Notice

Notice of monetary penalty in respect of University of West London

Published 4 February 2026

Applies to England

Imposition of a monetary penalty on University of West London (UWL)

Introduction

1. This notice sets out the final decision, made by The Office of Qualification and Examinations Regulation’s (“Ofqual”) Enforcement Panel on 23 January 2026, to issue UWL with a monetary penalty under section 151A of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (“ASCLA”) in the sum of £150,000 for breaches of Ofqual’s General Conditions of Recognition.

2. In accordance with section 151A (4) of ASCLA, Ofqual served UWL with a Notice of Intention to impose a monetary penalty on 23 January 2026. Ofqual determined it was not necessary to publish the Notice of Intention. On 23 January 2026, and in accordance with the settlement agreement, UWL confirmed it had no representations to make and was content for Ofqual to proceed to final decision.

Executive summary

3. UWL has been recognised by Ofqual since 1 April 2010.  UWL is primarily a higher education establishment, but it delivers Ofqual regulated music qualifications at Levels 1 to 7 via London College of Music Examinations (LCME), a trading name of UWL.

4. In between November 2022 and March 2023, Ofqual became aware of concerns from an anonymous whistleblower surrounding UWL’s compliance with its Conditions of Recognition (‘GCR’). In particular it was alleged that UWL had failed to exercise proper control over one of its Centres (Centre A), resulting in Centre A being able to design, deliver and award qualifications with limited oversight from UWL.

5. Having substantiated those concerns, Ofqual put in place special conditions requiring UWL to terminate its third-party arrangements and to refrain from delegating certain activities to third parties without prior approval from Ofqual. UWL confirmed that it had already terminated its arrangements with Centre A having independently identified the issues, but it complied with the requirement, nonetheless.

6. The special conditions further required UWL to commission an independent audit to assess the extent to which it had complied with the GCR in its supervision of Centre A.

7. In February 2024, UWL submitted an audit report, purportedly in compliance with the special condition. That audit report presented a positive picture as to UWL’s compliance with the GCR. However, Ofqual queried whether the auditor had been provided all of the documents referred to in the special condition, including the factual background and copies of UWL admissions to date. UWL confirmed that the auditor had not been provided with such information, despite it being a clear requirement of the special condition. UWL explained that this was an error and agreed to commission a second audit report. That second audit report dated June 2024 identified a series of issues including a failure by UWL to properly supervise Centre A; a failure to issue certificates to Learners promptly; a failure to have in place an appeals policy for a period of 34 months.

8. As a result of the matters described above, UWL accepts that it has breached its Conditions of Recognition in the following ways:

Allegation 1

1. 1. Between January 2020 and November 2023, UWL failed to operate adequate controls over Centre A in that:

   1. 1.1. It did not have in place a written agreement that accurately described those tasks to be performed by Centre A as it related to the development, delivery and award of qualifications to be performed, contrary to Conditions A5, C1 and/or C2 of the General Conditions of Recognition

   2. 1.2. It did not monitor and/or enforce its centre agreement with Centre A, contrary to Conditions C1 of the General Conditions of Recognition, resulting in Centre A being able to:
      1. a. design and deliver an assessment for a UWL qualification that had not been through the UWL approval process, contrary to Conditions A5, A6, G1 and G9, and/or
      2. b. mark the assessment without adequate oversight from UWL contrary to Conditions A5, A6, H1 and H2
   3. 1.3. As a consequence of the arrangement described at 1.1 and/or 1.2, UWL issued results and/or awarded a qualification to approximately 224 Learners in circumstances where:
      1. a. UWL could not be assured that the assessment was fit for purpose by virtue of securing the requirements of Validity, Reliability, and Comparability, contrary to Condition D1.1, and/or
      2. b. UWL could not be assured that marking of the assessment reflected the level of attainment demonstrated by the Learner in the assessment, contrary to Condition H5.1 and H6.1

Allegation 2

2. Between January 2020 and November 2022 UWL failed to ensure that certificates were issued promptly to approximately 4,300 Learners that completed assessments via Centre A, contrary to Condition I4.1

Allegation 3

3. Between January 2020 and November 2022 UWL failed to establish, maintain and comply with an appeals process in relation to one or more of the qualifications that it made available, contrary to Condition I1.1

Allegation 4

4.1. UWL failed to comply with special conditions imposed upon it in that it did not deliver an audit report to Ofqual to the required standard within the specified timeframes, contrary to conditions UWL 2.1, 2.2 and/or 2.3

4.2. Its conduct as may be found proved in relation to allegation 4.1 was negligent

Background

1. 9. In or around November 2022, Ofqual was contacted by a whistle-blower, who raised concerns about UWL’s compliance with Ofqual’s General Conditions of Recognition (‘GCR’).  The whistle-blower asked to remain anonymous.

2. 10. In November 2022 and again in March 2023, the whistle-blower, a former employee at UWL, spoke with Ofqual and said that:

   1. a. They were concerned about general governance at UWL, including a failure to have in place proper GCR compliant policies and processes detailing UWL’s oversight of centre or third-party activities.
   2. b. In particular they were concerned about an arrangement with a third party, Centre A (‘Centre A’).
   3. c. Centre A had been engaged since April 2020 to provide a live video link between Learners and UWL assessors to allow assessments to be delivered during the Covid-19 lockdown.
   4. d. A written arrangement was in place to govern the services arrangement between UWL and Centre A but they described this as “weak”.
   5. e. They described the services agreement as “weak” because Centre A’s involvement was broader than the written agreement. The full extent of their involvement was governed by a verbal agreement between Centre A and a senior individual within UWL. The arrangement continued even after the Covid-19 lockdown had ended.
   6. f. They were concerned that UWL had no real oversight or governance over the actual arrangement that saw Centre A delivering, marking and certifying qualifications on UWL’s behalf.
   7. g. UWL had outsourced the printing of certificates to Centre A during the Covid-19 lockdown, but that Centre A retained the capacity to do so until the second half of 2022, even after it was no longer operationally necessary.
   8. h. UWL had terminated the arrangement with Centre A in the second half of 2022 but had since entered into a similar arrangement with another party (Centre B). The whistle-blower was concerned that the new arrangement posed similar risks to the arrangement with Centre A. (The University subsequently clarified, and Ofqual accepts, that the arrangement with Centre B was not in fact similar to Centre A.)
   9. i. They were concerned that UWL had effectively outsourced their duties and responsibilities under the GCR to Centre A and retained insufficient oversight to ensure that those duties and responsibilities were being complied with.
   10. j. In January 2023 the whistleblower had reached the conclusion that there were approximately 6,000 Learners who did not receive a certificate for qualifications that they had completed. UWL did not hold sufficient Learner information to understand whether those Learners had completed a regulated qualification and were entitled to a certificate. UWL had to take legal action to obtain further information from Centre A.

The Event Notification

1. 11. On or around 18 November 2022, UWL submitted an event notification (‘the Event Notification’) to Ofqual in accordance with Condition B3.1 of the GCR.  The Event Notification explained that:
   1. a. UWL had entered into a third-party arrangement with Centre A
   2. b. Pursuant to that third party arrangement, Centre A was to provide of a digital platform for the delivery by UWL of its suite of digital performance exams during the period affected by the Covid-19 lockdown.
   3. c. Centre A was also engaged to undertake a range of administrative tasks, including accepting bookings for the digital performance exams, to liaise with UWL examiners as to timings and logistics, and to produce and post the certificate upon successful completion of assessments.
   4. d. UWL was responsible for producing the assessments for the theory module that learners would sit, but UWL had become aware that Centre A had created its own additional theory papers without the knowledge of UWL (‘the Centre A Theory Papers’).
   5. e. A total of 224 learners had sat exams using the Centre A Theory Papers and had received certificates.
   6. f. UWL had terminated its third-party arrangement with Centre A because of this issue.

The investigation

1. 12. Ofqual requested details of any contractual arrangements between UWL and Centre A. UWL provided a copy of the services agreement (“the Services Agreement”) which appeared to be a relatively standard commercial services agreement. The Services Agreement assigned services (including exam related tasks) to the respective parties as follows:

UWL Services:

1. a. Communication of Student details, together with other relevant information, to Centre A.
2. b. Creating the content of Examinations.
3. c. Collecting payment from Students of the fees of the examinations.
4. d. Recruitment, hiring, firing and payment of examiners.
5. e. the supply and maintenance of the terms and conditions on which students purchase examinations.
6. f. The supply and maintenance of a privacy policy in relation to processing personal data.
7. g. UWL Exam Tasks (defined in clause 4 as “candidate onboarding (from expression of interest up to registration), collection of exam fees, and the issuing of results and certificates”).

Centre A Services:

1. a. Provision of the [Digital Platform].
2. b. Customer support and ancillary services.
3. c. management of examiners.

4. d. Centre A Exam Tasks (defined in clause 4 as “the delivery of examinations including scheduling, organisation and administration”).

5. 13. Notwithstanding the clear contractual delineation between UWL and Centre A Exam Tasks, the narrative provided by UWL as part of the Event Notification indicated that Centre A was playing a more prominent role in the delivery of assessments than was accounted for under the Services Agreement. This was consistent with the information that had been provided by the whistle-blower.

6. 14. The VTQ AO Performance team noted that if UWL was robustly marking and moderating the assessment and then providing instructions to Centre A to print the certificate, somebody at UWL would have noticed the use of the Centre A Theory Papers within the assessment materials.

7. 15. The fact that certificates had been issued to Learners sitting the Centre A Theory Papers suggested that Centre A had played a largely unsupervised role in setting, delivering and marking the assessment as well as making the decision to issue the certificate.

8. 16. Ofqual continued to scrutinise the information provided by UWL, requesting details of the number of ‘unsanctioned’ theory exams had taken place, the number of resultant certificates that had been issued, the steps taken to revoke any resultant, as well as the level of supervision that was in place to monitor Centre A’s activities.

9. 17. 1. UWL did not respond directly to those points, but on or around 16 January 2023, UWL contacted Ofqual explaining that it had now completed an investigation into the root causes of the issue giving rise to the development of the Centre A Theory Papers. UWL explained that Person B (formerly a member of UWL’s Senior Management Team) had “verbally agreed a parallel process with Centre A for the delivery of these theory exams” and that this “parallel process” had not been shared with others within UWL/LCME. UWL had become aware of this arrangement on or around 16 September 2022. A disciplinary process was started to address misconduct by Person B (formerly a member of UWL’s Senior Management Team), but this was discontinued when the individual decided to leave UWL voluntarily.

10. 18. The VTQ AO Performance team was concerned that, while UWL was permitted to outsource performance of certain tasks to a third party, UWL remains responsible for strictly monitoring the third parties’ performance of those tasks.  The evidence suggested that such monitoring may not have taken place.

11. 19. At the conclusion of UWL’s internal investigation, UWL had reviewed the Centre A Theory Papers and determined that they were of sufficient quality and reliability that, had they been developed using UWL’s usual process, they would have been approved.  For that reason, on the advice of its Chief Examiner at the time, UWL decided that it would be disproportionate to revoke the certificates that had been issued to Learners sitting the Centre A Theory Paper.

Special Conditions

1. 20. Ofqual has the power under section 132(3)(d) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (ASCLA) to impose Special Conditions on an awarding organisation at the point of recognition or later. Those Special Conditions form part of an awarding organisation’s Conditions of Recognition and must be complied with in the same way as any other Condition.

2. 21. Ofqual notified UWL of its intention to impose Special Conditions on UWL in October 2023. The Special Conditions identified concerns that UWL may have failed to comply with one or more of General Conditions of Recognition Conditions A4, A7, B3.2, C1, H6, I1, I4 and/or G1.

3. 22. Given the risks associated with those potential breaches, Ofqual proposed to impose conditions that required UWL to, inter alia:
   1. a. Terminate or suspend any third-party arrangements under which any third party was responsible for the design or development of a qualification or assessment materials; the marking of assessment materials and/or the issuing of results or certificates,
   2. b. Commission an independent audit report (“the UWL Audit Report”) that summarised the activities undertaken by third parties, including Centre A during the relevant report,
   3. c. Deliver the UWL Audit Report to Ofqual by 4 February 2024
4. 23. The “UWL Audit Report” was defined as the report produced by the independent auditor pursuant to UWL 2.1 and which should include in its appendices:
   1. a. The original letter of instruction (in this case from UWL to Alliotts (‘the Auditor’).
   2. b. Any correspondence between UWL and the Auditor.
   3. c. A copy of Ofqual’s statement of reasons dated 2 October 2023

5. 24. The purpose of that condition was to require the preparation of an independent audit report to examine UWL’s assertion that it had, save as admitted in relation to Centre A, complied with its Conditions of Recognition as they related to third party arrangements during the relevant period. In relation to Centre A, the Auditor was expected to scrutinise UWL’s assurances that it had since remedied any issues arising from its alleged failure to comply with its Conditions of Recognition. The definition of “UWL audit report” in this regard was significant, because it required UWL to provide information to its Auditor about UWL’s historic non-compliance. Without that knowledge, the Auditor was unable to adequately investigate the extent to which UWL had remedied any issues.

6. 25. By a message on the Portal dated 17 October 2023, UWL consented to the imposition of those Special Conditions and proceeded to commission an independent audit report.

7. 26. On or around 9 February 2024, UWL submitted a series of documents via the Portal, purporting to be the UWL Audit Report. The message read “please find attached the audit report, with drafts, and accompanying appendices’ (Ofqual’s emphasis added).

8. 27. UWL appended to that Portal communication:
   1. a. The final report
   2. b. Two draft reports
   3. c. Its correspondence with the auditor
   4. d. A copy of Ofqual’s statement of reasons dated 2 October 2023

9. 28. On review of the UWL audit report it became apparent that the Auditor’s conclusions directly contradicted facts that had been recorded in Ofqual’s statement of reasons and UWL’s own submissions to Ofqual.  Those discrepancies are set out more fully in Ofqual’s letter to UWL dated 23 February 2024 but are not relevant to the substance of Allegation 4.

10. 29. Within that letter, Ofqual asked UWL whether it had provided all relevant documents to the Auditor, and if so, whether the Auditor could provide clarification on its conclusions in light of a number of apparent discrepancies.

11. 30. UWL responded via the Portal on 11 March 2024 confirming that it did not provide the Auditor with the full statement of reasons, as required by the Special Conditions. UWL said that it ‘deemed the information confidential’ and based on its understanding of the request (i.e. for this to be an independent audit) they believed disclosure of the statement of facts would ‘reduce the independence of the audit’.

12. 31. By way of a letter dated 23 April 2024, UWL confirmed that the decision not to disclose the statement of reasons to the auditor was “a collective decision made by the task group compiled to respond to the Ofqual Special Conditions…”. It later explained that it had been acting upon erroneous advice from its former Financial Controller who was responsible for UWL’s audits, and who had assured them that this was the correct approach to take.

13. 32. UWL agreed to commission a revised report, which it did, with the updated version being submitted to the Portal on 19 June 2024.

The UWL Audit Report

1. 33. The UWL Audit Report concluded that during the period April 2020 to November 2022, there was a lack of supervision by UWL over the activities of Centre A. In relation to the Centre A Theory Papers it was noted that:
   1. a. Centre A had been able to design and deliver its own music theory paper that it delivered on an on-demand basis to at least 224 Learners between November 2021 and July 2022.
   2. b. that on-demand theory paper had not been through UWL’s usual sign off process
   3. c. UWL held no records relating to the marking of the Centre A Theory Papers and could not therefore comment on UWL’s assertions that the assessment was marked in accordance with its expectations.
   4. d. certificates were printed and issued by Centre A to approximately 224 Learners without this being disclosed to UWL.
2. 34. The auditors confirmed that UWL had since implemented third party arrangements with a new supplier to provide a platform for online assessments. The scope of the work being undertaken by that third party was administrative in nature and appeared to be compliant with the special conditions that were now in place.

Compliance with UWL’s Conditions of Recognition

Allegation 1

1. 1. Between January 2020 and November 2023, UWL failed to operate adequate controls over Centre A in that:
   1. 1.1. It did not have in place a written agreement that accurately described those tasks to be performed by Centre A as it related to the development, delivery and award of qualifications to be performed, contrary to Conditions A5, C1 and/or C2 of the General Conditions of Recognition
   2. 1.2. It did not monitor and/or enforce its centre agreement with Centre A, contrary to Conditions C1 of the General Conditions of Recognition, resulting in Centre A being able to:
      1. a. design and deliver an assessment for a UWL qualification that had not been through the UWL approval process, contrary to Conditions A5, A6, G1 and G9, and/or
      2. b. mark the assessment without adequate oversight from UWL contrary to Conditions A5, A6, H1 and H2
   3. 1.3. As a consequence of the arrangement described at 1.1 and/or 1.2, UWL issued results and/or awarded a qualification to approximately 224 Learners in circumstances where:
      1. a. UWL could not be assured that the assessment was fit for purpose by virtue of securing the requirements of Validity, Reliability, and Comparability, contrary to Condition D1.1, and/or
      2. b. UWL could not be assured that marking of the assessment reflected the level of attainment demonstrated by the Learner in the assessment, contrary to Condition H5.1 and H6.1

Analysis

1. 35. An AO must 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 UWL having “appropriate management resources (Condition A5.2(d))” and “appropriate systems of planning and internal control (Condition A5.2(e))”.
2. 36. Conditions A6 and A7 required UWL 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. 37. The GCR anticipates that there will be occasions where an AO is contracting with a third party and the AOs ability to comply with the GCR may be compromised by its ultimate lack of physical control over the actions of that third party. Condition C1.1 makes clear that an AO is expected to take appropriate action to ensure that a third party performs its contracted duties in such a way that it does not place the AO in a position whereby it is unable to comply with its Conditions of Recognition. Condition C1 states:

Where an awarding organisation arranges for a third party to undertake, on its behalf, any part of the development, delivery or award of qualifications which the awarding organisation makes available, or proposes to make available, the awarding organisation must –
(a) ensure that the arrangements which it establishes with that third party enable the awarding organisation to develop, deliver and award qualifications in a way that complies with its Conditions of Recognition, and
(b) monitor and, where appropriate, enforce such arrangements so as to ensure that it is able to develop, deliver and award qualifications in a way that complies with its Conditions of Recognition.

1. 38. 1. UWL has accepted that it did not have a clear and consistent understanding of Centre A’s role in the assessment process. On one hand it had the Services Agreement which set out an administrative role only. On the other hand, Person B (formerly a member of UWL’s Senior Management Team) had agreed a ‘parallel process’ that had not been fully communicated to colleagues. UWL accepts that the terms of the “parallel process” were never formalised such that they could be relied upon or properly enforced.

2. 39. In those circumstances the Services Agreement provided the terms on which Centre A was engaged, and General Condition C1.1(b) required UWL to monitor Centre A’s performance against that agreement and to enforce compliance with the arrangement where there was a breach. The very fact that Centre A was able to design and deliver the Centre A papers is indicative of UWL’s failure to monitor and enforce Centre A’s performance of assessments, contrary to Condition C1.1.

3. 40. At the point at which Learners sat the assessment and received their award, UWL could not be assured that the assessment was fit for purpose, as required under Conditions D1.1, G1 and G9. The assessment had not been through any of the normal quality assurance processes. Marking and moderation had not been conducted in accordance with UWL’s standard processes. UWL had no assurances that the marking accurately reflected the Learner’s performance on the day (Condition H5.1), nor that the results were accurate and reliable (Condition H6.1).

4. 41. As per the UWL Audit Report, UWL’s default position on becoming aware of the issue was that it would need to revoke the affected qualifications, and it was only after completing its misconduct investigation that it was able to assure itself that the assessments were fit for purpose. That UWL only received those assurances ‘after the event’, evidences the fact that it did not have such assurances at the point that the qualification was issued.

5. 42. This in turn illustrates the severity of UWL’s failure to properly supervise Centre A’s activity. Qualifications were being delivered on its behalf in circumstances where UWL was not aware that they were being delivered, and where UWL could not be assured that those assessments were fit for purpose. Such conduct was a serious breach of UWL’s Conditions of Recognition and posed a significant risk to public confidence in qualifications.

6. 43. UWL has admitted the allegation and has assured Ofqual that it has made extensive improvements since the events referred to in the allegation (those improvements are set out in Annex C). UWL states that it had been reviewing and developing its approach to compliance for some time prior to Ofqual’s intervention in this matter and that process is ongoing. While noting that mitigation, Ofqual concludes that the failures are nonetheless serious.

Allegation 2

1. 2.1. Between January 2020 and November 2022 UWL failed to ensure that certificates were issued promptly to approximately 4,300 Learners that completed assessments via Centre A, contrary to Condition I4.1

Allegation 2 - Analysis

1. 44. Condition I4.1 requires an awarding organisation to ensure that the issue of certificates is timely.

2. 45. The whistleblower reported that UWL had become aware that approximately 6,000 Learners had not received certificates promptly and that these were linked to issues with Centre A.

3. 46. In UWL’s Event Notification of 18 November 2022 UWL reported that it had identified a ‘small number of missing theory certificates’ which prompted an investigation into related exams. Upon further investigation UWL/LCME identified that the initial number of learners affected was larger than originally reported and spanned across multiple examination series. The following qualifications were impacted by this issue:

• Theory of Music – Grade 1 – M /602/4310, UWL Level 1 Award in Graded Examination in Theory of Music – 501/2031/1
• Theory of Music – Grade 2 – T / 602/4311, UWL Level 1 Award in Graded Examination in Theory of Music – 501/2032/3
• Theory of Music – Grade 3 – A/602/4312, UWL Level 1 Award in Graded Examination in Theory of Music – 501/2033/5
• Theory of Music – Grade 4 – H/602/3378, UWL Level 2 Award in Graded Examination in Theory of Music – 501/2034/7
• Theory of Music – Grade 5 – H/602/3395, UWL Level 2 Award in Graded Examination in Theory of Music – 501/2035/9
• Theory of Music – Grade 6 – J/602/1980, UWL Level 3 Award in Graded Examination in Theory of Music – 501/2078/5
• Theory of Music – Grade 8 – Y/602/1983, UWL Level 3 Award in Graded Examination in Theory of Music – 501/2081/5

47. The UWL Audit Report explains:

“As part of the process of mitigating the effects of the Centre A activities, [UWL] created online website forms which allowed for candidates to report if they had not received a certificate which they were entitled to or were scheduled for an exam with Centre A at the time the relationship [with Centre A] ended. The data provided related to three forms:

• Form 1 was created immediately after the contract with Centre A was terminated in November 2022 and ran for 4 days for general queries from candidates during the Centre A transition.
• Form 2 was an updated version of Form 1 and replaced it from December 2022 until March 2023 again with a focus on general queries relating to the transition away from Centre A. These general queries included those relating to certificates missing and therefore overlaps with form 3 below.
• Form 3 was a form created specifically for the purpose of requesting certificates that had not been delivered and ran from December 2022 through to [June 2024]”

1. 48. Across all 3 forms, UWL was contacted by a total of 4,330 Learners, all of whom claimed not to have received their certificate despite having a valid entitlement to one. UWL has since reviewed those claims and where appropriate issued those Learners with certificates or replacement certificates.

2. 49. UWL has admitted the allegation and has assured Ofqual that it has made extensive improvements since the events referred to in the allegation (those improvements are set out in Annex C).

Allegation 3

3.1. Between January 2020 and November 2022, UWL failed to establish, maintain and comply with an appeals process in relation to one or more of the qualifications that it made available, contrary to Condition I1.1

Allegation 3 - Analysis

1. 50. The UWL audit report (paragraph 4.5 – page 10) highlights that prior to November 2022, UWL did not have in place an appeals process that allowed it to effectively receive and conduct appeals.

2. 51. It is unclear whether Centre A had a process to allow it to receive appeals on UWL’s behalf, but the evidence suggests that if it did, Centre A was acting unilaterally.

3. 52. The failure was symptomatic of the general lack of control that UWL had over Centre A, giving rise to allegation 1. But it is a significant failure in and of itself and had such an appeals process existed, it may have allowed UWL to identify and remedy the issues giving rise to allegations 1 and 2 earlier.

4. 53. UWL has admitted the allegation and has assured Ofqual that it has made extensive improvements since the events referred to in the allegation (those improvements are set out in Annex C). The UWL Audit Report confirms that since 2023 UWL has implemented an online appeals portal that allows it to comply with Condition I1.

Allegation 4

1. 4.1. UWL failed to comply with special conditions imposed upon it in that it did not deliver an audit report to Ofqual to the required standard within the specified timeframes, contrary to conditions UWL 2.1, 2.2 and/or 2.3

2. 4.2. Its conduct as may be found proved in relation to allegation 4.1 was negligent

Allegation 4 - Analysis

1. 54. UWL failed to comply with Condition UWL 2.1, 2.2 and/or 2.3 because it did not commission and submit to Ofqual an audit report that met the definition of the UWL Audit Report (see paragraphs 22 and 23 above), by the specified date.

2. 55. The terms of UWL 2.1 and the definition at UWL 3.2 were clear and unambiguous in that they required UWL to disclose to the Auditor a copy of the Statement of Reasons provided to UWL by Ofqual. That document set out the alleged non-compliance that was to be investigated. UWL did not object to the imposition of those Conditions, nor did it seek to clarify any perceived ambiguity. Having made the conscious decision not to disclose the Statement of Reasons to the Auditor, UWL still appended the Statement of Reasons to the Portal communication in which it disclosed the UWL Audit Report to Ofqual, creating the impression that it had been provided to the Auditor.

3. 56. The initial audit report was substantially more positive, presenting no or limited evidence of non-compliance. The final UWL Audit Report was far more critical, highlighting a range of historic and ongoing non-compliances. There was a significant risk that Ofqual would be misled about UWL’s compliance with its Conditions of Recognition if it had not identified and challenged UWL on the content of the report. In those circumstances it was necessary to investigate whether UWL’s actions represented a deliberate attempt to mislead Ofqual as to the extent of its compliance with the GCR and to avoid proper scrutiny or sanction for those actions.

4. 57. However, UWL has since explained, and Ofqual has accepted, that UWL acted on advice provided by its then Financial Controller when commissioning the UWL Audit Report. UWL says that its concern was that the Statement of Reasons was potentially prejudicial to the independence of the audit rather than to its own interests. It has accepted that it ought to have disclosed the Statement of Reasons and that its failure to do so was ultimately negligent. UWL acknowledges that its actions increased the time and cost of the Ofqual investigation.

5. 58. As to the covering email referred to at paragraph 55, UWL does not accept that there was an intention to mislead or to avoid scrutiny or sanction. UWL says that given the ease with which the discrepancy was capable of being identified, this was not a co-ordinated and planned attempt to avoid scrutiny. On the basis of UWL’s explanation at paragraph 57, Ofqual accepts that position.

6. 59. Nonetheless, UWL accepts that its actions were in breach of Special Conditions UWL 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. UWL further accepts that the breach was the product of negligence by its Board, in that it failed to exercise the level of care, skill and diligence reasonably expected of it when responding to and complying with the Special Conditions imposed upon UWL.

Failure to comply with the Conditions

60. UWL has admitted that it failed to comply with its Conditions of Recognition as a result of the factual matrix summarised above.

Determination of a Monetary Penalty

1. 61. On 23 January 2026, Ofqual’s Enforcement Panel considered the evidence relating to the breaches set out above, alongside the admissions made by UWL. The Enforcement Panel determined that UWL has breached its Conditions of Recognition as per the allegations set out at paragraph 8 above.

2. 62. The Enforcement Panel has considered the settlement proposal presented by UWL. 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 Supporting compliance and taking regulatory action policy (2025).

3. 63. The Enforcement Panel notes the aggravating and mitigating factors set out below.

Aggravating Factors

64. The following factors, as taken from Ofqual’s Supporting Compliance and taking regulatory action policy, are relevant in this case:

• the seriousness of the breach, particularly in relation to its effect on standards of qualifications, public confidence and the efficiency of the qualifications system.
• the effect of the breach (both in terms of the seriousness of the impact and the number of people affected) on purchasers, learners and users of qualifications.
• whether the breach was prolonged or repeated.
• the extent to which the circumstances of the breach were within the control of the Awarding Organisation.
• the behaviour of the awarding organisation in relation to the breach, including whether it happened intentionally, whether there was any negligence on the part of the awarding organisation, and whether the breach gives rise to concerns about the organisation’s management or control systems

1. 65. The failure to properly supervise Centre A (Allegation 1) persisted for almost 3 years. While 224 Learners were directly impacted by Centre A’s decision to use the ‘Centre A Theory Papers’, approximately 40,000 Learners were certificated via Centre A during a period in which Centre A had not been fully and robustly supervised. The conduct posed a significant risk to Learners and to public confidence in qualifications.

2. 66. The failure to issue certificates in a prompt manner (Allegation 2) was a consequence of UWL’s failure to properly supervise Centre A. Once the relationship with Centre A deteriorated, UWL’s lack of access to relevant information prevented UWL from resolving the issue promptly. The delays affected a large number of Learners.

3. 67. The failure to have in place an appeals process (Allegation 3) persisted for almost 3 years. It is impossible to estimate how many Learners were impacted by the failure.

4. 68. Allegation 4 was the product of negligence on behalf of UWL and was avoidable had UWL taken greater care in seeking to comply with its regulatory obligations. UWL’s conduct added time and cost to Ofqual’s investigation as it was necessary to fully investigate the circumstances giving rise to the incident and whether that conduct was dishonest.

5. 69. The allegations more generally were all systemic matters within UWL’s control.

6. a fine is likely to improve compliance with regulatory conditions in the future (including by other awarding organisations)

7. 70. Ofqual considers that there is a clear need to deter UWL and other awarding organisations from making similar failings in the future. The imposition of a monetary penalty emphasises the importance of maintaining robust oversight of third parties that are contracted to deliver qualifications on behalf of an awarding organisation.  It also demonstrates that where standards are compromised, Ofqual will take proportionate and transparent regulatory action to protect the integrity of, and public confidence in, qualifications.

Mitigating factors

1. 71. Save as relevant to allegation 4, UWL has engaged and co-operated fully with Ofqual during the enforcement process.

2. 72. In relation to allegation 4, UWL was relying upon the advice of its Former Financial Controller as to the proper way to comply with the Special Condition, and any breach was not intentional. On discovery of the breach, UWL admitted its mistake and promptly remedied the issue.

3. 73. UWL has no relevant adverse regulatory history.

4. 74. The Panel carefully considered all of the additional mitigation submitted by UWL a copy of which is attached at Appendix C. The Panel was not persuaded that the further mitigation served to effectively mitigate UWL’s initial culpability, or to warrant a reduction in the appropriate sanction in these circumstances.

Other factors

1. 75. The Enforcement Panel has also considered:
   1. a. the need to deter UWL and other awarding organisations from making similar failings in the future;
   2. b. the need to promote public confidence in qualifications through visible, appropriate and effective regulatory action.;
   3. c. the nature and circumstances of these breaches in comparison to other breaches for which fines have been imposed by Ofqual on other awarding organisations;
   4. d. the admissions made by UWL, its engagement with the enforcement process and its proposals for the settlement of this action.

Settlement

1. 76. UWL co-operated with Ofqual’s investigation, promptly admitted the non-compliances and entered into a voluntary settlement in which it has acknowledged Ofqual’s decision in this Notice and agreed not to appeal. In light of this settlement, Ofqual has decided to impose a lower penalty than it would have done in a contested case.

2. 77. UWL has also agreed to pay the sum of £10,000 in full and final settlement of Ofqual’s investigation and enforcement costs for this matter. A separate Notice of Costs will give effect to this agreement.

Final decision

1. 78. Taking all of the above into account, the Enforcement Panel has confirmed its earlier notice of intention to accept a settlement proposal and imposes a monetary penalty in the sum of £150,000.

2. 79. The Enforcement Panel is satisfied, in accordance with section 151B of the 2009 Act, that a Monetary Penalty in the sum of £150,000 would not exceed 10% of UWL’s total annual turnover.

Payment

1. 80. The monetary penalty must be paid within 28 days of the date of this notice, in accordance with the payment instructions provided with this notice.

2. 81. In the event of non-payment, interest may be charged and the outstanding amount may be recovered as a debt, in accordance with section 151D of the Act.

Appeals

1. 82. An awarding organisation may appeal to the First Tier Tribunal in respect of Ofqual’s decision to impose the monetary penalty and/or in respect of the amount of that penalty, in accordance with section 151C of the Act.

2. 83. An appeal may be made on the grounds:
   1. a. that the decision was based on an error of fact;
   2. b. that the decision was wrong in law;
   3. c. that the decision was unreasonable.
3. 84. Any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date of this notice. Further   information is available from HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

Name: Chris Paterson
Chair of the Enforcement Panel

Date: 30 January 2026

Enforcement Panel: Chris Paterson, Hardip Begol CBE, Cindy Leslie

Annex A: Legal provisions

Statutory powers

1. 1. UWL 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 2009 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 2009 Act.

2. 2. Under Section 151A(2) of the 2009 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.

3. 3. Under Section 151B(3) of the 2009 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), which provides that Ofqual may not impose a Monetary Penalty in an amount which exceeds 10% of the awarding body’s turnover.

4. 4. Section 151A(4) provides that Ofqual must give notice to an awarding organisation of its intention to impose a monetary penalty. S151A(5) and (6) set further requirements in respect of such notice.

5. 5. Ofqual’s Supporting compliance and taking regulatory action Policy (2025) sets out how it will use its powers to take regulatory action, including the factors it will take into account when deciding whether to impose a Monetary Penalty and how it will determine the amount of any Monetary Penalty to be imposed.

General Conditions of Recognition

1. 6. UWL has a legal obligation to comply with its Conditions of Recognition (s132(3) of the 2009 Act), which includes the General Conditions of Recognition and any other relevant Conditions set by Ofqual.

2. 7. The General Conditions of Recognition, Qualification Level Conditions and Subject Level Conditions can be found on Ofqual’s website.

3. 8. Special Conditions were imposed by Ofqual on 17 October 2023 and a copy is attached at Annex B.

Annex B - Special Conditions

Awarding Organisation: University of West London (“UWL”) Responsible Officer: Mr Joshua Heming

Special Conditions

The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual), in accordance with its powers under section 132(3)(d) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (ASCLA) has imposed the following Special Conditions on the University of West London (‘UWL’):

Condition UWL 1 – Third Party Arrangements

UWL 1.1
UWL must take all reasonable steps to immediately suspend any arrangements under which UWL delegates responsibility for the following activities to a third party:

a. Design and/or development of a qualification and/or any assessment materials
b. Marking of assessment materials
c. Issuing results and certificates

UWL 1.2
Within 7 days of suspending any arrangements pursuant to Special Condition UWL 1.1, UWL must provide to Ofqual:

a. The name and address of the third party
b. A summary of any tasks delegated to the third party prior to the suspension under UWL 1.1
c. A copy of the contract governing the arrangements between UWL and the third party

UWL 1.3
In the event that UWL has been unable to suspend any arrangements pursuant to Condition UWL 1.1 within 14 days of these Special Conditions coming into force, UWL must provide Ofqual with:

a. The name and address of the third party
b. A summary of any tasks currently delegated to the third party
c. A copy of the contract governing the arrangements between UWL and the third party
d. A summary of its efforts to comply with Condition UWL 1.1
e. The reason(s) why it has been unable to suspend those arrangements
f. Its proposed timescale to suspend those arrangements

UWL 1.4
UWL must not reinstate and/or resume any of those contracts suspended pursuant to UWL 1.1 and/or enter into any new arrangements under which UWL delegates responsibility for the following activities to a third party:

a. Design and/or development of a qualification and/or any assessment materials
b. Marking of assessment materials
c. Issuing results and certificates

until such time as Ofqual’s Executive Director for Vocational and Technical Qualifications confirms, in writing, that UWL has demonstrated to her satisfaction that:

i. it has the capacity to undertake the development, delivery and award of qualifications which it makes available, or proposes to make available, in accordance with its Conditions of Recognition;
ii. where it delegates to a third party any aspect of the design, delivery and award of a qualification, it has in place suitable arrangements to allow it to monitor and, where appropriate, enforce those arrangements to ensure compliance with its Condition of Recognition.

Condition UWL 2 - Review of Marking and Certification

UWL 2.1
UWL must commission an independent audit to review all Delegated Third Party Activities undertaken by third parties between 1 January 2020 and 17 November 2023. The independent auditor should be asked to prepare a report (‘the UWL Audit Report’) that separately summarises for each third party that has undertaken Delegated Third Party Activities:

a. What processes did UWL have in place to ensure that Learners with a valid entitlement were issued a certificate (Condition I4.2(a)) and that Learners without a valid entitlement were not issued a certificate (Condition I4.2(b))?
b. How many assessments were sat by Learners?
c. Whether the assessment materials used in those assessments had been approved by UWL
d. Whether those assessments were marked by Assessors who were on UWL’s list of approved assessors
e. Whether the marking of the assessments was completed consistently in accordance with UWL’s mark scheme
f. How many certificates did UWL instruct the third party to issue?
g. How many certificates were awarded by the third party?
h. How many learners claimed not to have received certificates from UWL and/or the Third Party?
i. How many of those claims remain unresolved?

UWL 2.2
UWL must deliver the UWL Audit Report and any drafts of the UWL Audit Report to Ofqual promptly upon receipt, but in any event, no later than 9 February 2024.

UWL 2.3
UWL must notify Ofqual promptly if they have any reason to believe that they will be unable to comply with Condition UWL 2.2

Condition UWL 3 – Interpretation and definitions

UWL 3.1
The rules of interpretation and definitions outlined in General Condition J1 shall apply to these Special Conditions.

UWL 3.2
For the purposes of these Special Conditions, the following additional definitions apply:

1. a) Delegated Third Party Activities refers to any of the following activities that UWL has delegated to a third party:
   1. i. Design of a qualification and/or any assessment materials
   2. ii. Marking of assessment materials
   3. iii. Issuing results and certificates
2. b) The UWL Audit Report refers to the report produced by the independent auditor pursuant to UWL 2.1 and which should include in its appendices:
   1. i. The original letter of instruction
   2. ii. Any correspondence between UWL and the auditor
   3. iii. A copy of Ofqual’s statement of reasons dated 2 October 2023

UWL 3.3
Except in the circumstances described in Condition UWL 3.4, the requirements imposed by these Special Conditions apply in addition to the requirements imposed by the General Conditions of Recognition and any relevant Qualification Level Conditions and Subject Level Conditions.

UWL 3.4
To the extent that there is any inconsistency between –
(a) a requirement of one of these Special Conditions, and
(b) a requirement of a General Condition of Recognition, a Qualification Level Condition or a Subject Level Condition,
such that UWL could not comply with both such requirements, the awarding organisation must comply with the requirement of the Special Condition and is not obliged to comply with the requirement of the other Condition.

Emma Scott
Director of Operations for VTQ

Annex to Special Conditions

Publication and sharing of information

1. 1. Ofqual may publish a Special Condition, either fully or in part, on its website unless Ofqual is persuaded by an awarding organisation that there is a legitimate reason that this should not be published, including that this may have adverse commercial implications for the awarding organisation involved. Ofqual does not propose to publish these Special Conditions at the time they are imposed, but may consider publication at a later date. Ofqual will consult with UWL before publishing these Special Conditions.

2. 2. Ofqual may share information about these Special Conditions with other regulators in accordance with its powers, where it considers necessary.

Right of internal review

1. 3. UWL may request an internal review of the decision to impose a Special Condition within 10 working days of the date the Special Condition was imposed. The request must be made via the Portal, with the subject line - for the attention of Matthew Humphrey, Director, Legal Moderation and Enforcement.

2. 4. An internal review may be requested on the following grounds only:
   1. a) The facts of the decision for imposing a Special Condition are incorrect;
   2. b) A relevant fact has not been taken into account;
   3. c) Ofqual has not followed its own procedures; or
   4. d) The decision to impose a Special Condition does not support the facts, an unreasonable decision.
3. 5. Any internal review will be carried out by an officer of Ofqual who has had no previous involvement in your matter.

Ofqual review

1. 6. On or after [12 months from the date of the Special Conditions] (the ‘review date’), Ofqual will review whether the requirements of these Special Conditions need to remain in place and will issue its decision to UWL. UWL may request that Ofqual carries out this review before the specified review date if it believes some or all of the requirements no longer need to remain in place. UWL should provide evidence to support any such request in writing via the Portal.

2. 7. In considering whether the requirements of these Special Conditions need to remain in place, Ofqual will consider whether UWL has demonstrated to Ofqual’s satisfaction that it has 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.

3. 8. If after review, Ofqual considers that some or all of the requirements of the Special Conditions no longer need to remain in place, the relevant requirements will be removed.

4. 9. If Ofqual considers that some or all of the requirements need to remain in place, or that additional or alternative requirements need to be imposed, it may take one or more of the following steps, below in isolation or combination:
   1. a) set a new review date;
   2. b) amend the terms of the Special Conditions (by adding and/or removing requirements),
   3. c) determine whether there has been a breach of the Special Conditions,
   4. d) take any regulatory action set out in Ofqual’s Taking Regulatory Action policy.
5. 10. The process set out above is without prejudice to any other action that Ofqual may take in line with its Taking Regulatory Action policy.

Requests for information

Failure to provide the information as required by this Special Condition is a breach of the Special Conditions and Ofqual may take regulatory action.

1. 11. If UWL is unable to provide the information or cannot provide it within the timescale required it should notify Ofqual as soon as practical, giving details as to why this cannot be provided.

2. 12. Unless specifically requested UWL should redact personal information from any documents provided.

3. 13. Where personal data is requested, UWL must consider whether any steps need to be taken in order to ensure compliance with data protection legislation.

4. 14. Where personal data is being transferred, UWL may need to consider whether it needs to put in place any additional safeguards. Ofqual can provide assurance that it will process personal data in accordance with UK data protection legislation. For more details about how Ofqual processes personal data please see our privacy information. Awarding organisations must ensure that personal data is transferred securely.

5. 15. All information submitted in response to the Special Conditions will be retained by Ofqual and may be used for other purposes in accordance with Ofqual’s objectives and duties. Personal data will only be used for another compatible purpose and/or anonymised or pseudonymised where possible.

6. 16. Ofqual is subject to the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 and we may be asked to disclose information under that Act. No personal data will be disclosed unless required by law. Where an awarding organisation indicates that it considers information submitted to us to be commercially sensitive, we will take this into account when considering any FOI request. However, it will be for Ofqual to determine whether the information must be disclosed or an exemption applied.

7. 17. Ofqual may share information provided to it by UWL with other agencies or authorities where appropriate or where required by law.

Annex C

UWL cites the following by way of mitigation:

1. 1. UWL holds charitable status and works to widen access and participation in higher education for groups who have been traditionally underrepresented in higher education.  A significant financial penalty may be seen to impact upon students rather than shareholders.

2. 2. UWL highlights that much of the 3-year period covered by these breaches coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and  cites the impact of that on the University and its ability to maintain oversight on all its activities given the extensive and complex government requirements it was required to administer at the time which reduced the resources available to it to administer other regulatory requirements.

3. 3. UWL describes an extensive programme of regulatory improvement that commenced prior to Ofqual’s intervention and which is part of ongoing work.  This includes:

   1. a) System replacements and upgrades
      1. i. Digital Exam Platform: At the end of 2022 a new, bespoke platform for submission of recorded exams and live delivery of Digital Theory exams was introduced which enforced precise tracking and monitoring of all exam events. It includes robust security features to ensure the integrity of submissions and monitors live exam delivery continuously. Since introduction, a program of continuous improvement has aimed to streamline process and enhance security in all areas.
      2. ii. Replacement of examination systems: Starting in 2024 LCME has initiated the replacement of its existing examination systems, specifying more effective systems to reduce risk and cut down on manual processing. The new systems are designed to optimize regulatory compliance, quality assurance, GDPR, and user experience aspects of customer experience as well as LCME operations. The project is currently in the tender phase, following Public Body Procurement procedures. Work is expected to continue throughout 2025 and 2026, with the new system fully developed and deployed by early 2027
      3. iii. Technical Issue Resolutions: Several technical issues with the ERIC (CRM  for learners) system have been resolved by Access Planit, the developers, as part of a policy of continuous rolling improvement. These issues included enhancements to standardization, automated email functionalities, and result visibility for unpaid customers. These issues have been addressed to improve the overall functionality and reliability of the system
   2. b) Operational enhancements
      1. i. Increased Examination Sessions: In Spring 2025, LCME conducted 340 days of in-person examining, utilizing 52 examiners who visited 138 centres in 13 countries. This expansion has allowed LCME to reach more learners and provide a wider range of examination opportunities
   3. c) Staffing and resource improvements:
      1. i. Staffing: resource has been addressed, and specialist academic staff recruited to be responsible for examiner accuracy, resolving customer syllabi queries, assisting with examiner recruitment, training, and support, and managing examiner standardization, monitoring, and moderation activities.
      2. ii. Expertise: Those in senior positions at LCME have between them 130 years’ experience of working with AOs in positions of senior responsibility (academic and/or operational), and around 17 years collectively as Responsible Officers at 4 separate AOs.  UWL has provided details of those staff to Ofqual.
      3. iii. Increased Staff expenditure: Staff investment has risen from £1.36 million in 2022 to 2023 to £1.47 million in 2024 to 2025, with a forecasted increase to £1.59 million in 2025 to 2026
   4. d) Compliance and quality assurance
      1. i. Policy Review: Thorough review of all LCME policies to ensure processes for appeals, complaints, malpractice and maladministration and so on are robust, and clearly communicated to candidates
      2. ii. Work with External Expert Consultant: LCME has engaged an external expert consultant to review all aspects of the University’s compliance with the General Conditions of Regulation
      3. iii. Arrangements with Customers: LCME has ensured that all examination customers comply with regulatory requirements, including introducing enhanced data protection and safeguarding policies. The conditions for private centres have been updated to include clauses requiring compliance with LCME policies and regulations
   5. e) University oversight
      1. i. A structure has been established to ensure full oversight and quality control, led by the University Quality Office. The LCME Compliance and Quality Committee meets 5 times a year to oversee policy and delivery, receiving regular operational and systems reports to ensure continuous monitoring and improvement of examination processes. This committee reports to the quarterly Apprenticeship and Further Education Committee, which in turn reports to the University Governing Body
   6. f) Cost Management and Procurement
      1. i. Capital Funding Applications: LCME has developed comprehensive business cases for the replacement of examination systems, including detailed project descriptions, justifications, and cost estimates. These applications have been submitted for approval to secure funding for the necessary upgrades
      2. ii. Supplier Relationships: LCME has successfully negotiated with existing suppliers to secure significant improvements in ongoing functionality, ensuring that resources are utilized efficiently while maintaining high standards of service. Investment in the main supplier of administrative support, MVS, has increased from £367,000 in 2022 to 2023 to £433,000 in 2024 to 2025 to support the continued development of replacement systems.
      3. iii. LCME is part of the UWL Group but has its own budget. It is not for profit and the University has been supporting it financially for several years
   7. g) Academic resource
      1. i. Standardisation: processes have been enhanced to ensure that all qualifications are suitably monitored and delivered to the highest standards of reliability
      2. ii. Product Offer: Initiated review of LCME offer with a view to streamlining and simplification, beginning with diplomas at levels 4 to 7 and moving on to levels 1 to 3.
      3. iii. Externality: LCME has revised qualification design and monitoring processes to ensure that a wide cross-section of stakeholders are involved in the design and appraisal of new qualifications. This validates the assessments provided and engages with markets to verify that the qualifications LCME delivers are fit for purpose and meet market need.