Notice

Notice of a Monetary Penalty in respect of Cambridge English

Published 11 June 2026

Applies to England

Introduction

1. 1. The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (“Ofqual”) has decided to issue the University of Cambridge (The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge) (“Cambridge English”) with a monetary penalty under section 151A of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (“ASCLA”) in the sum of £875,000

2. 2. This Monetary Penalty Notice (“the notice”) contains the reasons why Ofqual has decided to impose a penalty. Further information about Ofqual’s statutory powers and the Conditions of Recognition are set out in Annex A of this notice.

3. 3. On 1 June 2026, Cambridge English entered into a voluntary settlement agreement with Ofqual to resolve this investigation. Cambridge English made full admissions and agreed to pay a penalty of £875,000.

4. 4. In accordance with section 151A (4) of the 2009 Act, Ofqual served Cambridge English with a Notice of Intention to impose a monetary penalty on 4 June 2026. Ofqual determined it was not necessary to publish the Notice of Intention.

5. 5. On 5 June 2026, and in accordance with the settlement agreement, Cambridge English confirmed it had no representations to make and was content for Ofqual to proceed to final decision.

Background

1. 6. Cambridge English, which has been regulated by Ofqual since 1 April 2010, develops, delivers and awards regulated qualifications including IELTS (“International English Language Testing System”).

2. 7. IELTS assesses performance across 4 skills: Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking. It is a high-stakes English language qualification used globally. IELTS is offered in 2 forms:

   1. a. Secure English Language Test (SELT) – approved for UK visa and immigration purposes and subject to additional security requirements; and

   2. b. Non-SELT IELTS – used for academic and professional purposes, including international university admissions and employment.

3. 8. Results comprise individual component scores and an overall band score (0 to 9, including half bands). Many of the organisations which rely on IELTS results set minimum requirements for both component and overall scores.

Assessment and marking

1. 9. IELTS is delivered via paper based and on-screen assessment.

2. 10. The Writing and Speaking components are marked by trained examiners using defined assessment criteria.

3. 11. The Listening and Reading components are automatically marked using a rule-based marking system based on predefined answer keys. Test content is hosted on a cloud-based platform, which relays candidate responses and answer keys to the marking system for marking. The marking system then automatically marks the learner’s answers and sends the marks back to the test content platform for calculation of overall results. The marking system is set by human subject matter experts, with no machine learning or adaptive behaviour.

The incident

1. 12. Between August 2023 and September 2025 (the Affected Period), an incident occurred involving the translation of data between the test content platform and the marking system. The error affected four“Gap Match” question types (in which test-takers select words from a given list to complete blanks in a sentence) for assessments delivered on-screen.

2. 13. Two different inaccuracies in auto-marking produced incorrect raw scores and subsequently, incorrect test results:

   1. a. A technical failure caused the incorrect ordering of answer keys passed between the test content platform and marking system; and

   2. b. Inconsistencies in the treatment of learner responses containing diacritics (for example, umlauts, accents and cedillas). Under the IELTS Marking Policy, punctuation is not tested within learner responses to the Listening and Reading components. When punctuation is included in a productive response (one where the test taker must enter their answer using words or numbers), the expected treatment is for the auto-marker to disregard the presence of these diacritics regardless of whether they have been used appropriately or not. Cambridge English discovered instances, where in specific circumstances, the presence of a diacritic was not being ignored by the auto-marker and was generating an incorrect score of 0 rather than 1 against the response.

3. 14. These issues resulted in test-takers receiving incorrect marks for the affected questions - correct test-taker responses being marked as incorrect, and vice versa.

4. 15. The marking errors remained undetected by Cambridge English until September 2025, when a fix relating to error-monitoring was implemented.

5. 16. On 8 September 2025, Cambridge English notified Ofqual of the incident.

6. 17. Cambridge English subsequently established that incorrect results had been issued at component and qualification level during the Affected Period. In that period, 7,786,614 IELTS test instances were processed, of which:

   1. a. 63,216 test instances involved a change of result at component or qualification level, affecting 62,794 individual learners (62,794 component band score corrections and 21,717 overall qualification band score corrections, of which 20,602 were upward and 1,115 downward). The band changes consisted of 0.5-band adjustments (20,600 upward, 1,115 downward) and 1.0-band adjustments (2 upward).

   2. b. 2,740 of the 63,216 test instances resulted in a change to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (“CEFR”) level.

   3. c. 93,865 test instances were affected by the error such that an incorrect mark had originally been awarded. 30,649 of those test instances resulted in no change to the component or overall qualification result once the error was corrected.

7. 18. SELT tests accounted for 1,108 affected test-takers (including 279 CEFR changes); the remainder were non-SELT tests.

8. 19. On 26 September 2025, Cambridge English informed Ofqual that, based on its consideration of factors under Condition H6.3, it intended to correct all upward grade changes and apply downward grade changes selectively in scenarios where the adverse effect of not correcting a downward result outweighed the benefit. In response, Ofqual highlighted concerns about Cambridge English’s balancing of factors and reflected that the default position is that an awarding organisation should correct all affected results so as to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the qualification.

9. 20. On 22 October 2025, Cambridge English informed Ofqual that all impacted results both upwards anddownwards at component and overall qualification level would be corrected. The approach was adopted after feedback from Ofqual and Cambridge English engagement with key stakeholders, including immigration authorities, recognising organisations granting licences to practise and Higher Education Institutions (known collectively as “recognising organisations”).

Correction of results

1. 21. On 12 and 13 November 2025 and 5 December 2025, affected learners were contacted via e-mail to correct results. Each learner whose result was impacted received a direct, individual communication from Cambridge English to make them aware of the issue, apologise and explain what it meant for their results, and to set out redress options. Cambridge English established a dedicated 24/7 customer support hub to manage incoming communications and provide access to support, guidance and FAQs.

2. 22. Cambridge English provided all learners impacted by this incident with a form of redress

   1. a. All impacted learners (those requiring both upward or downward corrections) had the choice of either a refund or a free resit.

   2. b. Any learners who had previously taken a One Skill Retake (“OSR”) or requested an Enquiry on Results (“EOR”) based on an incorrect result received a refund for that OSR/EOR.

3. 23. The incident attracted media coverage in the UK and internationally. Reports focused on the potential consequences for learners, particularly for those relying on IELTS results for visa and immigration purposes.

4. 24. Following correction to results, Cambridge English received 23,632 enquiries from learners. In respect of refunds and resits:
   1. a. 1,145 learners received a free resit following the correction of results;
   2. b. 26,246 learners received a refund relating to an original test, an OSR or an EOR.

5. 25. There were 270 complaints received evidencing expressions of dissatisfaction, 24 were upheld. 19 of the complaints were accepted as relating to a missed opportunity; of which, 2 were upheld and compensation paid to the affected learners.

6. 26. Through engagement with key stakeholders, Cambridge English was able to identify instances where incorrect results might have been relied on, for example, by immigration authorities, to make decisions. Cambridge English’s customer support hub supported recognising organisations in identifying any impacted result they had verified to understand and mitigate any potential for adverse effect. In some instances, this involved providing the recognising organisations with granular detail on the change in marks that sat behind a correction of results to help these organisations determine whether any risk existed to a learner’s ability to operate in the relevant context.

7. 27. Ofqual received information from Cambridge English on the extent to which incorrect results may have been relied upon by organisations.

8. 28. Of the 62,794 learners who received incorrect results, following engagement with immigration authorities in multiple jurisdictions including UKVI, Cambridge English identified 4 cases where incorrect results affected visa eligibility, but where the affected learners subsequently resat and met entrance requirements.

9. 29. Ofqual has not seen any evidence to suggest material adverse effects arising from reliance on incorrect results by other organisations. However, the available data has material limitations because the extent of reliance by other organisations cannot be fully verified.

Root cause of the incident

1. 30. An independent audit commissioned by Cambridge English traced the root causes of the incident back to changes introduced as part of a system modernisation programme which commenced in June 2019.

2. 31. Cambridge English accepted that the root causes included (but were not limited to) developments introduced without adequate requirements analysis, documentation, design assurance, resourcing or testing, and ongoing resource needs not being appropriately reviewed or addressed.

3. 32. Cambridge English also accepted that there were missed opportunities to prevent the incident and reduce its severity.

Non-compliances

1. 33. Cambridge English has accepted, and Ofqual finds, non-compliance with the following Conditions of Recognition (“the Conditions”):

   1. a. In respect of erroneous answer keys, Cambridge English failed to produce a written document setting out clear and unambiguous criteria against which Learners’ levels of attainment would be differentiated, contrary to General Condition G1.3.

   2. b. In respect of marking and awarding, Cambridge English failed to ensure that the marking of an assessment in relation to, and the awarding of, a qualification took into account all admissible evidence generated by a Learner as part of that assessment, contrary to General Conditions H5.2(a) and (b).

   3. c. In respect of incorrect results, Cambridge English failed to ensure that the result of each assessment taken by a Learner reflected the level of attainment demonstrated by that Learner, contrary to General Condition H5.1.

   4. d. The root causes summarised above amounted to a failure by Cambridge English to ensure it had the capacity to undertake the development, delivery and award of qualifications in a way that complies with the Conditions, and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that it undertakes the development, delivery and award of those qualifications efficiently, contrary to General Conditions A5.1(a) and (b) (as emphasised by A5.2(c), A5.2(e), A5.3(a) and (b)), and to identify foreseeable risks associated with changes to its marking systems and operational processes, contrary to General Condition A6.1.

Regulatory action

1. 34. On 1 June 2026, Cambridge English entered a voluntary settlement 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 £875,000 in settlement of those breaches,

   3. c. Agreed to pay Ofqual’s reasonable legal costs.

Determination of monetary penalty

1. 35. On 1 June 2026, Ofqual’s Enforcement Panel (“the Panel”) considered the evidence, the settlement proposal, and Ofqual’s Supporting Compliance and Taking Regulatory Action policy (2025) (“the policy”). The Panel determined that Cambridge English had breached its Conditions of Recognition and that a monetary penalty was the appropriate regulatory outcome.

2. 36. In determining the amount, the Panel had regard to the factors set out below.

Aggravating factors

1. 37. The following factors, as taken from the policy, were relevant in this case:

   1. a. the significant number of incorrect results issued to learners on a qualification relied upon globally for visa, immigration, university admission and employment purposes;

   2. b. the incident created a significant risk of detriment to learners and an added burden for immigration authorities and potentially other users of the qualification reviewing decisions based upon incorrect results;

   3. c. the adverse impact upon public confidence in the IELTS qualification and wider qualifications system;

   4. d. the breaches were prolonged with incorrect marking persisting undetected for over two years (August 2023 to September 2025);

   5. e. the breaches arose from internal control failures that were entirely within the control of Cambridge English, including serious deficiencies in the design, implementation, testing and ongoing monitoring of changes made under its modernisation programme to its automated marking systems (in particular, the data translation processes between the test content platform and marking system);

   6. f. the failures highlighted systemic weaknesses in Cambridge English’s approach to automated marking systems, where inadequate monitoring and error-detection mechanisms allowed the incident to remain undetected for an extended period, thereby undermining the integrity of high-volume, rule-based assessment processes; and

   7. g. previous compliance history, specifically non-statutory action taken by Ofqual in 2020 in the form of an undertaking following non-compliances related to marking and answer-keys, in which Cambridge English gave assurances over the robustness of marking systems, in particular answer-key and associated processes.

Mitigating factors

1. 38. The following factors were relevant:

   1. a. Cambridge English demonstrated full regulatory cooperation;

   2. b. Cambridge English identified the issue itself, once the errors were identified it promptly notified Ofqual, fully accepted non-compliance, made complete admissions, and engaged transparently throughout the investigation;

   3. c. Cambridge English’s engagement with Ofqual and key stakeholders (including, immigration authorities and recognising organisations) helped mitigate potential adverse effects and demonstrated a commitment to protecting the integrity of the qualifications system;

   4. d. following engagement with stakeholders, Cambridge English took comprehensive action to minimise impact on learners, maintain standards and restore public confidence, including correcting all affected results (upward and downward) at both component and qualification level;

   5. e. Cambridge English agreed to an undertaking to prevent a recurrence;

   6. f. in excess of £6 million has been spent on restitution, compensation, a dedicated 24/7 customer support hub, and extensive remedial steps to rectify the breach and prevent recurrence;

   7. g. Ofqual has found no evidence that Cambridge English acted intentionally in committing the breaches; and

   8. h. Cambridge English did not benefit from the activities that were not carried out in accordance with the Conditions.

Other factors

1. 39. The Enforcement Panel also considered:

   1. a. the need to promote public confidence in qualifications through visible, appropriate and effective regulatory action;

   2. b. the nature and circumstances of these breaches compared with other cases in which Ofqual has imposed fines;

   3. c. Cambridge English’s relative size and turnover as an awarding organisation; and

   4. d. the need to send a strong signal to Cambridge English and other awarding organisations about the criticality of effective design, testing, implementation and ongoing monitoring when modernisation programmes are introduced. In addition, the need to send a strong signal about the criticality of effective monitoring of automated marking systems.

Settlement

1. 40. Cambridge English cooperated 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 decided to impose a lower penalty than it would have done in a contested case.

Final decision

1. 41. 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 £875,000.

2. 42. The Enforcement Panel is satisfied, in accordance with section 151B of the 2009 Act, that the Monetary Penalty does not exceed 10% of Cambridge English’s total annual turnover.

Payment

1. 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. Any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date of this notice. Further information is available from HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

Signed:

Chair of the Enforcement Panel

Date: 8 June 2026

Enforcement Panel: Cindy Leslie (Chair) and Conor Ryan

NOTE: Ofqual will publish this Notice on its website

Annex A: Legal provisions

Statutory powers

1. 1. Cambridge English 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.[^1]

4. 4. 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.

Conditions of Recognition

1. 5. The conditions relevant to this incident are set out below.

2. 6. General Condition A5.1 and A5.2 requires:

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.

A5.2 For the purposes of Condition A5.1, an awarding organisation must establish and maintain –

(a) arrangements which will ensure that it retains at all times a Workforce of appropriate size and competence,
(b) arrangements for the retention of data which will ensure that adequate information is available to it at all times,
(c) arrangements which will ensure that sufficient technical equipment and support is available to it at all times,
(d) appropriate management resources, and
(e) appropriate systems of planning and internal control.

1. 7. General Condition A6.2(a) requires:

A6.1 An awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to identify the risk of the occurrence of any incident which could have an Adverse Effect.

A6.2 Where such a risk is identified, the awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to - (a) prevent the incident from occurring or, where it cannot be prevented, reduce the risk of that incident occurring as far as is possible…

1. 8. General Condition G1.1 requires:

G1.1 In setting an assessment for a qualification which it makes available, an awarding organisation must ensure that the content of the assessment is –

(a) fit for purpose,
(b) appropriate for the method of assessment chosen, and
(c) consistent with the specification for that qualification.

1. 9. General Condition G1.3 requires:

G1.3 An awarding organisation must produce a written document in relation to an assessment which sets out clear and unambiguous criteria against which Learners’ levels of attainment will be differentiated.

1. 10. General Condition G9.1 requires:

G9.1 An awarding organisation must ensure that every assessment for a qualification that it makes available is delivered effectively and efficiently.

1. 11. General Condition G9.3 requires:

G9.3 An awarding organisation must ensure that, on delivery of every assessment for a qualification that it makes available, the content of the assessment:

(a) is fit for purpose,…

1. 12. General Condition H5.1 requires:

H5.1 An awarding organisation must 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.

1. 13. General Condition H6.1(d) requires:

H6.1 An awarding organisation must, in relation to any qualification which it makes available –

(a)….,
(b)….,
(c).…,
(d) issue results which accurately and completely reflect the marking of assessments (including the outcome of any Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny and any other quality assurance process),….