The University of Cambridge has been fined £875,000 after automated marking failures caused tens of thousands of people to receive incorrect English language test results, including some needed for visa, immigration and university applications. Regulator Ofqual said the errors, made by the university’s awarding body Cambridge English, affected 62,794 learners whose results later had to be changed. The penalty related to the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), described as a “high-stakes” qualification which is jointly owned by the British Council, IDP IELTS, and Cambridge University Press & Assessment. IELTS boasts it is the “world’s most trusted English test”. A spokesperson for IELTS said it had apologised and offered refunds and resits to affected students. Amanda Swann, Ofqual’s executive director for delivery, said: “Tens of thousands of people took these tests with the expectation of accurate results which influence important decisions. “Those who took these tests, as well as those who used them, were let down by systemic failures over a long period and our significant fine reflects this.” The problems stemmed from flaws in the automated marking of IELTS listening and reading assessments delivered on-screen between August 2023 and September 2025, according to the regulator’s monetary penalty notice. The regulator found that two separate technical issues caused correct answers to be marked as wrong and, in some cases, incorrect answers to be marked right. One fault involved answer keys being incorrectly ordered as data passed between testing and marking systems. Another related to the handling of diacritical marks such as accents and umlauts, which under IELTS policy should have been ignored but sometimes caused correct responses to be awarded zero marks. During the affected two-year period, Cambridge English processed almost 7.8 million IELTS test instances. Of these, 93,865 were found to contain marking errors. For 63,000 tests, component or overall qualification results were different once corrections were applied. Most corrections increased learners’ scores. Ofqual said 20,602 overall band scores were revised upwards, while 1,115 were revised downwards. Nearly all corrections to overall results were by 0.5 on a final score scale of zero to 9. Two learners saw their overall score increase by a full band. Ofqual found that 2,740 corrected results led to a change in a learner’s Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) level. A total of 1,108 affected candidates had taken Secure English Language Tests (SELTs) for UK visa and immigration purposes. Cambridge English identified four cases where incorrect IELTS results affected visa eligibility decisions. However, all four learners subsequently retook the test and met the required standards. Ofqual said it had found no evidence of wider material harm arising from other organisations relying on incorrect results, although it acknowledged limitations in the available data. The penalty follows a voluntary settlement agreement reached on June 1, in which Cambridge English admitted multiple breaches of Ofqual’s conditions of recognition and agreed to pay the fine as well as the regulator’s legal costs. The £875,000 penalty was reduced because of Cambridge English’s cooperation and decision not to contest the case. Cambridge English established a dedicated 24-hour support hub and has spent more than £6 million on refunds, compensation, customer support and remedial action. In total, 26,246 test takers requested and received a refund. Ofqual said Cambridge English ultimately corrected all affected results. A spokesperson for IELTS said: “We apologise to those affected, and we take responsibility for the error that resulted in some people receiving incorrect results. “Once this issue was identified, we acted to rectify it, correcting results and supporting people. We offered refunds or resits to everyone affected. We addressed additional support requests, including for 19 individuals who contacted us regarding potentially missed opportunities. We worked directly with recognising organisations and relevant authorities to help mitigate any harm. “We have conducted a thorough review of what happened and have implemented additional operational controls and safeguards to prevent a recurrence.”