Notice

Notice of intention to accept a settlement proposal - Review of marking incident, 2017 to 2023

Published 31 July 2025

Applies to England

© Crown copyright 2025

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notices-of-intention-to-accept-a-settlement-proposal-wjec-cbac-ltd/notice-of-intention-to-accept-a-settlement-proposal-review-of-marking-incident-2017-to-2023

Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation and WJEC-CBAC Ltd

Overview

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

    1. a) admits the breaches set out in this Notice;
    2. b) agrees to pay the Monetary Penalty of £175,000;
    3. c) agrees to pay Ofqual’s reasonable legal costs in respect of this matter.

  2. 2. This Notice relates to breaches of WJEC’s Conditions of Recognition which occurred between 2017 and 2023. The occurrence of those breaches reflects failures by WJEC to prevent reviews of marking being undertaken by assessors who had marked part of the assessment subject to the review.

Executive summary

  1. 3, WJEC was awarded Ofqual recognition in 2010 having transferred over to Ofqual from the Qualifications and Curriculum Agency (Ofqual’s predecessor).

  2. 4. WJEC has a broad scope of recognition to develop, deliver and award a broad range of General Qualifications as well as Vocational and Technical regulated qualifications.

  3. 5. In respect of GCSE and GCE qualifications, where marking is undertaken by WJEC, there are regulatory requirements requiring WJEC to establish, maintain and comply with arrangements for it to carry out a review of marking.

  4. 6. Those arrangements must include that:
    1. (a) all reviews of marking will be carried out by Assessors who have appropriate competence and who have no personal interest in the outcome of the review being carried out,
    2. (b) an Assessor who was previously involved in the marking of a task in an assessment in respect of a Learner must not be involved in a review of marking in respect of that task.[footnote 1]

  5. 7. Under WJEC’s appeals process, WJEC committed to similar requirements for qualifications which are not GCSE or GCE qualifications.

  6. 8. On 12 February 2024, WJEC submitted an event notification to Ofqual in compliance with General Condition B3.1.[footnote 2] WJEC informed Ofqual that between 2017 and 2023, a number of learner scripts had been reviewed by an assessor who had previously marked part of the script, contrary to the GCSE and GCE qualification level Conditions and its appeals process.

  7. 9. The incident affected 3,926 out of 120,094 reviews of marking between 2017 and 2023. The reviews of marking affected were either where the reviewer undertook original marking of the whole script or where item level marking was used, that is the reviewer undertook original marking of less than 100% of the original script. A WJEC analysis showed:
    1. a. 86 instances where the marker reviewed the whole script and then went on to complete the review of marking.
    2. b. The remaining instances were where one or more items had been marked by the reviewer who then went on to complete the review of marking.

  8. 10. WJEC examined the reviews of marking from Summer and November 2023 where candidates’ work was available. WJEC accepted that there were 13 cases where the outcome of this examination differed from the outcome of the review of marking, such that the learner’s mark would have been different had the review of marking been completed by an assessor who had not previously marked any part of that script. WJEC accepted that these outcomes could not necessarily be explained by differences in academic judgment unrelated to the system issue, but rather that learners may have been affected by its error in allocating review of markings to assessors who had already marked part of the script. In one case, the examination resulted in a change of grade from a Distinction to a Distinction* for a student on a Level 1 / Level 2 qualification in Engineering.

  9. 11. In response to the incident, WJEC issued credit notes to 1002 Centres[footnote 3] affected by the error in the total sum of £219,609.75.

  10. 12. WJEC subsequently provided assurance that it resolved the root causes, a detailed analysis of reviews of marking following summer 2024 identified no instances of allocations to reviewers who had marked a response within that script.

  11. 13. For the purposes of this case, the breaches can be grouped into the following 2 categories –

    1. a. Breaches which flowed from reviewers who had marked part of the script not being prevented from undertaking reviews – Conditions GCSE/GCE17 and General Condition I1.

    2. b. Breaches in relation to the root cause of the failure – General Condition A5.

  12. 14. There were a number of mitigating factors in this case:

    1. a. This is the first time where non-compliance by WJEC has reached the point at which enforcement action in the form of a monetary penalty has become necessary.

    2. b. WJEC was proactive in taking steps to resolve the issues as far as possible and to prevent re-occurrence.

    3. c. WJEC acted in good faith throughout, fully accepted responsibility for the non-compliance at the earliest opportunity and the impact on public confidence that has arisen.

    4. d. WJEC engaged fully, cooperatively and transparently with Ofqual.

  13. 15. On 8 July 2025, WJEC agreed to pay a Monetary Penalty in the sum of £175,000.

  1. 16. WJEC-CBAC Ltd (“WJEC”) is recognised as an awarding body by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (“Ofqual”) under section 132(1) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (“the Act”) and is subject to the General Conditions of Recognition (“the Conditions”) which Ofqual is required to set and publish under Section 134 of the Act.

  2. 17. For the purposes of this case the following Conditions of Recognition are relevant:

    1. a. General Conditions: A5.1 and A5.2(e) and I1
    2. b. Qualification Level Conditions relating to reviews of marking: GCE/GCSE 17.1, GCE/GCSE 17.6(a), GCE/GCSE 17.6(b), and GCE/GCSE 17.6(e)(i).

  3. 18. Under Section 151A(2) of the Act, Ofqual may impose a Monetary Penalty on an awarding body if it appears to Ofqual that the awarding body has failed to comply with its Conditions of Recognition.

  4. 19. Under Section 151B(3) of the Act, the amount of any Monetary Penalty may be whatever Ofqual decides is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, subject to Section 151B(1), under which Ofqual may not impose a Monetary Penalty in an amount which exceeds 10% of the awarding body’s turnover.

  5. 20. Ofqual’s ‘Taking Regulatory Action Policy’ sets out how it will use its powers to take regulatory action, including the factors it will take into account when deciding whether to withdraw recognition and/or impose a Monetary Penalty and how it will determine the amount of any Monetary Penalty to be imposed.

WJEC’s marking and reviews of marking process

  1. 21. When WJEC undertakes marking (for the qualifications set out below), marking can be undertaken at whole script or item level i.e. marking of individual items.

  2. 22. In respect of GCSE and GCE qualifications, where marking is undertaken by WJEC, there are regulatory requirements requiring WJEC to establish, maintain and comply with arrangements for it to carry out a review of marking. When WJEC undertakes these reviews, these are full script reviews.

  3. 23. For reviews of marking, Ofqual requires that:

    1. (a) all reviews of marking will be carried out by Assessors who have appropriate competence and who have no personal interest in the outcome of the review being carried out,
    2. (b) an Assessor who was previously involved in the marking of a task in an assessment in respect of a Learner must not be involved in a review of marking in respect of that task.

  4. 24. Under WJEC’s appeals process, WJEC committed to similar requirements for qualifications which are not GCSE or GCE.

  5. 25. WJEC had processes in place to ensure that on a review of marking, a reviewer could not review a script for which they previously marked any item of that script.

The incident

  1. 26. On 12 February 2024, WJEC submitted an event notification (“the EN”) to Ofqual in compliance with General Condition B3.1 concerning assessors being involved in both marking and the review of marking between 2017 to 2023.

  2. 27. WJEC became aware of the incident during a review of allocation algorithms taking place as part of planned system improvements.

  3. 28. The following Ofqual regulated WJEC Eduqas qualifications were affected:

  • GCSE: Business, Computer Science, Drama, English Language, English Literature, Film Studies, Food Preparation and Nutrition, French, Geography A, Geography B, Geology, History, Mathematics, Media Studies, Music, Physical Education, Religious Studies, and Spanish.

  • GCE: Biology, Business, Chemistry, Computer Science, English Literature, Film Studies, Geography, Law, Media Studies, Physical Education, Physics, Psychology, Religious Studies, and Sociology.

  • Level 1 and 2: Hospitality and Catering, Constructing the Built Environment, Retail Business, Engineering, and Event Operations.

  • Level 3: Criminology.

  1. 29. The incident affected 3,926 out of 120,094 reviews between 2017 and 2023. There were:

    1. a. 86 cases where the assessor completing the review of marking had initially marked the whole script.
    2. b. The remaining cases were where the assessor completed the review of marking having previously marked one or more items of the script.

  2. 30. WJEC examined the reviews of marking from Summer and November 2023 where candidates’ work was available. WJEC identified 13 cases where its examination differed from the review and would have led to a different outcome from that awarded. WJEC accepted that there were learners who may have been affected by the conflicts, rather than there being other differences in academic judgment unrelated to the system issue. In one case, the examination resulted in a change of grade from a Distinction to a Distinction* for a student on a Level 1 / Level 2 qualification in Engineering.

    The grade was corrected by WJEC in December 2024.

  3. 31. On 16 December 2024, WJEC issued letters to Centres and published a web news item making Users aware of the issue. Head of Centre update: Historical error in Review of Marking procedures.[footnote 4]

  4. 32. To compensate for the error, WJEC issued credit notes to 1,002 Centres in the total sum of £219,609.75.

Root cause

  1. 33. There were 3 root causes of the incident:

    1. a. An error in an algorithm which allowed reviews to be allocated to reviewers for Centres they had originally marked. This error dated from June 2019 onwards.
    2. b. Issues with data integration resulting in conflicts not being correctly identified at the sub-item level, leading to examiners reviewing scripts they had partially marked previously. This error dated from June 2019 onwards.
    3. c. A small number of scripts manually assigned to the original examiner for review in error. This error dated from June 2017 onwards.

  2. 34. WJEC subsequently provided assurance that it had addressed the root causes and a detailed WJEC analysis of Summer 2024 Reviews of Marking identified no instances of allocations to reviewers who had marked a response within that script.

Non-compliance

  1. 35. Ofqual and WJEC agree that the incident reflected non-compliance with the Conditions of Recognition.

  2. 36. Condition GCSE/GCE 17.1

    1. a. Conditions GCSE and GCE 17.1 require that in respect of each GCSE/GCE Qualification which it makes available an awarding organisation must establish, maintain and comply with arrangements for it to carry out a review of marking of a Learner’s Marked Assessment Material.

    2. b. WJEC established arrangements to prevent reviews being allocated to reviewers for Centres they had originally marked, or which there was a conflict of interest.

    3. c. By reason of reviews being sent to reviewers for Centres they had originally marked, or for which there was a conflict of interest, WJEC failed to comply with its arrangements for carrying out reviews of marking in accordance with regulatory requirements, contrary to GCSE/GCE17.1.

  3. 37. Condition GCSE/GCE 17.6(a)

    1. a. Conditions GCSE and GCE17.6(a) require that review of marking arrangements must provide that all reviews of marking will be carried out by Assessors who have appropriate competence and who have no personal interest in the outcome of the review being carried out.

    2. b. The guidance to the GCE/GCSE Conditions states that a ‘personal interest’ is a conflict of interest that relates to a particular individual and falls within the definition under General Condition A4.1(b) and (c). The relevant question to ask is whether the person carrying out the review has any reason to make anything other than a decision made in good faith in line with the relevant conditions, or whether an informed and reasonable observer would conclude that such a reason exists.

    3. c. Assessors undertook a review of their own marking, as such there was a potential personal interest in not identifying errors in their own marking, had they identified it during a review. By reason of reviews being sent to reviewers for Centres they had originally marked, WJEC’s arrangements failed to provide that all reviews of marking will be carried out by Assessors who have appropriate competence and who have no personal interest in the outcome of the review being carried out, contrary to GCSE/GCE17.6(a).

  4. 38. Condition GCSE/GCE 17.6(b)

    1. a. Conditions GCSE and GCE 17.6(b) require that review of marking arrangements must provide that an Assessor who was previously involved in the marking of a task in an assessment in respect of a Learner must not be involved in a review of marking in respect of that task.

    2. b. By reason of Assessors being involved in both marking and reviews of marking, WJEC’s review of marking arrangements failed to provide that an Assessor who was previously involved in the marking of a task in an assessment in respect of a Learner must not be involved in a review of marking in respect of that task, contrary to GCSE/GCE17.6.

  5. 39. Condition GCSE/GCE 17.6(e)(i)

    1. a. Conditions GCSE and GCE 17.6(e)(i) require that review of marking arrangements must provide that the awarding organisation shall monitor whether the Assessors who are carrying out reviews of marking are doing so in accordance with this condition.

    2. b. Between 2017 and 2023, WJEC’s arrangements failed to detect that reviews of marking were not being carried out in accordance with the requirements. It therefore cannot be said that WJEC’s arrangements provided that the awarding organisation shall monitor whether the Assessors who are carrying out reviews of marking are doing so in accordance with this condition, contrary to GCSE/GCE17.6(e)(i).

  6. 40. General Condition I1.1(a)

    1. a. General Condition I1.1(a) requires awarding organisations to establish, maintain and comply with an appeals process in relation to all qualifications which it makes available, which must provide for the appeal of the results of assessments.

    2. b. WJEC publishes its arrangements for qualifications where Condition I1 has not been disapplied. This includes Level 1/2 qualifications in five subjects, a Level 3 Applied General qualification, and two Approved Health & Social Care qualifications in Wales.

    3. c. WJEC’s guide to post results services clarifies that the first stage of the ‘appeals’ process for all qualifications is a review of marking or moderation, followed by an appeal should the centre/student still believe there has been an error.

    4. d. WJEC states: “WJEC appoints reviewers who are experienced senior examiners or moderators. WJEC maintains a register of interests for all its appointees which ensures that a reviewer does not have a conflict of interest when undertaking the reviewing role. The reviewer is a different individual to the original examiner or moderator.”

    5. e. By reason of reviews being sent to reviewers for Centres they had originally marked, or for which there was a conflict of interest, WJEC failed to comply with its appeals process, contrary to General Condition I1.1(a).

  7. 41. General Condition I1.2(b)

    1. a. Condition I1.2(b) states that for the purposes of Condition I1.1, an awarding organisation’s appeals process must provide for all appeal decisions to be taken by individuals who have no personal interest in the decision being appealed.

    2. b. WJEC’s appeals process provides for a review of marking stage. The assessor completing that review is therefore making an appeal decision.

    3. c. A conflict of interest arises in relation to the individual undertaking the review of marking because the individuals would be reviewing their own decisions. The reviewer would have a personal interest in the decisions being reviewed because the review would determine whether their initial decisions were appropriate.

    4. d. By reason of reviews being sent to reviewers for Centres they had originally marked, or for which there was a conflict of interest, WJECs’ appeals process failed to provide for all appeal decisions to be taken by individuals who have no personal interest in the decision being appealed, contrary to General Condition I1.2(b).

  8. 42. General Condition A5.1 and A5.2(e)

    1. a. Under General Condition A5.1 an awarding organisation must - (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, and (b) take all reasonable steps to ensure that it undertakes the development, delivery and award of those qualifications efficiently.

    2. b. General Condition A5.2(e) states that for the purposes of Condition A5.1, an awarding organisation must establish and maintain appropriate systems of planning and internal control.

    3. c. For the purposes of Condition A5.1, under A5.2(e), WJEC was required to establish and maintain appropriate systems of planning and internal control.

    4. d. WJEC’s controls in respect of reviews of marking were ineffective over a prolonged period and not detected by any routine quality assurance process. For this reason, WJEC failed to establish and maintain appropriate systems of internal control, contrary to A5.2(e). That failure means that WJEC failed to ensure that it had 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, contrary to A5.1(a).

Regulatory action

  1. 43. On 8 July 2025, WJEC signed a settlement proposal by which it:
    1. a. Agreed that it had breached its Conditions of Recognition as set out in this Notice,
    2. b. Agreed to pay a monetary penalty in the sum of £175,000 in settlement of those breaches,
    3. c. Agreed to pay Ofqual’s reasonable legal costs,
    4. d. Agreed to an undertaking.

Determination of monetary penalty

  1. 44. On 14 July 2025, Ofqual’s Enforcement Panel considered the evidence relating to the breaches set out above, alongside the admissions made by WJEC. The Enforcement Panel determined that WJEC has breached its Conditions of Recognition as per the allegations set out above.

  2. 45. The Enforcement Panel has considered the settlement proposal presented by WJEC. In determining whether or not a Monetary Penalty is an appropriate regulatory outcome in this case and if so, what amount would be proportionate to impose, the Enforcement Panel has had regard to Ofqual’s Taking Regulatory Action policy (2012).

  3. 46. The Enforcement Panel notes the aggravating and mitigating factors set out below. Having had regard to Ofqual’s policy, Taking Regulatory Action (2012), as well as to Ofqual’s objectives and duties as set out in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, WJEC’s failure to comply with the Conditions is such that Ofqual should impose a monetary penalty.

Aggravating factors

  1. 47. Ofqual considers this to be a serious case by reason of the fundamental nature of the failure. The primary impact of WJEC’s breaches was to put public confidence in qualifications at risk, for those learners directly affected by the error and for the public at large who might reasonably have expected such errors not to occur.

  2. 48. The breaches occurred over a prolonged period, namely from 2017 and went undiscovered until 12 January 2024.

  3. 49. The breaches occurred despite Ofqual’s 2019 reminder to awarding organisations about reviews of marking obligations.

  4. 50. The incident resulted in 3,926 reviews of marking not taking place in accordance with regulatory requirements. A re-review of Summer and November 2023 reviews of marking found marking errors resulting in one grade change. The impact may have been wider, however, WJEC was unable to review cases before 2023.

  5. 51. The circumstances of the breach were within the control of WJEC. Although the breaches were not deliberate, the breaches fell within the category of negligence on behalf of the awarding organisation.

  6. 52. WJEC had a similar event/breach occur in August 2023 involving a small number of reviews of moderation.

Mitigating factors

  1. 53. WJEC took proactive steps to resolve the issues as far as possible and to prevent re-occurrence. This included WJEC voluntarily commissioning an audit to provide assurance to WJEC, and subsequently to Ofqual, that it has mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with the Conditions of Recognition and retains appropriate evidence to support compliance.

  2. 54. This is the first time where non-compliance by WJEC has reached the point at which enforcement action in the form of a monetary penalty has become necessary.

  3. 55. WJEC acted in good faith throughout and has fully accepted responsibility for the non-compliance and the impact on public confidence that has arisen.

  4. 56. WJEC engaged fully, cooperatively and transparently with Ofqual on these events, maintaining clear lines of communication.

  5. 57. WJEC did not benefit in any material way from any of the activities that were not carried out in accordance with Ofqual’s Conditions of Recognition.

Other considerations

  1. 58. The need to deter WJEC and other awarding organisations from making similar failings in the future. A monetary penalty highlights the need for robust systems of control over reviews of marking and monitoring conflicts of interests. Where standards are compromised and incorrect results are issued, Ofqual will take regulatory action.

  2. 59. The need to ensure that awarding organisations using algorithms are held accountable for their accuracy and reliability, and are not permitted to allow such systems to produce flawed outcomes. Where algorithmic processes are used but not adequately tested prior to introduction or monitored on an ongoing basis, Ofqual will take regulatory action.

  3. 60. The need to promote public confidence in qualifications through visible, appropriate and effective regulatory action.

  4. 61. The nature and circumstances of the breaches in comparison to other breaches for which fines have been imposed by Ofqual on other awarding organisations. Ofqual has imposed and published a series of fines against awarding organisation relating to conflicts of interest in post result services, WJEC should have been assiduous to compliance in this area.

  5. 62. WJEC’s relative size and turnover as an awarding organisation and its turnover from regulated activities in relation to its total turnover.

  6. 63. The likely impact of the fine on the awarding organisation’s provision of regulated qualifications.

  7. 64. Provision of compensation to Centres in the form of credit notes for affected reviews of marking.

Turnover

  1. 65. In compliance with section 151B of the 2009 Act, Ofqual may not impose a monetary penalty that exceeds 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the awarding organisation.

  2. 66. Provided that penalties are within this limit, Ofqual is not required to determine the amount of a penalty by reference to a percentage of an awarding organisation’s annual turnover and the amount of the fine may be whatever Ofqual decides is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.

  3. 67. The turnover of an awarding organisation is determined in accordance with Regulations 3 and 4 of the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Determination of Turnover for Monetary Penalties) Order 2012/1768 (as in force from 6 July 2012).

  4. 68. For the business year 2024/2025 WJEC’s turnover was £59.2m.

  5. 69. Ofqual does not consider the proposed monetary penalty to be excessive in light of turnover. It is well below 10 per cent of the annual turnover of WJEC.

Representations

  1. 70. WJEC has confirmed that it will not make representations in respect of Ofqual’s intention to impose a Monetary Penalty, as part of its settlement proposal.

  2. 71. Interested parties may make representations in respect of Ofqual’s proposal to accept a settlement proposal from WJEC and impose a monetary penalty in the sum of £175,000. Any such representations must be sent by email to EnforcementCommittee@ofqual.gov.uk and must be received before 4pm on 14 August 2025.

Next steps

  1. 72. The Enforcement Panel will consider this case again on or after 15 August 2025.

  2. 73. The Enforcement Panel will consider any representations made as specified in this Notice and will decide whether to accept a settlement proposal from WJEC in the terms proposed or whether any other order should be made.

Signed: Susan Barratt

Chair of the Enforcement Panel

Date: 16 July 2025

Enforcement Panel:

Susan Barratt

Frances Wadsworth

David Bowden

  1. Qualification Level Conditions GCSE/GCE17. ↩

  2. General Condition B3.1: An awarding organisation must promptly notify Ofqual when it has cause to believe that any event has occurred or is likely to occur which could have an Adverse Effect. ↩

  3. Centre - An organisation undertaking the delivery of an assessment (and potentially other activities) to Learners on behalf of an awarding organisation. Centres are typically educational institutions, training providers, or employers. ↩

  4. See EN – WJEC message – 16.12.2024. ↩

Back to top