Notice

Notice of Monetary Penalty in respect of OTHM Qualifications

Published 6 August 2026

Applies to England

Introduction

1. 1) This notice sets out the final decision, made by The Office of Qualification and Examinations Regulation’s(“Ofqual”) Enforcement Panel on 28 July 2026, to issue OTHM with a monetary penalty under section 151A of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (“ASCLA”) in the sum of £25,000 for breaches of Ofqual’s General Conditions of Recognition (“the Conditions”).

2. 2) In accordance with section 151A (4) of ASCLA, Ofqual served OTHM with a Notice of Intention to impose a monetary penalty on 24 July 2026.

3. 3) Ofqual determined it was not necessary to publish the Notice of Intention. On 27 July 2026, and in accordance with the settlement agreement, OTHM confirmed it had no representations to make and was content for Ofqual to proceed to final decision.

Executive Summary

1. 4) On 1 April 2010, Ofqual recognised OTHM Qualifications as an awarding organisation under section 132(1) ASCLA. OTHM has a broad scope of recognition to develop, deliver and award a range of Vocational and Technical qualifications.

2. 5) Ofqual completed an investigation into OTHM’s compliance with the Conditions following 12 reported allegations of malpractice relating to qualifications offered by OTHM. Following conclusion of the investigation and further enquiries, Ofqual identified concerns relating to:

• identifying and monitoring conflicts of interest;
• the investigation and recording of malpractice and maladministration events;
• identifying and managing risks;
• Centre arrangements, monitoring and quality assurance activities;
• notification to Ofqual of events which may cause an Adverse Effect.

1. 6) OTHM has admitted that in relation to those matters, it breached the following Conditions: A4.1, A8.3, A8.2, A5.2, A6.2, H2.8, C1.1, C2.5, B3.1 and B4.1.

Background

1. 7) On 5 February 2024, Ofqual’s Regulatory Compliance Team was authorised to carry out an investigation (“the Investigation” or “Ofqual’s Investigation”) of OTHM in relation to the following matters:

   1. a) Ofqual had received at least 12 allegations of malpractice from Centre staff and learners relating to qualifications offered by OTHM, which indicated a failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent recurrence of malpractice.

   2. b) Information suggested that, in relation to 10 of those instances where Ofqual referred the matter to OTHM for investigation, OTHM was unable to substantiate any of the allegations, which gave rise to concerns regarding the rigour and effectiveness of OTHM’s investigations. Further, OTHM had asked Centres to investigate malpractice allegations occurring within their Centres which appeared contrary to its own written procedures for malpractice investigation. When the Centre responded to say it could find no evidence of malpractice, OTHM accepted those findings. It appeared OTHM had taken no steps to independently investigate the alleged malpractice.

   3. c) OTHM’s monitoring and enforcement of its arrangements with Centres appeared insufficient to prevent and detect the occurrence of malpractice and maladministration.

   4. d) Since Ofqual’s Portal went live in 2018, OTHM had submitted only one Event Notification to Ofqual. The notification was made in January 2024 after a meeting with Ofqual in December 2023, which raised concerns that OTHM had not submitted an event notification at all prior to that time. Moreover, Ofqual was concerned that OTHM might have failed previously to notify Ofqual of events that could have an Adverse Effect, when it ought to have done so.

2. 8) During the Regulatory Compliance Investigation, concerns were raised regarding OTHM’s practice in respect of recording and reporting of malpractice and maladministration events, in particular, events that occurred between January 2021 and July 2024 which appeared across 3 different malpractice and maladministration registers / documents. These documents were provided to Ofqual as follows:

   1. a) A spreadsheet titled ‘NP1 & 2 XLS’ provided on or around 21 February 2024 (‘the Spreadsheet’);

   2. b) A Malpractice and Maladministration Register provided on or around 3 May 2024 (‘the First Register’);

   3. c) A Malpractice and Maladministration Register provided on or around 5 June 2025 (‘the Second Register’).

3. 9) The Investigation concluded on 12 December 2024 and a report was produced on 12 December 2024 (“the Report”) which set out the investigators’ findings. A supplementary report was produced on 11 September 2025 to clarify findings relating to the review of the 3 registers containing malpractice / maladministration events.

Allegations and Analysis

Allegation 1 – Failure to identify and monitor conflict of interest

1. On one or more occasions, OTHM failed to identify and monitor actual and/or perceived conflicts of interest regarding Centre-based malpractice and/or maladministration, contrary to Condition A4.1.

Analysis 

1. 10) Ofqual’s Investigation included a review of OTHM’s records relating to 18 instances of alleged malpractice and maladministration, the Investigation identified that in at least 4 of those instances there was potentially a personal interest in the outcome of the investigation.

   1. a) The Investigation identified that on at least one occasion where OTHM carried out an investigation, it relied on the evidence of the Centre Managing Director, who was implicated in allegations of malpractice.

   2. b) Further, the Report references OTHM’s communications with Centre A, in which OTHM informed Centre A of allegations relating to mis-selling of OTHM qualifications and certificates and threats made by another institution connected to Centre A. OTHM directed Centre A to undertake investigations and stated “Please note that in keeping with your Centre agreement, any proven malpractice or maladministration will result in sanctions being applied and could result in withdrawal of Centre approval”. Centre A responded some 7 days later stating that the allegations were “unfounded” and “entirely baseless”. The matter was closed a day later. 

   3. c) On another occasion, a Learner produced screenshots of a WhatsApp conversation with a staff member at Centre B who advised the Learner to use third parties to complete assignments for them. Centre B conducted its own investigation. The Investigation found no evidence that OTHM considered any conflict of interests in permitting the Centre to investigate such serious allegations.

   4. d) On or around 30 January 2021, a Learner alleged Centre C was offering certificates to Learners when they had not completed the full qualification. OTHM’s malpractice and maladministration register confirmed that the Centre conducted its own investigation.

2. 11) OTHM’s Investigations Policy (April 2023, V1) makes reference to the fact that a conflict of interest may exist where an investigation is delegated to a Centre, stating:

Where a conflict of interest may be seen to arise, investigations into suspected malpractice should not be delegated to the manager of the section, team or department involved in the suspected malpractice [i.e. a sub-delegation from the Head of Centre to a manager of the team or department within the Centre].  In the event of any concerns regarding conflicts of interest or the suitability of the potential investigator, the Head of Centre should contact the Awarding Organisation as soon as possible to discuss the matter.

1. 12) OTHM’s Conflict of Interest Policy (April 2023 ,V1) defined conflict of interest as follows:

A conflict of interest (COI) is defined as a situation where a person is charged with taking responsibility or making a decision, and where that person, or a person with a close relationship to them, might benefit unfairly from that position of responsibility or from that decision. In other words, a conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual, or Organisation, has competing interests or loyalties…

…Conflicts of interest can arise in a variety of circumstances relating to Awarding Organisation activity, for example… When an individual has interests that conflict with his or her professional position.

1. 13) Condition A4.1 states –

A4.1     An awarding organisation must identify and monitor –

a) all Conflicts of Interest which relate to it, and

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

1. 14) “Conflict of Interest “is defined at Condition J1.8, which states –

A conflict of interest exists in relation to an awarding organisation where –

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

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

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

1. 15) Condition A8.3 requires that, when undertaking a malpractice investigation as per Condition A8.1, an AO must “(b) ensure that such investigations are carried out rigorously, effectively, and by persons of appropriate competence who have no personal interest in their outcome”

2. 16) The Guidance to Condition A8.3 expands upon this point, stating –

Awarding organisations should not presume that the Centre is always best placed to complete an investigation. Under Condition A8.3(b) an awarding organisation must ensure that investigations are carried out rigorously, effectively, and by persons of appropriate competence who have no personal interest in their outcome….

(c) Personal interest

Under Condition A8.3(b), awarding organisations must ensure that investigations are carried out by individuals with no personal interest in their outcome…A personal interest is a Conflict of Interest that relates to a particular individual. An awarding organisation must ensure that anyone who conducts the investigation has no personal interest in its outcome. Particular care must be taken when judging whether an individual within the Centre is best placed to conduct an investigation given the greater risk of an actual or perceived Conflict of Interest in that context. Further guidance around personal interest, and making a judgement as to whether this exists, can be found in the guidance to Condition A4, including a specific example of where individuals in a Centre may not be well placed to investigate a specific incident.

1. 17) The Guidance to Condition A4 (referred to in the Guidance to Condition A8.3) states –

A personal interest can be financial or non-financial in nature…In the situations covered by Conditions A4.5-A4.6, A8.3, G4.6 and I1.2, the relevant questions to ask are:

• Does the individual carrying out the assessment, investigation or appeal have any reason or incentive to make anything other than a decision in line with the relevant Conditions?

• Would an informed and reasonable observer conclude that such a reason or incentive exists?

1. 18) On one or more occasions, OTHM permitted Centres to investigate allegations of malpractice / maladministration that appeared to be linked to the Centre itself. On at least one of those occasions, OTHM informed the Centre that any finding of malpractice / maladministration it finds may lead to sanctions being applied to that Centre and may lead to withdrawal of Centre approval, an action which would arguably lead to loss of jobs for Centre staff. In such circumstances, OTHM ought to have identified that the Centre or Head of Centre (if they are investigating) would likely have personal interests that would conflict with their professional position and obligation to conduct a fair investigation.

2. 19) OTHM’s policies anticipated scenarios where it would be inappropriate for the awarding organisation to permit the Centre to investigate malpractice, either because the alleged malpractice is serious, or there is a potential conflict of interest. Conditions A4.1 and A8.3, and the associated Guidance, set out obligations regarding identifying and monitoring conflicts of interest, and considerations awarding organisations should take into account when investigating malpractice / maladministration allegations, including considering whether it would be appropriate for a Centre to investigate allegations of malpractice / maladministration when there may be a personal interest in the outcome.

3. 20) Upon receiving allegations of malpractice / maladministration regarding Centre conduct, OTHM ought to have considered, whether there was an actual or perceived conflict of interest in directing or permitting that Centre to investigate the allegations made against it, particularly if OTHM informed a Centre that a positive finding of malpractice / maladministration may lead to sanctions being imposed against it, or result in Centre closure. OTHM ought to have considered that Centre staff may have had a personal interest in the outcome of the investigation which would have conflicted with the professional obligation to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.

4. 21) OTHM maintained that it did consider conflict of interest on relevant occasions but accepted that it could not provide evidence to demonstrate that it did at all times manage conflict of interests relating to Centre-led malpractice investigations. OTHM stated that such failures were as a result of shortcomings in documentation, data management and retention. 

5. 22) OTHM provided assurance that it has implemented new data management software to ensure adequate retention of data, and allow clear documentation for malpractice / maladministration events, and related conflict of interest consideration.

6. 23) OTHM stated that Centres are required to declare conflict of interests in line with relevant (updated) policies and this will be monitored proactively through quality assurance procedures, with severe measures taken if there is failure to declare. 

Allegation 2 – Failures relating to investigation of malpractice / maladministration events. 

1. 2. On one or more occasions, OTHM failed to:
   1. 2.1. Investigate, either adequately or at all, suspected malpractice and/or maladministration, contrary to any or all of Conditions A8.3(b) and A8.3(a),
   2. 2.2. Establish, so far as possible, if malpractice or maladministration had occurred, contrary to Condition A8.2(a).

Analysis

1. 24) The Investigation included a review of OTHM’s records relating to 18 instances of alleged malpractice and maladministration, of those 18 instances, the Investigation identified and concluded the following:

   1. a) On up to 4 occasions, OTHM’s investigations were purportedly completed but either no investigation report was produced, or the report was incomplete, contrary to s4.1 of OTHM’s Investigations Policy (April 2023, V1).

   2. b) On up to 6 occasions, OTHM’s investigations did not include a formal decision as to whether malpractice and/or maladministration had occurred, contrary to s4.2 of OTHM’s Investigations Policy.

   3. c) On up to 3 occasions, investigations were completed by the Centre in circumstances where the policy required the investigation to be completed by OTHM because the allegations were serious, or the evidence suggested that the Centre may have been involved in the malpractice, contrary to s4.0 OTHM’s Investigations Policy.

   4. d) On at least one occasion, after a Centre investigated allegations of malpractice / maladministration and concluded there was no malpractice, OTHM informed Ofqual that it had taken steps to carry out its own enquiries in relation to that finding, however OTHM did not provide evidence of those enquiries or provide any further details in relation to this. The Regulatory Compliance Investigation therefore concluded that OTHM had not taken sufficient steps to validate the Centre’s findings.

2. 25) OTHM’s Investigation Policy and Procedure (April 2023, V1) stated the following:

OTHM may decide to: Instruct the Centre to investigate; or, Investigate itself; or, Nominate a third party to carry out the investigation on its behalf…

…Where the investigation has been carried out by the Centre, the Programme Director or Approved Centre Representative [i.e. where the investigation is carried out by the Centre; where the AO investigates itself; or where the AO nominates a third party to carry out the investigation on its behalf] is required submit a written report to OTHM. Where the investigation has been carried out by OTHM, the Approved Representative will provide a written report.

The investigation report will be submitted to the Approved Representative at OTHM for a final decision on the investigation. The decision stage will aim to…Decide, based on the facts, whether malpractice has occurred.

In conducting an investigation, Centres are required to retain the following records and documentation in line with Centre and OTHM record retention documents…Records should include…A report containing a statement of the facts, a detailed account of the circumstances of alleged wrongdoing and details of any investigations carried out by the [Centre]

Where a conflict of interest may be seen to arise, investigations into suspected malpractice should not be delegated to the manager of the section, team or department involved in the suspected malpractice [i.e. a sub-delegation from the Head of Centre to a manager of the team or department within the Centre].  In the event of any concerns regarding conflicts of interest or the suitability of the potential investigator, the Head of Centre should contact the Awarding Organisation as soon as possible to discuss the matter.

1. 26) The policy goes on to suggest that OTHM will itself conduct an investigation where: “a Centre does not have the capacity to investigate, or where the issue is very serious…[or] in the case of alleged fraud or in a case of serious threat to the integrity of OTHM qualifications”.

2. 27) Condition A8.3 states –

A8.3 For the purposes of this condition, an awarding organisation must –

(a) establish, maintain, and at all times comply with, up to date written procedures for the investigation of suspected or alleged malpractice or maladministration, and

(b) ensure that such investigations are carried out rigorously, effectively, and by persons of appropriate competence who have no personal interest in their outcome.

1. 28) Guidance in respect of Condition A8.3(b), sets out that, AOs should consider several factors in ensuring investigations are carried out rigorously and effectively, these include:

The extent to which the allegation or suspicion suggests any level of knowledge or awareness of the suspected malpractice or maladministration at Centre level…

…Any potential impact on public confidence if Centre staff have a role in the investigation…

…Under Condition A8.3(b), awarding organisations must ensure that investigations are carried out by individuals with no personal interest in their outcome….Particular care must be taken when judging whether an individual within the Centre is best placed to conduct an investigation given the greater risk of an actual or perceived Conflict of Interest in that context.

1. 29) Condition A8.2(a) states –

A8.2 Where any such malpractice or maladministration is suspected by an awarding organisation or alleged by any other person, and where there are reasonable grounds for that suspicion or allegation, the awarding organisation must –

(a) so far as possible, establish whether or not the malpractice or maladministration has occurred…

1. 30) OTHM accepted that its management of malpractice and/or maladministration allegations on one or more occasions, was not consistent with its internal policies and procedures and on occasion it failed to adhere to its own procedures.

2. 31) OTHM has since engaged training providers to deliver malpractice training events for all employees and EQA’s which is mandatory and will be delivered annually. OTHM maintains weekly monitoring of malpractice and maladministration events.

Allegation 3 – Retention of data relating to malpractice / maladministration events

1. 3. OTHM failed to maintain retention of data to ensure adequate information was available, most notably in recording instances of alleged malpractice and/or maladministration, contrary to Condition A5.2(b).

Analysis

1. 32) On or around 21 February 2024 Ofqual issued a B4 notice to provide information, to OTHM, and requested, “a list of all investigations by OTHM into alleged or suspected malpractice or maladministration since 1 January 2020” and “A list of all allegations and/or suspicions of malpractice or maladministration that OTHM has received and/or recorded since 1 January 2020, and for all cases that were not subsequently investigated, OTHM’s rationale for its decision” (‘the First Notice’). In response OTHM provided a copy of a spreadsheet titled ‘NP1 & 2 XLS’ (‘the Spreadsheet’). This spreadsheet contained a list of malpractice and maladministration allegations / events with follow up actions recorded.

2. 33) On or around 3 April 2024, Ofqual requested further information from OTHM (‘the Second Notice’), including an explanation as to what action had been taken in relation to a number of malpractice and/or maladministration cases / events, that did not appear to have been accounted for in its response to the First Notice. On or around 3 May 2024, OTHM responded providing a copy of its Malpractice and Maladministration Register (‘the First Register’). This register contained a list of malpractice and maladministration allegations / events with follow up actions recorded but contained different information to the Spreadsheet.

3. 34) On or around 5 June 2025, Ofqual requested further information (‘the Third Notice’), which included relevant EQA documentation and written records of meetings where allegations of malpractice were discussed. In response, OTHM provided another copy of the Malpractice and Maladministration Register (‘the Second Register’), this contained different information to the Spreadsheet and the First Register.

4. 35) The Investigation concluded that the information contained within the Spreadsheet, the First Register and the Second Register ought to have been similar, if not identical. The supplementary report outlined the inconsistencies between these documents. For example, the Spreadsheet referred to 13 entries of malpractice/maladministration events, the First Register referred to 49 events and the Second Register referred to 23 events. The supplementary report stated that “there are 64 entries that are not consistently recorded across NPI 1 & 2.xlsx, the First Register and the Second Register”.

5. 36) The Report asserted that OTHM was unable to provide copies of at least 4 malpractice investigation reports that were requested in accordance with the Second Notice.

6. 37) OTHM’s Malpractice and Maladministration Policy (June 2023) states at paragraph 7.0:

All material collected during this process including the original information and any documents relating to the investigation will be kept secure. Information will be retained for up to 5 years.

1. 38) OTHM provided Ofqual with inconsistent information in relation to its record of malpractice and maladministration events. Information appeared across 3 documents, and it was unclear which document was a complete version and most up-to-date. OTHM was using multiple documents to record and monitor malpractice / maladministration events and this information was not consolidated, resulting in information regarding malpractice and maladministration appearing inconsistent and unreliable.

2. 39) As per its internal policy, OTHM was required to ensure that information pertaining to malpractice and maladministration was retained for 5 years. Ofqual requested reports for several malpractice investigations and OTHM did not provide reports in relation to 4 events. This suggested that either OTHM failed to ensure investigation reports were complete, or that it failed to maintain retention of this information.

3. 40) Condition A5.2(b) requires OTHM to establish and maintain arrangements for retention of data so that adequate information is available at all times. The inconsistent and incomplete information held by OTHM suggested the arrangements for retention of data was ineffective and inadequate.

4. 41) OTHM informed Ofqual that it has migrated to a new software platform which allows it to sufficiently record and monitor information across various checkpoints and quality assurance activities.

Allegation 4 – Centre monitoring and quality assurance activities

1. 4. OTHM failed to have in place and/or follow appropriate processes to undertake effective Centre monitoring, in that:
   1. 4.1. On one or more occasions, OTHM failed to adhere to its CASS strategy,
   2. 4.2. OTHM’s guidance to Centre’s was inaccurate and/or had not been updated,
   3. 4.3. There was a lack of adequate Centre oversight in that quality assurance processes were deficient , contrary to any or all of Conditions A6.2(a), H2.8, C1.1(b) and C2.5(a).

Analysis

1. 42) The Investigation reviewed 251 EQA reports covering 368 certifications for 367 Learners and 48 qualifications from level 3 to level 8, in a broad range of subject areas, from a sample of 54 of its England and non-England Centres. The review found that:

   1. a) Of the 251 EQA reports reviewed, 110 EQA reports demonstrated under-sampling – contrary to the minimum requirements as set out in OTHM’s Centre Assessments Standards Scrutiny (CASS) strategy. 

   2. b) In 71 reports, there was no evidence that actions which had been identified previously by the EQA, were followed up, or the same / similar actions were recorded again for the same Centre in a subsequent report.

   3. c) In 23 reports, the EQA identified evidence that could indicate malpractice or maladministration. OTHM told Ofqual that such instances are recorded in its EQA Register, however, of those 23 reports, it appears none had been recorded in the EQA Register. 

   4. d) In 64 reports, the EQA’s commentary on the assessments was identical or very similar for several Learners in the batch.

   5. e) In 47 reports, the EQA’s commentary indicates challenges with authenticating the work as the Learners’ own but the EQA passed the assessments anyway.

   6. f) The Investigation identified a variance in the quality of the EQA reports, in that there was a lack of consistency in what is recorded, how it is recorded and the level of detail in the EQA’s commentaries. 

2. 43) The Investigation reviewed OTHM’s EQA Handbook, CASS strategy and OTHM’s Guide for Centres, it identified that the approach to sampling Learner records differed between these documents in that there was a disparity in the minimum number of Learners’ work to be sampled per qualification, and the sampling percentages. For example, the Centre Guide set out a minimum sampling of 6 pieces of work, however, the CASS strategy set out a minimum sampling of 3 learners per qualification. Further, there was under-sampling (as against the CASS strategy) demonstrated within 110 EQA reports reviewed as part of the Investigation. This suggested guidance to Centres was inconsistent with CASS requirements and therefore ineffective.

3. 44) The concerns set out at paragraphs 42-43 above, demonstrated there was a lack of adequate Centre monitoring by OTHM and that quality assurance activities were deficient.

4. 45) CASS activity is the primary opportunity for OTHM to evaluate Centre marking, this might lead to it identifying significant and repeated mismarking, which creates a suspicion of maladministration or malpractice requiring further investigation. By failing to comply with its CASS strategy, OTHM denied itself this opportunity and thereby failed to take all reasonable steps to detect and prevent malpractice as well as failing to comply with its CASS strategy.

5. 46) Adequate Centre monitoring and adherence to CASS requirements is imperative in maintaining integrity of qualifications, maintaining public confidence in qualifications, identifying and managing risks and minimising Adverse Effects and impact. In these circumstances, the failure to undertake adequate Centre monitoring, coupled with evidence of serious concern regarding OTHM’s management of malpractice and maladministration events over a period of time, suggested the maintenance of standards and public confidence in qualifications was at risk.

6. 47) OTHM has since updated its CASS strategy and other relevant documents including Centre guidance, to ensure alignment in processes regarding Centre monitoring. OTHM has revised its processes and implemented additional Centre monitoring controls to include greater scrutiny of each Centre’s workforce and approach to programme management.

Allegation 5 – Failure to notify Ofqual of events

1. 5. On one or more occasions, OTHM failed to notify Ofqual, whether promptly or at all, of event(s) that had, or could have had, an Adverse Effect, contrary to Condition B3.1.

Analysis

1. 48) OTHM’s malpractice and maladministration register, namely the Second Register, contained records of 23 allegations of malpractice or maladministration from 2020 to July 2024. The First Register contained 49 entries of malpractice / maladministration events between October 2022 and January 2024. The Investigation reports’ (the original report and the supplementary report) identify that these incidents appear to satisfy the criteria for notification to Ofqual, however, OTHM notified Ofqual of only one allegation of malpractice over the same period.

2. 49) Instances of events on OTHM’s registers that appeared to be notifiable included:

   1. a) Significant allegations of Centre malpractice

   2. b) Delays in learners receiving results or certificates

   3. c) Fake learners at OTHM Centres

3. 50) During an investigation meeting between Ofqual and OTHM, OTHM explained to investigators that it would notify Ofqual of an event if it decides to investigate and that it would not notify Ofqual in instances where any Adverse Effect had been mitigated.

4. 51) OTHM’s Notification of Adverse Events to Ofqual Policy (April 2023, V1), states the following:

Adverse can be defined as anything that is preventing success or development; harmful; unfavourable especially with regards to the attainment of an objective…

1. 52) Condition B3.1 states –

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.

1. 53) Condition J1.8 defines “Adverse Effect” as follows –

An act, omission, event, incident, or circumstance has an Adverse Effect if it - 

(a) gives rise to prejudice to Learners or potential Learners, or

(b) adversely affects –

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

(ii) the standards of qualifications which the awarding organisation makes available or proposes to make available, or

(iii) public confidence in qualifications.

1. 54) Notification of an event was triggered when OTHM had cause to believe that any event had occurred or was likely to occur which could have an Adverse Effect. Ofqual’s definition of Adverse Effect is wide ranging and is not restricted to impact on Learners.

2. 55) OTHM’s definition of “Adverse Effect” differed from that set out within the Conditions. OTHM’s definition appeared to apply to a narrow set of circumstances, whilst the definition stipulated by the Conditions is far broader. It follows that there are some events and occurrences which Ofqual considers it is necessary for an awarding organisation to guard against, in order to maintain standards in qualifications, which by applying a narrower definition OTHM will have failed to recognise.

3. 56) Although it is not possible to know all incidents or occurrences OTHM might have failed to identify that required notification, OTHM has, over a period of time, failed to inform Ofqual of a number of serious events involving malpractice / maladministration that required reporting as they could have had an Adverse Effect. Had such events been reported, this may have enabled early regulatory intervention and prevented further instances of malpractice / maladministration and subsequently, non-compliance, occurring.

4. 57) OTHM has since updated its policies to align with the Conditions and expand the categories of events that require notification. OTHM provides assurance that its updated software allows for all events of malpractice and maladministration to be recorded, which are reviewed weekly to assess notification to Ofqual and further information required.

Allegation 6 – Failure to respond to communications from Ofqual, 

1. 6. OTHM failed to adequately respond to requests for documents and information during Ofqual’s investigation, contrary to Condition B4.1(b).

2. 58) The facts as set out under Allegation 3 at paragraphs 32 – 36 above identify that Ofqual requested information from OTHM relating to malpractice and maladministration events on 3 different occasions and on each of those occasions OTHM provided 3 different registers – the Spreadsheet, the First Register and the Second Register. These registers contained a record of malpractice and maladministration events which ought to have appeared similar, if not identical, but instead appeared incomplete and inconsistent. Further, OTHM was unable to provide copies of at least 4 malpractice investigation reports that were requested in accordance with the Second Notice.

3. 59) Ofqual requires that information is provided accurately and in full so it may review the full extent of concerns raised and take steps to address impact on public interest and public confidence in qualifications. Ofqual acknowledges that OTHM intended to engage with Ofqual in an open and collaborative manner and that there may have been misunderstanding about the nature of the requests; nevertheless, OTHM accepts that the responsibility to produce complete and accurate information when requested, rests with OTHM, and the failure to do so on these occasions, whether that be intentional or not, is a serious falling short of standards expected of awarding organisations regulated by Ofqual.

Regulatory action

1. 60) On 21 July 2026, OTHM 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 £25,000 in settlement of those breaches,

   3. c) Agreed to pay Ofqual’s reasonable legal costs up to a maximum of £10,000.

Determination of a Monetary Penalty

1. 61) On 24 July 2026, Ofqual’s Enforcement Panel considered the evidence relating to the breaches set out above, alongside the admissions made by OTHM. The Enforcement Panel determined that OTHM has breached its Conditions of Recognition as per the allegations set out above.

2. 62) The Enforcement Panel has considered the settlement proposal presented by OTHM. 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

1. 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.

• Whether the breach was prolonged or repeated – the issues in this case span a period of some 3 years and multiple concerns were raised of a similar nature.

• OTHM had breached regulatory requirements in the past, and, whilst this did not result in enforcement action, the matters in this case suggested repeated concerns of a similar nature.

• the circumstances of the breach were within OTHM’s control.

• the behaviour of OTHM 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.

• A fine is likely to improve compliance with regulatory conditions in the future (including by other awarding organisations). Ofqual considers that there is a clear need to deter OTHM and other awarding organisations from making similar failings in the future. The imposition of a monetary penalty emphasises the importance of maintaining robust systems to identify and manage risk,and any potential adverse effects. It also demonstrates that Ofqual will take proportionate and transparent regulatory action to protect the integrity of, and public confidence in, qualifications.

Mitigating Factors

1. 65) The following mitigating factors are considered relevant in this case:

• OTHM has engaged and co-operated fully with Ofqual during the enforcement process.

• OTHM accepted the breaches expressing recognition of, and regret for, the non-compliance.

• OTHM has taken positive and proactive steps to rectify issues.

Settlement

1. 66) OTHM cooperated with Ofqual’s investigation, admitted the non-compliances and entered into a voluntary settlement in which it has acknowledged Ofqual’s decision in this Notice and agreed to pay the monetary penalty. In light of this settlement, Ofqual has decided to impose a lower penalty than it would have done in a contested case.

Final Decision

1. 67) Taking all of the above into account, the Enforcement Panel has confirmed its earlier notice of intention to accept the settlement proposal and imposes a monetary penalty in the sum of £25,000.

2. 68) The Enforcement Panel is satisfied, in accordance with section 151B ASCLA, that a Monetary Penalty in the sum of £25,000 would not exceed 10% of OTHM’s total annual turnover.

Payment

1. 69) 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. 70) 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 ASCLA.

Appeals

1. 71) 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 ASCLA.

2. 72) 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. 73) 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: 28 July 2026

Enforcement Panel:

• Chris Paterson
• Clare Pelham
• Hardip Begol CBE

Annex A - Legal Provisions

Statutory powers

1. OTHM 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 isrequired to set and publish under Section 134 of the 2009 Act.

2. Under Section 151A(2) of the 2009 Act, Ofqual may impose a Monetary Penalty on an awarding body ifit appears to Ofqual that the awarding body has failed to comply with its Conditions of Recognition.

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

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

6. OTHM 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.

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