of centre approval”. The awarding organisation then closed the case a day after the centre said the allegations were unfounded.

In another case, a learner produced WhatsApp messages where a staff member at a different centre allegedly advised them to use third parties to complete assignments. The centre was allowed to investigate itself and Ofqual found that OTHM did not consider this to be a conflict of interest.

Inconsistent and unreliable records

Investigators also uncovered “inconsistent” record-keeping and OTHM could not produce investigation reports in four instances where it was required to keep for five years under its own internal policy.

Each time Ofqual requested OTHM’s malpractice records, it received a different register containing different information.

The penalty notice said: “OTHM was using multiple documents to record and monitor malpractice/maladministration events and this information was not consolidated, resulting in information regarding malpractice and maladministration appearing inconsistent and unreliable.”

One register noted 13 malpractice or maladministration entries, another listed 49, and a third listed 23. Ofqual concluded there were 64 entries not appearing consistently across the three documents.

OTHM told investigators it would only notify Ofqual of an event if it decided to investigate and would not do so where it believed any “adverse effect” had already been mitigated.

But Ofqual found OTHM’s definition of an adverse effect was narrower than its own stipulated in the conditions of recognition.

‘Deficient’ quality assurance

Awarding bodies must also abide by the centre assessment standards scrutiny (CASS) strategy to evaluate centre marking.

Ofqual found a lack of “adequate” centre monitoring and “deficient” quality assurance activities.

Investigators separately reviewed 251 quality assurance reports covering nearly 400 certifications and found nearly half of reports showed an under sampling of learners’ work per qualification.

The notice said: “By failing to comply with its CASS strategy, OTHM denied itself this opportunity and thereby failed to take all reasonable steps to detect and prevent malpractice as well as failing to comply with its CASS strategy.”

OTHM has since updated its centre monitoring processes and CASS strategy.

OTHM was contacted for comment.