Notice

Notice of Intention to Accept a Settlement Proposal: ProQual

Published 7 August 2025

Applies to England

Executive Summary

1. 1. ProQual was recognised as an awarding body by Ofqual on 13 April 2011. Owner A and Owner B were the only 2 shareholders and directors of ProQual from its incorporation on 10 December 2010 until August 2023, when Director C became the third director of the company.

2. 2. On or around 23 November 2021, Ofqual received concerns about ProQual’s compliance with Ofqual’s General Conditions of Recognition (“GCR”).  Those concerns prompted an Ofqual investigation into ProQual’s compliance with the General Conditions of Recognition (GCR). On 3 February 2022, Ofqual wrote to ProQual confirming that it was imposing an Entry and Inspection Condition. Ofqual subsequently undertook an investigation into ProQual’s compliance with the GCR, based on the concerns raised. A Regulatory Compliance Manager at Ofqual prepared an Investigation Report dated 21 November 2022 (“the Investigation Report”).

3. 3. The Investigation Report identified a number of alleged failures to comply with the GCR.  These included an alleged failure by ProQual to apply its Centre Approval Criteria when onboarding new centres; an alleged failure to undertake appropriate monitoring for newly onboarded centres, an alleged failure to adhere to its own conflict of interest policy, an alleged failure to have in place an appropriate Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny (CASS) policy, and alleged failures to remedy errors identified during EQA and IQA.  Some of these alleged failures occurred in relation to high-risk licence to practice qualifications, including the L1 Health and Safety in a construction environment qualification, in circumstances where other bodies use the achievement of that qualification as one measure (amongst others) of competence that enable the holder to access certain work environments.

4. 4. ProQual has since provided assurances to Ofqual that its Centre Approval and Centre Monitoring Processes were followed in relation to the majority, but not all, of the issues identified in the Investigation Report. Where errors were identified during EQA and IQA activity, those errors were largely remedied and ProQual has provided assurances that following further review, no Learners were awarded certificates in circumstances where their Learner portfolios were inadequate or incomplete.

5. 5. However, ProQual has admitted that in some instances, it did not document the factors that it took into account when risk assessing the suitability of new centres, the steps that it took to ensure that centre monitoring was appropriate or the actions that it took to complete centre monitoring or remedial work following EQA and IQA activity. On the occasions that ProQual did document such actions, those documents were often stored in such a way that they were not readily accessible to ProQual.

6. 6. ProQual acknowledges that accurate record keeping is an important part of the effective and efficient running of its business. In the absence of accurate records ProQual was, on a number of occasions, unable to evidence how it had assured itself that centres were capable of delivering qualifications effectively and efficiently. When concerns were raised with individual Learner portfolios, ProQual responded to ensure that those issues were remedied. But the absence of record keeping meant that ProQual was unable to promptly demonstrate how and why the certificates it subsequently awarded were validly awarded. It is important that qualifications awarded by awarding organisations can withstand scrutiny and the failures seen in this case pose a risk to public confidence in qualifications.

7. 7. ProQual therefore admits that even though these are largely record keeping failures, they still represent a serious failure to “ensure that it had the capacity to undertake the development, delivery and award of qualifications which it made available, or proposed to make available, in a way that complied with its Conditions of Recognition, and that by failing to keep appropriate records, it failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that it undertook the development, delivery and award of those qualifications efficiently”, contrary to Condition A5 of the GCR.

8. 8. ProQual has accepted that where it failed to record the steps taken to complete malpractice investigations, that also amounted to a failure to comply with its own malpractice policy, contrary to Condition A8 of the GCR.

9. 9. ProQual has separately admitted that it failed to identify and record a number of conflicts of interest that existed in relation to its business. Those conflicts generally arise from ProQual’s relationship with a third party, Yorkshire Skills Academy (‘YSA’), a company owned and directed by Owner A and Owner B, and which shares office space and a number of mutual employees with ProQual.

10. 10. On the most basic level, a potential conflict of interest existed because it would be difficult for ProQual to undertake appropriate External Quality Assurance (EQA) of YSA’s activities given the mutual ownership, staff and office space. At the very least, the lack of an arm’s length relationship meant that a reasonable and well-informed observer would perceive that ProQual’s EQA verifier (EQAV) would be reluctant or unable to critique the work of a close colleague who completed Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) activity on behalf of YSA.

11. 11. That risk of conflict was exacerbated by the fact that YSA provided qualifications to ProQual employees and their families. This meant a ProQual EQAV may be in the position of critiquing the work of an IQAV who was also a ProQual/YSA colleague, but in relation to a Learner who was also themselves a ProQual/YSA colleague.

12. 12. Condition A4 of the GCR required ProQual to identify those potential conflicts of interest and take appropriate steps to mitigate any potential Adverse Effects. Given that it did not recognise and record the risk of conflict, it follows that appropriate mitigation was not adopted.

13. 13. The failure to identify the conflict of interest and mitigate its effects created a particularly high risk in cases where ProQual had exercised its discretion to approve 2 centres that did not meet ProQual’s eligibility criteria by virtue of not having suitably qualified staff in place to undertake assessment or IQA activities.

14. 14. To mitigate the risks posed by the lack of appropriately qualified staff at the newly onboarded centres, ProQual arranged for YSA to provide an outsourced IQA service until such time as Centre staff were suitably qualified. That is to say that YSA would provide one of its own appropriately qualified IQA verifiers on a locum or supervisory basis to the newly onboarded centre until such time as an individual at the newly onboarded centre had attained an appropriate qualification, which was also to be delivered by YSA. ProQual says that it does advise newly onboarded centres to locate their own assessor, IQA or training provider and, only if this cannot be done, does YSA then provide assistance.

15. 15. Such an arrangement may ordinarily have been acceptable, but for the reasons given above, a potential conflict of interest arose because there was a risk that ProQual would not be as robust in reviewing and monitoring the IQA at the newly onboarded centre, given that the IQA was being undertaken by YSA. At the very least, a reasonable and well-informed observer may perceive that to be the case.

16. 16. In the absence of appropriate record keeping, it appeared to Ofqual at the time of the Investigation that a referral to YSA was the sole step that ProQual had taken to mitigate the potential Adverse Effects arising from its decision to approve a centre that did not appear to meet its Centre Approval Criteria. Such a step would, in isolation, be wholly insufficient given the potential conflict of interest that Ofqual had identified. ProQual has subsequently satisfied Ofqual that it did take additional steps to mitigate the relevant risks, but this highlights the importance of accurate record keeping throughout the centre approval and centre monitoring processes.

17. 17. As a result of the above ProQual has admitted breaches of A4, A5, A8 and H2 of the GCR.

18. 18. In addition to admitting the breaches and agreeing to pay the monetary penalty set out below, ProQual has explained that it has already undertaken an internal review to improve its risk management and record keeping processes to avoid repetition of the admitted breaches. Nonetheless, ProQual has additionally agreed to commission an independent audit at its own expense to provide independent assurance that ProQual’s processes and record keeping have improved since the date of the Investigation Report. The independent audit will review a broad sample of ProQual’s activity to consider whether, in relation to that sample:

    1. a. ProQual’s approved centres meet ProQual’s centre approval criteria,

    2. b. Where ProQual has exercised its discretion to approve centres that do not have appropriate Assessors or IQA verifiers in place, that appropriate action plans are agreed and adhered to, to ensure that relevant qualifications are obtained and the centre approval periodically reviewed as appropriate,

    3. c. ProQual has an accurate register of all conflicts of interest that apply to it,

    4. d. ProQual has put in place suitable measures to ensure that any conflicts are appropriately monitored, and any Adverse Effects avoided and/or mitigated,

    5. e. ProQual has taken appropriate steps to respond to any issues identified on Learner portfolios during IQA or EQA activity,

    6. f. ProQual has undertaken appropriate investigations where malpractice or maladministration is suspected,

    7. g. ProQual has complied with its Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny (CASS) strategy where assessments are marked by centres,

    8. h. ProQual has adequately documented any steps taken in furtherance of (a) to (f)

19. 19. On the basis of ProQual’s admissions set out above, Ofqual intends to impose a financial penalty of £15,000 and to accept an Undertaking from ProQual to commission and submit an independent audit to Ofqual covering those points at paragraph 18 above.

Overview

1. 1. The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (“Ofqual”) gives notice that it intends to accept a Settlement Proposal from ProQual AB Limited (“ProQual”) in terms that ProQual:

   1. a. admits the breaches set out at paragraph 2 of this Notice

   2. b. agrees to pay the Monetary Penalty of £15,000

2. 2. This Notice relates to breaches of ProQual’s Conditions of Recognition which occurred between 2018 and 2022. Ofqual considers, and ProQual accepts, that ProQual has breached the General Conditions of Recognition (“GCR”) in the following ways:

Allegation 1

1. 1.1 ProQual failed to follow its own Centre Approval Process when approving Centre A and Centre B in that:

   1. a. It did not document the factors that it took into account when exercising its discretion to approve Centre A and Centre B notwithstanding that neither appeared to meet ProQual’s Centre Approval Criteria.

   2. b. As a consequence of the failure at allegation 1(a), ProQual was unable to justify the level of centre monitoring that it applied to what ought otherwise to have been considered a higher risk centre.

2. 1.2. In doing so, ProQual failed to:

   1. a. take all reasonable steps to ensure that it undertook the efficient development, delivery and award of one or more qualifications that it offered through Centre A and Centre B, contrary to Condition A5.1, in particular because:

      1. i. ProQual did not establish and maintain arrangements for the retention of data which would ensure that adequate information was available to it all times (A5.2(b))

      2. ii. ProQual did not establish and maintain appropriate systems of planning and internal control (A5.2(e))

Allegation 2

1. 2.1. ProQual did not follow its own centre monitoring processes in relation to Centres A, B, D, E and F:

   1. a. it did not document and/or have readily available to it sufficient documents to evidence the steps that it had taken to assure itself that Learner portfolios were compliant with ProQual’s Centre Handbook, sometimes in circumstances where an EQA assessor had highlighted those inconsistencies and recommended remedial action; and/or

   2. b. it did not document and/or have readily available to it sufficient documents to evidence the steps that it had taken to assure itself that the result of an assessment was an accurate reflection of the level of attainment demonstrated by the Learner in that assessment, sometimes in circumstances where an EQA assessor had highlighted those inconsistencies and recommended remedial action; and/or

   3. c. it did not document and/or have readily available to it sufficient documents to evidence the steps that it had taken to assure itself that malpractice had not occurred, in circumstances where concerns had been raised during IQA or EQA, and/or

   4. d. it did not document and/or have readily available to it sufficient documents to evidence the remedial action taken in response to one or more EQA recommendations.

2. 2.2. In doing so, ProQual failed to:

   1. a. take all reasonable steps to ensure that it undertook the efficient development, delivery and award of one or more qualifications that it offered through multiple Centres, contrary to Condition A5.1, in particular because:

      1. i. ProQual did not establish and maintain arrangements for the retention of data which would ensure that adequate information was available to it all times (A5.2(b))

      2. ii. ProQual did not establish and maintain appropriate systems of planning and internal control (A5(e))

   2. b. At all times comply with its written process for the investigation of suspected or alleged malpractice or maladministration, contrary to Condition A8.3

Allegation 3

1. 3.1. ProQual failed to identify and monitor a number of Conflicts of Interest which related to it, in particular:

   1. a. On one or more occasions it permitted ProQual staff to undertake IQA activities on behalf of Centre C, a ProQual Approved Centre owned by ProQual’s shareholders, in circumstances where some or all of those IQA activities may in turn be subject to EQA review by ProQual

   2. b. It offered the services described at 5a and/or allowed Centre C to offer the services described at 5a to Centres who had not met ProQual’s eligibility criteria by virtue of not having sufficiently qualified Assessors and/or IQA verifiers

   3. c. The arrangement described at 5a and/or 5b had the potential to influence, ProQual’s independence when making centre approval decisions,

   4. d. On one or more occasion, it permitted ProQual staff to undertake EQA visits to Centres in circumstances where those ProQual staff had completed IQA activity on one or more assessments during the period covered by that EQA visit

   5. e. On up to 18 occasions between July 2019 and July 2021, Centre C delivered assessments to Learners in circumstances where:

      1. i. The Learners were employed by ProQual

      2. ii. The Learners were former employees of ProQual

      3. iii. The Learners were employed by a company that shared common owners and/or premises with Centre C and/or ProQual

   6. f. Centre C delivered one or more assessments to Learner A in circumstances where:

      1. i. IQA was completed by Centre C’s employee Person G

      2. ii. Learner A was related to Person G

      3. iii. ProQual had not taken all reasonable steps to prevent those parts of the assessment from being completed by Person G, contrary to Condition A4.5 of the General Conditions of Recognition

      4. iv. ProQual had not and did not make arrangements for those parts of the assessment to be scrutinised by another person, contrary to Condition A4.6 of the General Conditions of Recognition

      5. g. Prior to February 2022, it did not record one or more of the actual or potential conflicts of interest described at allegations 5(a) to (f) in its conflicts of interest register.

2. 3.2. In doing so, ProQual failed to:

   1. a. identify and/or monitor one or more actual or potential conflicts of interest, contrary to Condition A4.1 and/or A4.2 of the General Conditions of Recognition.

   2. b. take all reasonable steps to ensure that one or more of those conflicts did not result in an Adverse Effect and/or that where an Adverse Effect did occur, that you took all reasonable steps to mitigate the Adverse Effect as far as possible and correct it, contrary to Condition 4.3 and/or 4.4 of the General Conditions of Recognition.

   3. c. comply with its written conflict of interest policy, contrary to Condition A4.7 of the General Conditions of Recognition.

Allegation 4

1. 4.1. ProQual’s CASS strategy did not meet the requirements of Conditions H2.6(b) and H2.7 of the General Conditions of Recognition. Thereafter, ProQual did not comply with its own CASS strategy in that:

   1. a. Between January 2020 and September 2022, ProQual did not complete the requisite amount of Moderation sampling events for each Centre

   2. b. Between January 2020 and September 2022, ProQual did not complete the requisite amount of formal Moderation events for each Centre in relation to each qualification

   3. c. For one or more of the Moderation reports completed during that period, those Moderation reports was not completed in compliance with ProQual’s CASS Strategy for one or more of the following reasons:

      1. i. All Moderation was completed remotely

      2. ii. Moderators did not observe Centres delivering assessments

      3. iii. Moderation was completed after certificates had been awarded in relation to one or more of the assessments subject to Moderation

      4. iv. Moderators did not review assessment decisions

2. 4.2. In doing so, ProQual failed to comply with:

   1. a. Condition H2.4 in that it was unable effectively to determine whether or not the criteria against which the Learners’ performance was differentiated was being applied accurately and consistently by Assessors in different Centres, regardless of the identity of the Assessor, Learner, or Centre

   2. b. Condition H2.5 in that it was unable to make any necessary changes to a Centre’s marking of evidence prior to certification

   3. c. Condition H2.8 in that it did not comply with ProQual’s own CASS Strategy

Allegation 1 – Centre Approval

1. 1.1. ProQual failed to follow its own Centre Approval Process when approving Centre A and Centre B in that:

   1. a. It did not document the factors that it took into account when exercising its discretion to approve Centre A and Centre B notwithstanding that neither appeared to meet ProQual’s Centre Approval Criteria.

   2. b. As a consequence of the failure at allegation 1(a), ProQual was unable to justify the level of centre monitoring that it applied to what ought otherwise to have been considered a higher risk centre.

2. 1.2. In doing so, ProQual failed to:

   1. a. take all reasonable steps to ensure that it undertook the efficient development, delivery and award of one or more qualifications that it offered through Centre A and Centre B contrary to Condition A5.1, in particular because:

      1. i. ProQual did not establish and maintain arrangements for the retention of data which would ensure that adequate information was available to it all times (A5.2(b))

      2. ii. ProQual did not establish and maintain appropriate systems of planning and internal control (A5.2(e))

ProQual’s Centre Approval Process

1. 3. Section 2 of ProQual’s Centre Handbook (“the ProQual Handbook”) details the process by which a prospective centre can become a ProQual Approved Centre.

2. 4. According to the ProQual Handbook, prospective centres undergo a rigorous approval process before they are able to deliver ProQual qualifications.  Approved Centres will need to demonstrate that they meet the approval criteria detailed in Appendix 1 to the ProQual Handbook (“Centre Approval Criteria”)

3. 5. On receipt of an application ProQual will appoint an EQA Verifier (EQAV) to carry out a centre approval visit.  The EQAV will produce a report on each centre visit that:

   1. a) Makes a recommendation with regard to the delivery and assessment of a specific qualification or group of qualifications

   2. b) Identifies any issues arising out of the visit

   3. c) Sets out an agreed action plan

4. 6. The EQAV report is fed back to ProQual’s Governing Body for monitoring to ensure that the Centre Approval Criteria “continue to be met” (Page 6 of the ProQual Handbook).

5. 7. Following centre approval, a copy of the Centre Approval Form is sent to the Centre and this “forms the contract between ProQual and the Centre for the delivery of ProQual qualifications” (Page 7 of the ProQual Handbook).

6. 8. The Centre Approval Criteria includes, amongst other things:

   1. i. The centre’s aim and policies in relation to qualifications are supported by senior management and understood by the assessment team (Criterion 1.1.1)

   2. ii. The centre’s access and fair assessment policy and practice is understood and complied with by candidates and assessors (Criterion 1.1.2)

   3. iii. The centre must be recognised by the learner registration service to apply for ULNs (Criterion 1.1.3)

   4. iv. The roles, responsibilities, authorities and accountabilities of the assessment and verification team across all assessment sites are clearly defined, allocated and understood (Criterion 1.1.4)

   5. v. Internal quality assurance verification/standardisation procedures and activities are clearly documented, consistent with national requirements and ensure the quality and consistency of assessment (Criterion 1.1.5)

   6. vi. There are sufficient competent and qualified assessors and IQA verifiers to meet the demand for assessment and verification activity (1.2.3)

   7. vii. Assessment is conducted by qualified and occupationally competent staff (2.2.4)

   8. viii. Internal quality assurance verification is conducted by appropriately qualified and experienced staff (2.2.6)

Approval of Centre as a ProQual Approved Centre 

1. 9. On or around 29 July 2019, ProQual held a meeting with Centre A to discuss the potential development of a new qualification in emergency response driving and to provide Centre A with an overview of the requirements to become an approved centre.  On 12 August 2019, Centre A submitted its application to become an approved centre to ProQual and on 20 August 2019, ProQual conducted an approval visit in accordance with the ProQual Handbook.

2. 10. When Ofqual inspected Centre A’s Centre Approval Form, there appeared to be a significant deviation from ProQual’s Centre Approval Criteria.  In particular Centre A did not appear to have sufficient competent and qualified assessors and/or IQA verifiers to undertake assessment and/or verification activity for the assessments under consideration for approval (Criterion 1.2.3, Criterion 2.2.4 and/or Criterion 2.2.6) because:

   1. a. One or more of Centre A’s Assessors did not hold the preferred qualifications required under ProQual’s Centre Handbook

   2. b. None of Centre A’s IQA verifiers held the preferred qualifications required under ProQual’s Centre Handbook

   3. c. The Centre Approval Form did not record how the individual referred to at (a) and (b) could otherwise be considered to be suitably qualified for the specific occupational areas under consideration for approval

3. 11. During the investigation process, Ofqual queried whether ProQual had complied with the ProQual Handbook when approving Centre A. ProQual has since admitted that it had exercised discretion to approve Centre A in circumstances where neither the IQA nor Assessor held the preferred qualifications as referred to in the Centre Approval Criteria. ProQual asserted that its Handbook permitted ProQual to exercise discretion where Assessors or IQAVs did not hold the preferred qualification. In this case Centre A met the requirements to become an approved centre because even though they did not hold the preferred qualification, the proposed assessment team’s CVs, certificates in education, training, and assessment, additional qualifications, and CPD records demonstrated the necessary occupational competence. This was further supported by Centre A’s agreement that three team members would attend a CPD day with Yorkshire Skills Academy to confirm their ability to assess and quality assure the new vocational qualification.

4. 12. ProQual acknowledges that it did not adequately document the factors considered when exercising its discretion to approve Centre A, despite Centre A not fully meeting the Centre Approval Criteria.  ProQual understands that, when reviewing the approval document in isolation, Centre A appeared to fall short of the requirements to become an Approved Centre.

5. 13. ProQual further accepts that, having exercised its discretion to approve Centre A in circumstances where it did not otherwise meet the Centre Approval Criteria, Centre A presented an increased risk to ProQual’s ability to comply with its Conditions of Recognition and a significant risk to public confidence in qualifications.  ProQual was obliged to take all reasonable steps to manage and mitigate any Adverse Effects arising from that decision (Condition A6 and A7).  Ofqual would expect to see a range of steps that may include, for example:

   1. a. Recognition that the centre posed a higher risk, possibly by recording it on ProQual’s risk register

   2. b. Additional EQA visits

   3. c. Increased monitoring or support

   4. d. A clear action plan signed by both parties

   5. e. A contingency plan that addressed the possibility that individuals at the Centre may be unable to gain appropriate IQAV or Assessor qualifications

6. 14. ProQual asserts that it had recognised that Centre A presented an increased risk and took steps to manage and mitigate any potential Adverse Effects by adopting broadly those measures, in particular it arranged for individuals to complete suitable training and monitored the centre closely until that training was complete. ProQual says that Centre A was also identified as high risk, due to the development of new qualifications in a sector that was new to ProQual. It was approved on “Awaiting QA Verification” status meaning that it would only receive certificates following a successful EQAV visit. When it did undertake its first EQAV visit on 8 March 2020, it highlighted a number of concerns around portfolio building, missing evidence and the absence of any IQA by the Centre. An extensive action plan was created to address issues such as observation report templates and evidence matrix templates, and to support the remedial work.

7. 15. However, the fact that Centre A was considered high risk, the remedial steps taken as a result and the fact of the increased monitoring were not adequately documented.  On the occasions when those factors were documented, those records were not retained in such a way that ProQual could produce or refer to them until very late in the investigatory process.  This meant that at the time of Ofqual’s investigation, Centre A presented as a high-risk centre, with limited mitigations in place to address those risks.  That lack of record keeping and reliance on the memory of individuals, also meant that there was a significant risk that those risks and necessary remedial steps may not have been known to and adhered to by all of those within ProQual.

8. 16. In relation to both the decision to exercise discretion to approve Centre A, and the subsequent monitoring of Centre A, Ofqual accepts the explanation that relevant checks were completed but not documented adequately or at all.  ProQual accepts that it did not retain sufficient records to ensure that adequate data was available to it at all times, and that although it had established processes for effective risk management, in this respect it did not follow those processes.  In doing so ProQual accepts that it failed to ensure the effective development and delivery of qualifications contrary to Condition A5.

Centre B

1. 17. In December 2017, the Managing Director of Centre B contacted ProQual to discuss a potential new qualification development in Close Protection (Security Sector), which was endorsed by the EU Commission.

2. 18. In January 2018, a meeting was arranged between Owner B, Director of Qualifications at ProQual, Person I and the Managing Director of Centre B, Person A , in order to discuss the development of the new qualification. ProQual provided Centre B with an application form to become an approved centre.

3. 19. Over the course of January and February 2018, ProQual’s Owner B and Person I visited the Centre B’s site on more than one occasion in order to understand how it was delivering its training, what resources it had in place and to complete the approval visit and approval form.  Centre B was approved as a ProQual Approved Centre on or around 15 February 2018.

4. 20. When Ofqual inspected Centre B’s Centre Approval Form, there appeared to be a significant deviation from ProQual’s Centre Approval Criteria.  In particular because

   1. a. Centre B did not have in place one or more of the following policies to satisfy Criterion 1.1.1 and 1.1.2:

      1. i. Health and Safety Policy

      2. ii. Fair Assessment Policy

      3. iii. Equality/Diversity Policy

      4. iv. Candidate Appeals Policy

      5. v. Malpractice Policy

      6. vi. Safeguarding Policy

      7. vii. Customer Service Policy/Statement

      8. viii. Data Protection Policy

      9. ix. Complaints Procedure

   2. b. Centre B was not registered with the Learner Records Service to allow it to apply for Unique Learner Numbers (Criterion 1.1.3)

   3. c. Centre B did not have an IQA sampling strategy for all relevant qualifications (Criterion 1.1.5)

   4. d. Centre B was unable to demonstrate that the roles, responsibilities, authorities and accountabilities of the assessment and verification team across all assessment sites were clearly defined, allocated and understood (Criterion 1.1.4) because Centre B:

      1. i. Did not have in place documented quality assurance procedures

      2. ii. Had not yet developed a clear and substantive organisation chart

   5. e. Centre B did not have sufficient competent and qualified assessors and/or IQA verifiers to undertake assessment and/or verification activity for the assessments under consideration for approval (Criterion 1.2.3, Criterion 2.2.4 and/or Criterion 2.2.6) in that:

      1. i. Centre B employed the same individual as sole Assessor and sole IQA verifier

      2. ii. The individual referred to at 20(e)(i) did not hold the preferred qualifications referred to in ProQual’s Centre Handbook [See P5 PCH]

      3. iii. Centre B did not hold CVs for the Assessor and IQA verifier referred to at 20(e)(i)

      4. iv. The Centre Approval Form does not record how the individual referred to at 20(e)(i) could otherwise be considered to be suitably qualified for the specific occupational areas under consideration [P5 PCH]

5. 21. During the investigation process Ofqual queried whether ProQual had complied with the ProQual Handbook when approving Centre B. ProQual has since asserted that, as with Centre A, it had exercised discretion to approve Centre B in circumstances where neither the IQA nor Assessor held the preferred qualifications as referred to in the Centre Approval Criteria. ProQual acknowledged that Centre B did not yet have all necessary policies and processes in place.

6. 22. ProQual accepts that it did not adequately document the factors considered when exercising its discretion to approve Centre B. ProQual understands that, when reviewing the approval document in isolation, Centre B appeared to fall short of the requirements to become an Approved Centre (although ProQual say that this this was not the case).

7. 23. ProQual further accepts that, having exercised its discretion to approve Centre B in circumstances where it did not otherwise meet the Centre Approval Criteria,  Centre B presented an increased risk to ProQual’s ability to with its Conditions of Recognition and a significant risk to public confidence in qualifications.  ProQual was obliged to take all reasonable steps to manage and mitigate any Adverse Effects arising from that decision (Condition A6 and A7).  Ofqual would expect to see a range of steps that may include, for example:

   1. a. Recognition that the centre posed a higher risk, possibly by recording it on ProQual’s risk register

   2. b. Additional EQA visits

   3. c. Increased monitoring or support

   4. d. A clear action plan signed by both parties, with dates for regular review

   5. e. A contingency plan that addressed the possibility that individuals at the Centre may be unable to gain appropriate IQAV or Assessor qualifications

8. 24. ProQual asserts that it had recognised that Centre B presented an increased risk and took steps to manage and mitigate any potential Adverse Effects by adopting broadly those measures.  It is ProQual’s case that it had further identified Centre Bas a high-risk centre because it was proposing to develop a new qualification in a new sector.   As a consequence, it arranged for individuals to complete suitable training and they monitored the centre closely until that training was complete and any missing policies put in place.

9. 25. However, the fact that Centre B was considered a high-risk centre until that activity was complete, the remedial steps taken as a result and the fact of the increased monitoring were not adequately documented. When those factors were documented, those records were not retained in such a way that ProQual could produce or refer to them until very late in the investigatory process. This meant that at the time of Ofqual’s inspection, Centre B presented as a high-risk centre, with limited mitigations in place to address those risks. That lack of record keeping also meant that there was a significant risk that those risks and necessary remedial steps may not have been known to and adhered to by all of those within ProQual.

10. 26. In relation to both the decision to exercise discretion to approve Centre B and the subsequent monitoring of Centre B, Ofqual accepts the explanation that relevant checks were completed but not documented adequately or at all. ProQual accepts that it did not retain sufficient records to ensure that adequate data was available to it all times and that having established processes for effective risk management, in this respect it did not follow those processes. In doing so ProQual accepts that it failed to ensure the effective development and delivery of qualifications contrary to Condition A5.

Allegation 2 – Centre Monitoring

1. 2.1. ProQual did not follow its own centre monitoring processes in relation to Centres A, B, D, E and F:

   1. c. it did not document and/or have readily available to it sufficient documents to evidence the steps that it had taken to assure itself that Learner portfolios were compliant with ProQual’s Centre Handbook, sometimes in circumstances where an EQA assessor had highlighted those inconsistencies and recommended remedial action; and/or

   2. d. it did not document and/or have readily available to it sufficient documents to evidence the steps that it had taken to assure itself that the result of an assessment was an accurate reflection of the level of attainment demonstrated by the Learner in that assessment, sometimes in circumstances where an EQA assessor had highlighted those inconsistencies and recommended remedial action; and/or

   3. e. it did not document and/or have readily available to it sufficient documents to evidence the steps that it had taken to assure itself that malpractice had not occurred, in circumstances where concerns had been raised during IQA or EQA, and/or

   4. f. it did not document and/or have readily available to it sufficient documents to evidence the remedial action taken in response to one or more EQA recommendations

2. 2.2. In doing so, ProQual failed to:

   1. a. take all reasonable steps to ensure that it undertook the efficient development, delivery and award of one or more qualifications that it offered through multiple Centres, contrary to Condition A5.1, in particular because:

      1. i. ProQual did not establish and maintain arrangements for the retention of data which would ensure that adequate information was available to it all times (A5.2(b))

      2. ii. ProQual did not establish and maintain appropriate systems of planning and internal control (A5(e))

   2. b. At all times comply with its written process for the investigation of suspected or alleged malpractice or maladministration, contrary to Condition A8.3

Allegation 2 – Conditions A5, A6, A7 and A8

1. 27. The Investigation Report highlights a number of instances where EQAVs and IQAVs identified issues with Learner portfolios, or reported suspicions of malpractice.

2. 28. When dealing with such issues, Conditions A6, A7 and A8 require AOs to:

   1. a. Take all reasonable steps to identify the risk of the occurrence of an incident that may have an Adverse Effect, and prevent the incident from occurring, or where that isn’t possible, reduce the risk of that incident occurring as far as possible. Where it was not possible to prevent the incident from occurring, the AO must seek to avoid or mitigate and resulting Adverse Effect as far as possible (A6)

   2. b. Where any such incident did occur, regardless of whether it had previously identified a risk of that incident occurring, to take all reasonable steps to prevent the Adverse Effect or where that was not possible, to mitigate or correct it as far as possible (Condition A7)

   3. c. So far as possible establish whether or not the malpractice it suspected or which was alleged had occurred (Condition A8.2(a));

   4. d. Ensure that its investigation was carried out rigorously, effectively and by persons of appropriate competence who have no personal interest in the outcome (Condition A8.3(b)).

3. 29. To achieve that, it is important that AOs have effective policies in place to enable it to comply with its Conditions of Recognition.  An AO is required to:

   1. a. Ensure that it has the capacity to undertake the development, delivery and award of qualifications which it makes available, or proposes to make available, in a way that complies with its Conditions of Recognition (Condition A5.1(a)).

   2. b. For the purposes of Condition A5.1, this meant ProQual having in place “arrangements for the retention of data which will ensure that adequate information is available to it all times (Condition A5.2(b))” and “appropriate systems of planning and internal control (Condition A5.2(e))”.

Centre A

1. 30. The evidence available to Ofqual during the Investigation suggested that ProQual did not complete an EQA visit to Centre A until around November 2020, some 15 months after the Centre had been approved.   ProQual has since provided assurances that QA activity did take place during the intervening period, specifically an EQAV visit dated March 2020, albeit the outcome of that visit was not properly documented (see para 16 above).  As a consequence, ProQual admits that it did not properly document or retain documents to evidence the level of monitoring and that in all of the circumstances, this amounted to a breach of Condition A5.

2. 31. Notwithstanding this, the EQA visit in November 2020 had highlighted concerns that:

   1. a. internal verification activity had not taken place on the two learner portfolios sampled

   2. b. Centre A had not followed the agreed process to obtain internal verification sign off from an individual employed by YSA

   3. c. There remained a lack of sufficiently competent assessors and internal verifiers as per the concerns at allegation 1

3. 32. In those circumstances Ofqual would have expected ProQual to take all reasonable steps to identify the risk of the occurrence of any incident which could have an Adverse Effect (Condition A6), to take all reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of an Adverse Effect as a result of what appeared to be significant issues (Condition A7), and/or to undertake an appropriate investigation to establish whether malpractice or maladministration had occurred (Condition A8).

4. 33. In relation to the two Learners where IQA activity appeared to be missing, appropriate action was taken to ensure that the IQA activity had been completed and the portfolios were compliant prior to certification.  However, ProQual admits that those actions were not properly documented and available to ProQual during the course of Ofqual’s investigation.  As a consequence, ProQual admits that it did not properly document or retain documents to evidence its remedial action and that in all of the circumstances, this amounted to a breach of Condition A5

Centre B

1. 34. The evidence available to Ofqual during the Investigation suggested that ProQual had not completed  an EQA visit to Centre B until on or around 16 April 2020, which was more than two years after Centre B had first been approved as a ProQual Approved Centre. ProQual has since provided assurances that QA activity did take place during the intervening period, albeit it was not properly documented (see para 26 above).

2. 35. Thereafter the EQA visit on or around 16 April 2020 had indicated that:

   1. a. Assessments had been completed by Person A, who did not hold ProQual’s preferred assessment qualification

   2. b. IQA had been completed by Person B and/ or Person C who did not hold ProQual’s preferred IQA qualification

   3. c. IQA completed by Person B and/or Person C was not countersigned by an experienced IQA verifier as required under the ProQual Handbook

   4. d. Person B and/or Person C were not occupationally competent in the areas being assessed

   5. e. There remained a lack of sufficiently competent assessors and internal verifiers as per the concerns at para 20(e)(i)

   6. f. All three of the Learner Portfolios reviewed did not contain the following, contrary to the ProQual Centre Handbook [page 16]

      1. i. Candidate statement

      2. ii. Induction Form

      3. iii. Statement of Authenticity

3. 36. In those circumstances Ofqual would have expected ProQual to take all reasonable steps to identify the risk of the occurrence of any incident which could have an Adverse Effect (Condition A6), to take all reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of an Adverse Effect as a result of what appeared to be significant issues (Condition A7), and/or to undertake an appropriate investigation to establish whether malpractice or maladministration had occurred (Condition A8).

4. 37. Further, the evidence suggested that at some point prior to the Investigation, Centre B had been approved for continuous certification status.  Noting that Centre B had been approved with “Awaiting QA Verification” status, the evidence indicated that ProQual had approved a high-risk centre for Direct Claim Status in circumstances where:

   1. a. It appeared that the Centre had not yet been subject to the requisite level of EQA pursuant to ProQual’s Handbook,

   2. b. It appeared that it did not meet ProQual’s Centre Approval Criteria, and/or

   3. c. EQA visits had revealed the issues referred to at para 35 above

   4. d. It was delivering licence to practice qualifications which may be relied upon as an assurance that Learners were sufficiently qualified to operate safely and competently within a restricted environment

5. 38. If this were true, the decision to approve Centre B for Direct Claim Status would suggest that ProQual had failed to

   1. a. Ensure that it had the capacity to undertake the development, delivery and award of qualifications which it made available, or proposed to make available, in a way that complied with its Conditions of Recognition, contrary to Condition A5.1 (a)

   2. b. Take all reasonable steps to ensure that it undertook the development, delivery and award of those qualifications efficiently, contrary to Condition A5.1(b)

   3. c. Take all reasonable steps to identify the risk of the occurrence of any incident which could have an Adverse Effect, contrary to Condition A6.1(a) of the General Conditions of Recognition.

   4. d. Promptly take all reasonable steps to prevent an Adverse Effect from occurring, and, where any Adverse Effect occurred, to mitigate it as far as possible and correct it, contrary to Condition A7.1

6. 39. ProQual asserts that the summary at paras 35 to 38 is inaccurate, saying that it did undertake extensive monitoring of Centre B before the EQA visit in April 2020 in compliance with Conditions A6 and A7. However, ProQual admits that it did not properly document or retain documents to evidence the level of monitoring and that in all of the circumstances, this amounted to a breach of Condition A5.

7. 40. In relation to the three Learner portfolios with missing information, appropriate action was taken to ensure that the portfolios were remedied prior to certification in compliance with Conditions A6, A7 and A8. However, ProQual admits that those actions were not properly documented and available to ProQual during the course of this investigation.

8. 41. Prior to approving Centre B for continuous certification, Centre B was subject to a remote EQA visit on 21 May 2020. A total of eight portfolios were reviewed and verified, meeting ProQual’s requirements. By this time Centre B had its own qualified assessor and IQA and no longer needed support from ProQual or YSA. It was only after the remote EQA visit on 1 February 2021 that Centre B was recommended for continuous certification by ProQual. ProQual admits that those factors were not properly documented and available to ProQual during the course of this investigation.

9. 42. ProQual accepts that the IQAV provided to Centre B by YSA prior to February 2020 did not hold the preferred IQA qualification, but ProQual exercised its discretion to accept those individuals as IQAV noting their overall qualifications, their background experience and all the circumstances of this qualification and centre. ProQual had arranged for those individuals to provide IQAV services via YSA until such time as Centre B did have in place a suitably competent individual. ProQual does not accept that the IQAV were not occupationally competent in the areas being assessed. ProQual asserts that its decision to rely on those individuals as occupationally competent was a reasonable decision made in accordance with the ProQual Handbook. However, ProQual admits that the factors taken into account were not properly documented and available to ProQual during the course of this investigation.

10. 43. ProQual is keen to emphasise that Centre B is still approved by ProQual and ProQual is proud to have developed a new qualification in a new sector, backed by the European Parliament. ProQual and YSA invested significant time supporting Centre B through approval, qualification development, and centre performance. To date, Centre B has registered 202 candidates on the ProQual Level 6 Diploma in Hostile Environment Operations qualification, and 154 candidates have been certified.

Centre D

1. 44. The evidence available to Ofqual during the Investigation suggested that on 22 May 2019, EQAV Person D conducted a visit at Centre D. Person D rejected 7 portfolios due to concerns about the evidence not being current, valid, authentic, or sufficient. Thereafter there was no evidence of remedial action but the Learners had been certificated. If true, that suggested that ProQual had failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent an Adverse Effect pursuant to Condition A7 and/or to investigate malpractice pursuant to Condition A8.

2. 45. ProQual asserts that an extensive action plan was set, requiring Centre D to update policies, resources, the IQA sampling plan, and the IQA strategy, as well as to complete remedial work on all seven portfolios. On 24 June 2019, EQA Person D conducted a follow-up visit at Centre D He confirmed that the action plan from his previous visit had been completed.

3. 46. ProQual accepts that the evidence to support the above was not documented adequately or at all, or where it was documented, it was not readily available during the Ofqual inspection and has only been produced at a late stage in this investigation process.

Centre E

1. 47. The evidence available to Ofqual during the Investigation suggested that on 25 September 2020, Person E Quality Audit Officer at ProQual, carried out a routine spot check on QMB. The purpose of a spot check is to dip sample any stage of the assessment process to ensure the centre is meeting ProQual’s requirements. Following the spot check, Person E produced a Quality Audit Report (erroneously dated October 2020). In the Quality Audit Report, Person E raised concerns about the legitimacy of a candidate’s portfolio and potential plagiarism.

2. 48. Thereafter there was no evidence of remedial action but the Learner had been certificated. If true, that suggested that ProQual had failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent an Adverse Effect pursuant to Condition A7 and/or to investigate malpractice pursuant to Condition A8.

3. 49. ProQual assert that Person E had provided an opinion on the contents of a candidate’s portfolio, that was outside of his expertise as he was not a qualified assessor, IQAV or EQAV.  Further, the individual Learner had completed his qualification at another centre, meaning it was not properly within the scope of this spot check.  Nonetheless, on 29 September 2020, a Quality Assurance Forum was held in relation to Centre E and to discuss the way forward to ensure that portfolio evidence met the correct standards (it was mistakenly believed to be Centre E at the time). The note of the meeting confirms that a range of options were discussed to ensure that action was taken at the earliest opportunity in relation to the issues raised, so that any remedial action could be taken.

4. 50. The Quality Assurance Forum suspended continuous certification of Centre E until the issues were resolved. Person E’s findings were discussed in a management meeting and, subsequently, Owner B asked Person C (Qualified Assessor, IQA and EQA) to review the relevant portfolio, in order to not disadvantage the candidate and to confirm whether the evidence was valid, authentic, reliable, current, sufficient and that it met the threshold for certification. Person C also requested several other portfolios to sample. Person C completed his review and found sufficient evidence that the required standards were met. He made some advisory notes, which the head of the Centre agreed with. This negated the need for an investigative EQA visit and allowed certification for the candidate.

5. 51. ProQual accepts that the evidence to support the above was not documented adequately or at all, or where it was documented, it was not readily available during the Ofqual inspection and has only been produced at a late stage in this investigation process.

6. 52. ProQual accepts that it did not retain sufficient records to ensure that adequate data was available to it all times and that having established processes for effective risk management and the investigation of malpractice, in this respect it did not follow those processes. In doing so ProQual accepts that it failed to ensure the effective development and delivery of qualifications contrary to Condition A5.

7. 53. More generally, ProQual asserts that this particular centre had been subject to four EQA visits, reviewing a sample across all 80 certificate claims across June and July 2020. This was due to the volume of claims for certification made by Centre E. There was no finding of malpractice or maladministration. The portfolio reviews were wholly good and only identified minor issues in relation to the quality of portfolio evidence. Advice was given by the EQA during the visits. The visits included a review of hard copy portfolios and contacting a random selection of candidates. These EQA reports were submitted during Ofqual’s investigation.  To this end, this was not a centre that presented as high risk prior to the incidents described at paras 47-50.

Centre F

1. 54. The evidence available to Ofqual during the Investigation suggested that on 7 June 2021, a remote EQA Visit was conducted at Education Careers by EQAV Person F.)The EQAV rejected five portfolios due to insufficient evidence, missing mandatory documents and potential plagiarism.  Thereafter there was no evidence of remedial action but the Learners had been certificated.  If true, that suggested that ProQual had failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent an Adverse Effect pursuant to Condition A7 and/or to investigate malpractice pursuant to Condition A8.

2. 55. ProQual asserts that an extensive action plan was set for Centre F, which included strengthening management and assessment processes, investigating the potential plagiarism and completing necessary remedial work.  The action plan was handed over to ProQual’s Moderation Team, which managed all follow-up actions until completion.

3. 56. ProQual asserts that by July 13, 2021, all action points, including the remedial work on the portfolios and the plagiarism investigation, were completed. The investigation revealed no malpractice or maladministration; it was a genuine administrative error.

4. 57. ProQual accepts that the evidence to support the above was not documented adequately or at all, or where it was documented, it was not readily available during the Ofqual inspection and has only been produced at a late stage in this investigation process.

5. 58. As a result ProQual accepts that it did not retain sufficient records to ensure that adequate data was available to it all times and that having established processes for effective risk management and the investigation of malpractice, in this respect it did not follow those processes.  In doing so ProQual accepts that it failed to ensure the effective development and delivery of qualifications contrary to Condition A5 and by failing to document its malpractice investigation in accordance with its malpractice policy, it was in breach of Condition A8.

Allegation 3 – Conflict of Interest 

1. 3.1. ProQual failed to identify and monitor a number of Conflicts of Interest which related to it, in particular:

   1. a. On one or more occasions it permitted ProQual staff to undertake IQA activities on behalf of Yorkshire Skills Academy (“YSA”), a ProQual Approved Centre owned by ProQual’s shareholders, in circumstances where some or all of those IQA activities may in turn be subject to EQA review by ProQual

   2. b. It offered the services described at 5a and/or allowed YSA to offer the services described at 5a to Centres who had not met ProQual’s eligibility criteria by virtue of not having sufficiently qualified Assessors and/or IQA verifiers

   3. c. The arrangement described at 5a and/or 5b had the potential to influence, ProQual’s independence when making centre approval decisions,

   4. d. On one or more occasion, it permitted ProQual staff to undertake EQA visits to Centres in circumstances where those ProQual staff had completed IQA activity on one or more assessments during the period covered by that EQA visit

   5. e. On up to eighteen occasions between July 2019 and July 2021, YSA delivered assessments to Learners in circumstances where:

      1. i. The Learners were employed by ProQual

      2. ii. The Learners were former employees of ProQual

      3. iii. The Learners were employed by a company that shared common owners and/or premises with YSA and/or ProQual

   6. f. YSA delivered one or more assessments to Learner A in circumstances where:

      1. i. IQA was completed by YSA’s employee Person G

      2. ii. Learner A was related to Person G

      3. iii. ProQual had not taken all reasonable steps to prevent those parts of the assessment from being completed by Person G, contrary to Condition A4.5 of the General Conditions of Recognition

      4. iv. ProQual had not and did not make arrangements for those parts of the assessment to be scrutinised by another person, contrary to Condition A4.6 of the General Conditions of Recognition

   7. g. Prior to February 2022, it did not record one or more of the actual or potential conflicts of interest described at allegations 5(a) to (f) in its conflicts of interest register.

2. 3.2. In doing so, ProQual failed to:

   1. a. identify and/or monitor one or more actual or potential conflicts of interest, contrary to Condition A4.1 and/or A4.2 of the General Conditions of Recognition.

   2. b. take all reasonable steps to ensure that one or more of those conflicts did not result in an Adverse Effect and/or that where an Adverse Effect did occur, that you took all reasonable steps to mitigate the Adverse Effect as far as possible and correct it, contrary to Condition 4.3 and/or 4.4 of the General Conditions of Recognition.

   3. c. comply with its written conflict of interest policy, contrary to Condition A4.7 of the General Conditions of Recognition.

GCR Condition A4 – Conflicts of Interest

1. 59. Condition A4.1 requires AOs to:

2. Identify and monitor –

   1. a. Conflicts of Interest which relate to it, and

   2. b. any scenario in which it is reasonably foreseeable that any such Conflict of Interest will arise in the future.

3. 60. A conflict of interest exists in relation an awarding organisation where –

   1. a. its interests in any activity undertaken by it, on its behalf, or by a member of its Group have the potential to lead it to act contrary to its interests in the development, delivery and award of qualifications in a way that complies with its Conditions of Recognition,

   2. b. a person who is connected to the development, delivery or award of qualifications by the awarding organisation has interests in any other activity which have the potential to lead that person to act contrary to his or her interests in that development, delivery or award in a way that complies with the awarding organisation’s Conditions of Recognition, or

   3. c. an informed and reasonable observer would conclude that either of these situations was the case

4. 61. Condition A4.2 requires AOs to “establish and maintain an up to date record of all Conflicts of Interest which relate to it”.

5. 62. Ofqual’s conditions do not prohibit an AO from engaging in business where a conflict of interest exists. Instead, the AO is required to identify any actual conflicts of interest (A4.1(a)) and potential conflicts of interest (A4.1(b)). The AO must then assure itself that appropriate processes are in place to prevent an Adverse Effect occurring as a result of that conflict (A4.3). Where it is not possible to prevent an Adverse Effect from occurring, the AO is required to mitigate that Adverse Effect as far as possible and correct it (A4.4)

6. 63. An Adverse Effect is defined in the GCR as:

7. An act, omission, event, incident or circumstances has an Adverse Effect if it – 

   1. a. Gives risk to prejudice to Learner’s or potential Learners, or

   2. b. Adversely affects –

      1. i. The ability of the awarding organisation to undertake the development, delivery or award of qualifications in a way that complies with its Conditions of Recognition,

      2. ii. The standards of qualifications which the awarding organisation makes available or proposes to make available, or

      3. iii. Public confidence in qualifications

8. 64. The fact of the conflict or potential conflict should be recorded in an appropriate register (A4.2) and while not required under the conditions, it is common for AOs to include within the register a summary of any steps taken to mitigate the risks associated with that conflict.

9. 65. In response to Ofqual’s request for a copy of Ofqual’s conflict of interest log for 2019, 2020 and 2021, ProQual responded on 14 February 2022 to say “ProQual has no (sic) identified conflicts of interest for the Directors or staff and therefore has no log”

10. 66. The absence of a ‘log’ of conflicts and/or potential conflicts is not in breach of the GCR if there were no actual or potential conflicts that applied to ProQual’s operation.  For the reasons set out below, Ofqual asserts and ProQual admits that one or more conflicts did arise and were not appropriately identified, monitored and/or recorded.

ProQual and Yorkshire Skills Academy

1. 67. YSA is a ProQual approved Centre. YSA was incorporated on 6 April 2011 and is owned and directed by Owner Aand Owner B. It therefore shares common ownership and control with ProQual.  YSA shares a business premises with ProQual and a number of employed individuals perform duties on behalf of both ProQual and YSA.

2. 68. YSA has been used by ProQual to support emerging centres in new sectors with bespoke/unique developed qualifications, particularly when these centres lack the necessary qualified assessment staff and cannot source alternative training providers. YSA does this in three ways; first it delivers Assessor, IQA and EQA training and assessments to individuals so that they now hold the preferred Assessor or QA qualification referred to in the ProQual Centre Approval Criteria. Second, they provide IQA services to other ProQual Approved Centres, to assist them with IQA activity while they build their own capacity and expertise. Third, they provide ongoing ad hoc assessments to ProQual staff and individuals from other ProQual Approved Centres by way of CPD.

IQA/EQA Conflicts

1. 69. The absence of an arms-length arrangement between ProQual and YSA gives rise to a potential conflict for a number of reasons, primarily stemming from ProQual’s obligation to monitor and quality assure the performance of all of its Approved Centres, of which YSA was one.

2. 70. For example, when delivering qualifications via YSA, there was a possibility that a member of YSA staff would be required to undertake IQA on behalf of YSA.  That IQA activity may at some point be subject to EQA activity by ProQual.  A risk of conflict arises in those circumstances because the person undertaking EQA for ProQual may be less inclined to offer robust criticism of YSA’s IQA activity as a result of the common ownership and working proximity between ProQual and YSA.  At the very least, an informed and reasonable observer may have perceived that to be the case.

3. 71. By way of illustration, Person B was employed by ProQual and engaged directly by YSA as an IQAV to provide IQA services for a range of ProQual Level 2 qualifications. The EQA form seen by Ofqual specifically asked whether the EQAV (Person H on behalf of ProQual) agreed with the decision of the IQAV (i.e. Person B on behalf of YSA).  In that scenario there was a significant risk that Person H may be reluctant to criticise the decision of Person B because Person B was a colleague of Person H at ProQual and they were based in the same office.  Ofqual is keen to emphasise that it raises no criticism of Person B’s actual IQA analysis or Person H’s EQA analysis in this instance, but at the very least, a risk of conflict existed and that risk was not identified and managed.

4. 72. Similarly, where YSA was responsible for providing IQA services to other ProQual Approved Centres until such time as they had their own qualified Assessors or IQAV, there was a possibility that YSA’s outsourced IQA services would be subject to EQA by ProQual.

5. 73. That arrangement gave rise to a further potential conflict of interest because, in addition to a repeat of the issues described at para 71 and 72, the EQAV may be less likely to critique the IQA completed by YSA because criticism could lead to a claim for poor service by the newly approved centre against YSA.  Again, Ofqual has seen no evidence to suggest that any such EQA activity was in fact compromised, but the evidence suggests that ProQual had not identified the risk that it could be compromised, or considered the possibility that the public may perceive a conflict of interest to exist.

6. 74. Ofqual observed instances where an individual employed by ProQual was asked to perform EQA in relation to a ProQual approved centre where they themselves had completed IQA. This gave rise to a possibility that the EQAV would need to review their own IQA activity. Alternatively they may need to or artificially limit the scope of assessments that they could be asked to review, meaning that any sampling was not random. Again, the informed and reasonable observer would consider that a potential conflict of interest arises where an individual is asked to complete EQA activity in relation to IQA decisions made by himself, or his de facto colleagues.

7. 75. The conflict of interest(s) described above presented a risk of an Adverse Effect occurring because, if the EQAV’s independence was compromised:

   1. a. the Learner may be disadvantaged because the EQAV was unable to remedy any errors in marking and/or IQA

   2. b. the AO may be unable to comply with Conditions H1, which requires AOs to:

   3. “have in place effective arrangements to ensure that, as far as possible, the criteria against which Learners’ performance will be differentiated are- 

      1. (a) understood by Assessors and accurately applied, and

      2. (b) applied consistently by Assessors, regardless of the identity of the Assessor, Learner or Centre.”

   4. c. The AO may be unable to comply with Condition H5, which requires AOs to:

   5. “ensure that the result of each assessment taken by a Learner in relation to a qualification which the awarding organisation makes available reflects the level of attainment demonstrated by that Learner in the assessment”

   6. d. public confidence in the qualification is likely to be diminished

Centre Approval Conflict  

1. 76. As set out at paras 1-26 above, ProQual exercised its discretion to approve centres in circumstances where those Centres did not appear to meet ProQual’s Centre Approval Criteria.

2. 77. To manage the risks associated with ProQual’s Approved Centres not having sufficiently competent IQA staff in place, ProQual invited and/or permitted a commercial relationship between YSA and that ProQual Approved Centre. This arrangement saw YSA provide IQA services to the ProQual Approved Centre.

3. 78. While the arrangement is not prohibited, ProQual was required to identify and monitor the potential conflict of interest (GCR Condition 4.1) and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the potential conflict of interest did not have an Adverse Effect (GCR Condition A4.3).

4. 79. That arrangement gave rise to a potential conflict of interest in that there was a potential financial benefit to YSA (and in turn ProQual’s owners) if ProQual exercised its discretion to approve centres that would not otherwise meet the Centre Approval Criteria. While Ofqual is satisfied that ProQual was not so motivated on the occasions giving rise to Allegations 1 and 2, this was not readily apparent at the conclusion of the investigation given the record keeping issues described above.

5. 80. At the very least an informed and reasonable observer may have perceived there to be a potential conflict of interest in those circumstances, and ProQual admits that it failed to identify and manage the risk of that conflict occurring.

6. 81. For its part, ProQual says that this was not an active or intentional business model employed by YSA and ProQual says that YSA supported staff and prospective centres to its own financial detriment. YSA has supported only 7 ProQual centres since its inception in 2011.

The CPD conflict

1. 82. Between July 2019 and July 2021 YSA delivered qualifications to 18 individuals who were either current or former employees of ProQual or YSA.  While the arrangement is not prohibited, ProQual was required to identify and monitor the potential conflict of interest (GCR Condition 4.1) and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the potential conflict of interest did not have an Adverse Effect (GCR Condition A4.3).    One way of making sure that the potential conflict did not give rise to an Adverse Effect would be for ProQual to ensure that those assessments were subject to additional quality assurance, preferably by somebody at arm’s length from the Learner and the IQAV.

2. 83. ProQual admits that it did not recognise the risk of a conflict of interest, or a perception of conflict in that scenario and as a result the assessments completed by those Learners were not subjected to any additional independent scrutiny.

3. 84. In addition to those instances described at para 82, Ofqual observed three other instances where a Learner, employed by YSA, completed three qualifications through YSA. IQA for that assessment was completed by the Learner’s spouse, who was employed by ProQual and YSA. Such an arrangement poses even greater risks than that described in the preceding two paras. Again, while that arrangement was not expressly prohibited, Condition A4.5 and 4.6 expressly provides:

   1. A4.5.

   2. An awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to avoid any part of the assessment of a Learner (including by way of Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny) being undertaken by any person who has a personal interest in the result of the assessment.

   3. A4.6. 

   4. Where, having taken all such reasonable steps, an assessment by such a person cannot be avoided, the awarding organisation must make arrangements for the relevant part of the assessment to be subject to scrutiny by another person.

4. 85. During EQA, ProQual identified this particular conflict of interest. The IQAV explained that they had discussed the matter with senior YSA staff and determined that the approach was acceptable. The EQAV reviewed the Learner portfolio and decided that they agreed with the original IQAV decision. However, for the reasons set out above, a potential conflict of interest existed when a ProQual EQAV was reviewing the work of an IQAV who was employed by both ProQual and YSA. In this instance, the person providing additional scrutiny in accordance with A4.6 was themselves encumbered by a potential conflict of interest.

5. 86. ProQual acknowledges that save as set out at para 85 it did not identify the potential conflicts of interest and in turn did not record the potential conflict of interest in the conflict log.

6. 87. ProQual asserts that there is no evidence that any of the QA that it, or YSA, performed was deficient, or that any Learners received qualifications that they were not entitled to. To that end, it can be said that there were no Adverse Effects arising from the failure to identify, manage and mitigate the effects of those conflicts of interest. However, it remains Ofqual’s position that there was a significant risk to public confidence, which itself is an Adverse Effect, arising from the failures.

Allegation 4 – Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny (CASS)

1. 4.1. ProQual’s CASS strategy did not meet the requirements of Conditions H2.6(b) and/or H2.7 of the General Conditions of Recognition. Thereafter, ProQual did not comply with its own CASS strategy in that:

   1. a. Between January 2020 and September 2022, ProQual did not complete the requisite amount of Moderation sampling events for each Centre

   2. b. Between January 2020 and September 2022, ProQual did not complete the requisite amount of formal Moderation events for each Centre in relation to each qualification

   3. c. For one or more of the Moderation reports completed during that period, those Moderation reports was not completed in compliance with ProQual’s CASS Strategy for one or more of the following reasons:

      1. i. All Moderation was completed remotely

      2. ii. Moderators did not observe Centres delivering assessments

      3. iii. Moderators did not review assessment decisions

2. 4.2. In doing so, ProQual failed to comply with:

   1. a. Condition H2.4 in that it was unable effectively to determine whether or not the criteria against which the Learners’ performance was differentiated was being applied accurately and consistently by Assessors in different Centres, regardless of the identity of the Assessor, Learner, or Centre

   2. b. Condition H2.5 in that it was unable to make any necessary changes to a Centre’s marking of evidence prior to certification

   3. c. Condition H2.8 in that it did not comply with ProQual’s own CASS Strategy

Centre Assessed Standards Scrutiny

1. 88. Condition H2 is engaged where an assessment is marked by a Centre.  The obligations within the CASS strategy requirements at Condition H2 and referred to in the above allegations can be broadly categorised as:

   1. a. Condition H2.6(a) requires an awarding organisation to establish and maintain a Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny strategy in respect of each qualification for which assessments are marked by a Centre.

   2. b. Condition H2.6(b) requires an awarding organisation to comply with any requirements in relation to Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny strategies published by Ofqual. We set out our requirements for the purposes of Condition H2.6(b) below

   3. c. Condition H2.7 requires an awarding organisation to ensure that its Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny strategy sets out how the awarding organisation intends to secure, on an ongoing basis, compliance with Conditions H2.1 – 2.5 in respect of the assessments for that qualification.  The CASS strategy “must present a logical and coherent narrative that includes clear and concise evidence in relation to the matters set out in the requirements…

   4. d. Condition H2.8 requires an awarding organisation to comply with its CASS strategy.

2. 89. At the time of the Investigation Ofqual observed that ProQual’s CASS strategy was deficient for the following reasons:

   1. a. ProQual’s CASS strategy did not explain why the approach adopted is appropriate for ProQual’s qualifications, in view of any risks that it has identified as arising from Centre marking and its approach to continuous certification.

   2. b. ProQual’s CASS strategy did not explain how it will ensure that its approach to Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny will meet Ofqual’s minimum requirements.

   3. c. ProQual’s CASS strategy did not explain how it ensures appropriate competence of those involved in its processes, the information it will use to carry out its monitoring, its approach to sampling, how it will provide feedback to Centres and its approach to going beyond Ofqual’s minimum requirements where appropriate.

   4. d. ProQual’s CASS strategy did not explain its approach to identifying, monitoring and mitigating risks in relation to Centre assessment, including varying its approach to its monitoring activity by going beyond Ofqual’s minimum requirements where necessary.

   5. e. ProQual’s CASS strategy did not explain its approach to making adjustments to Centre marking where it considers this to be appropriate. This includes how it makes such decisions, and how it will ensure that such decisions are taken consistently and in line with Ofqual’s Conditions, requirements and guidance.

   6. f. ProQual’s CASS strategy did not explain how it will keep its approach under review, to ensure its approach remains fit for purpose, and meets the requirements of Condition H2 on an ongoing basis.

3. 90. Thereafter ProQual admits that it did not adhere to its CASS strategy in that:

   1. a. it did not complete the requisite amount of Moderation events mandated by the policy

   2. b. all Moderation was completed remotely

   3. c. Moderators did not observe Centres delivering assessments

   4. d. Moderators did not review assessment decisions

4. 91. On the basis that ProQual had assumed such a high-level of risk elsewhere, it was incumbent upon it to recognise those risks and take steps to prevent Adverse Effects from occurring. ProQual had approved two centres that did not appear to meet their centre approval criteria. They had limited processes in place to document the risks posed by those centres. The measures that were put in place to support such centres via YSA were undermined by the potential conflicts of interest or perceptions of bias. In all of the circumstances, a detailed and robust CASS strategy was one means of mitigating some of the risks that had developed, but ProQual did not put such a document in place. ProQual admits that its CASS strategy lacked the detail required under Condition H2.

5. 92. Thereafter, adherence to the minimum requirements of its CASS strategy was the minimum to be expected of an awarding organisation in ProQual’s position (Condition H2.8). ProQual’s CASS strategy included a requirement that it would complete Moderation and it mandated the frequency of those Moderation events. ProQual admits that it did not complete Moderation as required under its CASS strategy and as set out at para 90 above. By way of illustration, the CASS strategy required completion of one formal Moderation event and eleven random Moderation sampling events for each centre per year. On reviewing the Moderation completed for eight centres during the relevant period, Ofqual observed that the requisite number of Moderation events had not taken place at any of those centres, although the evidence shows that at Moderation was completed on at least one occasion at all of those Centres.

6. 93. ProQual say that it misunderstood the CASS requirements in relation to moderation and thought that Moderation was not required because it was delivering vocational and technical qualifications only and not academic qualifications. ProQual assumed that it was voluntarily implementing Moderation as part of its CASS strategy as a means of best practice, rather than as a regulatory requirement. To that end the failures to follow the strict requirements of Condition H2 were not intentional and in practice it completed Moderation events over and above the minimum requirements of the GCR. Ofqual has accepted that ProQual misunderstood its requirements and notes that ProQual was expected to exercise its discretion in deciding whether Moderation was required, having regard to all of the circumstances of their business. However, having included Moderation within its CASS strategy, ProQual was required to comply with that strategy and it did not do so.

Failure to comply with the Conditions 

1. 94. ProQual has admitted that it failed to comply with the Conditions of Recognition in the ways described in the allegations at paragraph 2 of this Notice.

Settlement Proposal

1. 95. ProQual makes the following Settlement Proposal to Ofqual with a view to concluding this matter in full and final settlement of the enforcement case, without the requirement for a contested enforcement hearing

2. 96. In this respect, ProQual offers to pay a Monetary Penalty of £15,000

3. 97. ProQual also offers an undertaking in the following terms:

   1. a. ProQual undertakes to commission, at its own expense, an independent audit within 28 days of the final decision by the Enforcement Panel (“the ProQual Audit Report”)

   2. b. ProQual will inform Ofqual of its proposed auditor within 14 days of the final decision by the Enforcement Panel and provide a proposed Letter of Instruction for Ofqual’s review and approval.

   3. c. ProQual will make any and all amendments to the Letter of Instruction as requested by Ofqual

   4. d. ProQual will attach a copy of this Notice of Intention to the instructions to the ProQual Audit Report

   5. e. The purpose of the ProQual Audit Report is to demonstrate whether and to what extent ProQual’s processes and record keeping have improved since the date of the Investigation Report.

   6. f. The ProQual Audit Report will review whether ProQual’s CASS strategy now meets the minimum requirements of Condition H2

   7. g. The ProQual Audit Report will review whether ProQual has maintained an accurate record of all conflicts of interest that exist in relation to its business and taken steps to mitigate any potential adverse effects arising from those conflicts of interest.

   8. h. The ProQual Audit Report will review a broad sample of ProQual’s centre activity (the scope to be agreed with Ofqual further to (b) and (c) above, to consider whether, in relation to that sample:

      1. i. ProQual’s Approved Centres meet ProQual’s centre approval criteria;

      2. ii. Where ProQual has exercised its discretion to approve centres that do not have appropriate Assessors or IQA verifiers in place, that appropriate action plans are agreed and adhered to ensure that relevant qualifications are obtained and the centre approval periodically reviewed as appropriate,

      3. iii. ProQual has an accurate register of all conflicts of interest that apply to it

      4. iv. ProQual has put in place suitable measures to ensure that any conflicts are appropriately monitored and any Adverse Effects avoided and/or mitigated

      5. v. ProQual has taken appropriate steps to respond to any issues identified on Learner portfolios during IQA or EQA activity

      6. vi. ProQual has undertaken appropriate investigations where malpractice or maladministration is suspected

      7. vii. ProQual has complied with its CASS strategy where assessments are marked by those Centres.

      8. viii. ProQual has adequately documented any steps taken in furtherance of (i)-(vii) above

   9. i. ProQual will deliver the ProQual Audit Report and any drafts of the ProQual Audit Report to Ofqual promptly upon receipt, but in any event, no later than [16 weeks from the date of instruction].

   10. j. ProQual will notify Ofqual promptly if it has any reason to believe that they will be unable to comply with (g) and seek to agree an appropriate extension of time, consent of which is not to be unreasonably withheld.

Aggravating Factors 

1. 98. The failures described above are serious. They represent failures to either exercise appropriate risk management and internal control measures, or to document and retain a contemporaneous account of its activity.

2. 99. The failures span a wide range of ProQual’s activity and impact upon a number of elements within the lifecycle of a qualification.  They engage the centre approval process, centre monitoring, risk management, quality assurance, the conduct of malpractice investigations and ultimately the award of qualifications.

3. 100. ProQual has provided assurances that the failures were, save as set out above, administrative in nature and that appropriate steps were taken contemporaneously to manage risks to compliance with the GCR. Ofqual has accepted ProQual’s assurances.  Where it was able to provide documents to substantiate its assertions, those documents were only presented to Ofqual at a late stage in the investigation process.

4. 101. As a consequence of the failures, ProQual was largely reliant upon the knowledge and localised record keeping of individuals to ensure compliance with the GCR.

5. 102. While the conduct was not intentional, ProQual has demonstrated a lack of awareness of its obligations both in relation to documenting evidence and record keeping and the potential for conflicts of interest to arise.

6. 103. Some of these Learner portfolios identified as requiring remedial action were licence to practice qualifications. The failure to properly scrutinise the award of those qualifications or to record the steps it had taken to scrutinise the award of those qualifications, had the potential to undermine public confidence in those important qualifications.

7. 104. The failures described above represent a failure to comply with ProQual’s own policies.

Mitigation  

1. 105. Following a lengthy investigation, ProQual has acknowledged where issues have arisen (and is therefore content to agree a mutually agreeable settlement with Ofqual, with a view to concluding this matter in full and final settlement of the enforcement case, without the requirement for a contested enforcement hearing.

2. 106. The Investigation Report assessed compliance at only a small number of ProQual Approved Centres. ProQual say that the limited sample size is not reflective of practices across ProQual’s entire centre network. In relation to centre approval, only 2 centres out of a total of 272 centres were identified as having issues and those 2 centres were in sectors that were brand new to ProQual. ProQual has offered assurances that the conduct was not widespread and has undertaken to obtain an audit report that will robustly test that assertion.

3. 107. There is no evidence that the issues described were intentional, nor is there evidence that the breaches were primarily motivated by a desire to save money on the costs of compliance. ProQual says that it and YSA have supported staff and prospective centres to their own financial detriment, demonstrating a commitment to maintaining high standards and supporting the development of qualifications.

4. 108. ProQual has acknowledged where issues have arisen and has put an action plan in place to strengthen its processes, procedures and corporate memory.

5. 109. ProQual asserts that it has since remedied the issues identified and has offered an undertaking to commission an audit that will test effectiveness of the remedial actions taken.

6. 110. ProQual has acknowledged that a monetary penalty is a proportionate outcome and has agreed to pay such a penalty.

7. 111. ProQual has co-operated with Ofqual throughout this investigation.

8. 112. The following mitigation has been offered by ProQual but is not endorsed by Ofqual.

9. 113. ProQual has evidence to demonstrate that the identified alleged failures do not constitute an intentional business model and that it is effective in managing any observed risks.

10. 114. ProQual voluntarily implemented Moderation into its CASS strategy to enhance its risk management and quality assurance, even though it was not a mandatory requirement for ProQual. This demonstrates ProQual’s commitment to maintaining high standards, although it does accept that it did not comply with its own policy in its entirety.

11. 115. ProQual has confirmed that no adverse effects occurred as a result of the identified breaches. For example, no portfolios were unjustly certified, and continuous certification was only granted when centres were operating with their own qualified staff. In relation to the L1 Health and Safety in Construction qualification (referred to in para 3 of the Executive Summary), ProQual asserts that none of the failures identified in the Investigation required it to revoke any certificates for that qualification.

12. 116. YSA has been used by ProQual to support emerging centres in new sectors with bespoke/unique developed qualifications, particularly when these centres lack the necessary qualified assessment staff and cannot source alternative training providers. ProQual says that it informed an Ofqual employee of this arrangement in 2011 and it believed at all times that it was complying with its Conditions of Recognition.

13. 117. It is worth noting that, during the years that Ofqual reviewed Centre B (2019 to 2021), Centre B only made 51 claims to ProQual.

Determination of Monetary Penalty

1. 118. Taking all of the above into account, the Enforcement Panel (the Panel) has decided that it intends to accept a settlement proposal from ProQual in terms that ProQual:

   1. a. admits all the breaches set out in this Notice.

   2. b. agrees to pay the Monetary Penalty of £15,000.

   3. c. provides an undertaking in the terms offered at paragraph 97 above

2. 119. The figure of £15,000 reflects the fact that a settlement proposal has been put forward by ProQual and takes into account the aggravating and mitigating factors detailed above.

3. 120. The Panel is satisfied, in accordance with section 151B of the 2009 Act, that a Monetary Penalty in the sum of £15,000 would not exceed 10% of ProQual’s total annual turnover.

4. 121. The Panel considers that the Monetary Penalty appropriately marks the seriousness of the historic breaches. The Panel is satisfied that the effectiveness of ProQual’s remedial action and the adequacy of ProQual’s current processes can be tested through the terms of the undertaking. If the outcome of the ProQual Audit Report is such that ProQual may be in breach of its Conditions of Recognition, Ofqual can either take steps to bring ProQual back into compliance, or it can initiate enforcement action as per its Taking Regulatory Action policy.

5. 122. To that end, the Panel is satisfied that the proposed settlement both reflects the seriousness of the historic issues and provides safeguards against future reoccurrence.

6. 123. Accordingly, Ofqual gives notice that it intends to impose on ProQual a Monetary Penalty in the sum of £15,000

Publication

1. 124. The Panel received an application from ProQual inviting the Panel to exercise its discretion to anonymise publication of this Notice.

2. 125. [PARAGRAPH REDACTED].

3. 126. [PARAGRAPH REDACTED].

4. 127. [PARAGRAPH REDACTED].

5. 128. [PARAGRAPH REDACTED].

6. 129. [PARAGRAPH REDACTED].

7. 130. The Panel noted that the starting position in such cases is that the Notice would be published in full. Ofqual’s Taking Regulatory Action Policy (‘the TRA Policy’) states that Ofqual will “publish the ‘[Notice of Intention] on our website. [Ofqual] will set out in the Notice the reasons for the fine and the way in which the awarding organisation and other interested parties may make representations to us.”

8. 131. The TRA Policy further refers to Ofqual being ‘transparent’ in its enforcement action, and the Panel considers that full publication of enforcement decisions is generally the most appropriate way for Ofqual to secure its objectives, having regard to its duties.

9. 132. After careful consideration the Panel concluded that the public interest in publication outweighed the risks that ProQual had described and decided that the Notice of Intention should be published, with the usual redactions to protect the names of individual employees.  The Panel also decided that given the nature of the unsubstantiated allegations referred to in the publication application, that paras 125-129 should similarly be redacted.