扒哥吃瓜

1. 1) This notice sets out the final decision, made by The Office of Qualification and Examinations聽Regulation鈥檚(鈥淥fqual鈥�)聽贰苍蹿辞谤肠别尘别苍迟听笔补苍别濒聽on聽28 July 2026, to issue聽OTHM聽with a monetary penalty under section 151A of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning聽Act 2009 (鈥淎SCLA鈥�) in the sum of聽拢25,000聽for breaches聽of聽Ofqual鈥檚聽General聽Conditions聽of Recognition (鈥渢he Conditions鈥�).

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

3. 3) Ofqual聽determined聽it聽was聽not聽necessary聽to聽publish聽the聽Notice聽of聽Intention.聽On聽27 July 2026,聽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.

1. 4) On 1聽April 2010, Ofqual recognised OTHM Qualifications as an awarding organisation聽under section 132(1) ASCLA.聽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鈥檚 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:

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.

1. 7) On 5 February 2024, Ofqual鈥檚 Regulatory Compliance Team was authorised to carry out an investigation (鈥渢he Investigation鈥� or 鈥淥fqual鈥檚 Investigation鈥�) 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 monitoring and enforcement of its arrangements with Centres appeared insufficient to prevent and detect the occurrence of malpractice and maladministration.

   4. d) Since Ofqual鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 鈥楴P1 & 2 XLS鈥� provided on or around 21 February 2024 (鈥榯he Spreadsheet鈥�);

   2. b) A Malpractice and Maladministration Register provided on or around 3 May 2024 (鈥榯he First Register鈥�);

   3. c) A Malpractice and Maladministration Register provided on or around 5 June 2025 (鈥榯he Second Register鈥�).

3. 9) The Investigation concluded on 12 December 2024 and a report was produced on 12 December 2024 (鈥渢he Report鈥�) which set out the investigators鈥� 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.

1. 10) Ofqual鈥檚 Investigation included a review of OTHM鈥檚 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鈥檚 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聽鈥淧lease 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鈥�. Centre A responded some 7 days later stating that the allegations were聽鈥渦nfounded鈥澛燼nd聽鈥渆ntirely baseless鈥�. The matter was closed a day later.聽

   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鈥檚 malpractice and maladministration register confirmed that the Centre conducted its own investigation.

2. 11) OTHM鈥檚 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:

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

1. 13) Condition A4.1 states 鈥�

1. 14) 鈥淐onflict of Interest 鈥渋s defined at Condition J1.8, which states 鈥�

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

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

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

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鈥檚 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.聽

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.聽

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聽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).

1. 24) The Investigation included a review of OTHM鈥檚 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鈥檚 investigations were purportedly completed but either no investigation report was produced, or the report was incomplete, contrary to s4.1 of OTHM鈥檚 Investigations Policy (April 2023, V1).

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

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

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

2. 27) Condition A8.3 states 鈥�

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:

1. 29) Condition A8.2(a) states 鈥�

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鈥檚 which is mandatory and will be delivered annually. OTHM maintains weekly monitoring of malpractice and 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聽Condition A5.2(b).

1. 32) On or around 21 February 2024 Ofqual issued a B4 notice to provide information, to OTHM, and requested,聽鈥渁 list of all investigations by OTHM into alleged or suspected malpractice or maladministration since 1 January 2020鈥澛燼nd聽鈥淎 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鈥檚 rationale for its decision鈥澛�(鈥榯he First Notice鈥�). In response OTHM provided a copy of a spreadsheet titled 鈥楴P1 & 2 XLS鈥� (鈥榯he Spreadsheet鈥�). 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 (鈥榯he Second Notice鈥�), 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 (鈥榯he First Register鈥�). 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 (鈥榯he Third Notice鈥�), 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 (鈥榯he Second Register鈥�), 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聽鈥渢here are 64 entries that are not consistently recorded across NPI 1 & 2.xlsx, the First Register and the Second Register鈥�.

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鈥檚 Malpractice and Maladministration Policy (June 2023) states at paragraph 7.0:

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.

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鈥檚 guidance to Centre鈥檚 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聽Conditions A6.2(a), H2.8, C1.1(b) and C2.5(a).

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 鈥� contrary to the minimum requirements as set out in OTHM鈥檚 Centre Assessments Standards Scrutiny (CASS) strategy.聽

   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.聽

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

   5. e) In 47 reports, the EQA鈥檚 commentary indicates challenges with authenticating the work as the Learners鈥� 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鈥檚 commentaries.聽

2. 43) The Investigation reviewed OTHM鈥檚 EQA Handbook, CASS strategy and OTHM鈥檚 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鈥� 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 workforce and approach to programme management.

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聽Condition B3.1.

1. 48) OTHM鈥檚 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鈥� (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鈥檚 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鈥檚 Notification of Adverse Events to Ofqual Policy (April 2023, V1), states the following:

1. 52) Condition B3.1 states 鈥�

1. 53) Condition J1.8 defines 鈥淎dverse Effect鈥� as follows 鈥�

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聽Adverse Effect. Ofqual鈥檚 definition of Adverse Effect is wide ranging and is not restricted to impact on Learners.

2. 55) OTHM鈥檚 definition of 鈥淎dverse Effect鈥� differed from that set out within the Conditions. OTHM鈥檚 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.

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

2. 58) The facts as set out under Allegation 3 at paragraphs 32 鈥� 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 鈥� 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.

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 拢25,000 in settlement of those breaches,

   3. c) Agreed to pay Ofqual鈥檚 reasonable legal聽costs up to a maximum of 拢10,000.

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

2. 62) The聽贰苍蹿辞谤肠别尘别苍迟听笔补苍别濒聽has聽considered聽the聽settlement聽proposal聽presented聽by OTHM. In determining whether or not a Monetary Penalty is an appropriate regulatory outcome in聽this聽case聽and聽if聽so聽what聽amount would聽be聽proportionate聽to impose, the Enforcement Panel has had regard to Ofqual鈥檚 Supporting compliance and taking regulatory action policy (2025).

3. 63) The聽贰苍蹿辞谤肠别尘别苍迟听笔补苍别濒聽notes聽the聽aggravating聽and聽mitigating聽factors set聽out聽below.

1. 64) The聽following聽factors,聽as聽taken聽from聽Ofqual鈥檚聽Supporting聽Compliance聽and聽taking regulatory action policy, are relevant in this case:

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

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

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

2. 68) The聽贰苍蹿辞谤肠别尘别苍迟听笔补苍别濒聽is聽satisfied,聽in聽accordance聽with聽section聽151B聽ASCLA, that a Monetary Penalty in the sum of 拢25,000 would not exceed 10% of OTHM鈥檚 total annual turnover.

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

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

1. 71) An awarding聽organisation聽may聽appeal聽to聽the聽First聽Tier聽Tribunal聽in聽respect聽of聽Ofqual鈥檚聽decision to聽impose聽the monetary聽penalty聽and/or聽in聽respect聽of聽the聽amount of that penalty, in accordance with section 151C ASCLA.

2. 72) An聽appeal聽may聽be聽made聽on聽the聽grounds:

   1. a) that聽the聽decision聽was聽based聽on聽an聽error聽of聽fact;
   2. b) that聽the聽decision聽was聽wrong聽in聽law;
   3. c) that聽the聽decision聽was聽unreasonable.

3. 73) Any聽appeal聽must聽be聽made聽within聽28聽days聽of聽the聽date聽of聽this聽notice.聽Further information is available from HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

1. OTHM is recognised as an awarding body by The Office of Qualifications and Examinations聽Regulation(鈥淥fqual鈥�)聽under聽section聽132(1)聽of聽the聽Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning聽Act, 2009 (鈥渢he 2009聽Act鈥�) and is subject to the 骋别苍别谤补濒听颁辞苍诲颈迟颈辞苍蝉听辞蹿听搁别肠辞驳苍颈迟颈辞苍聽(鈥渢he Conditions鈥�)聽which聽Ofqual聽isrequired聽to set and publish under Section 134 of the 2009聽Act.

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

3. Under聽Section聽151B(3)聽of聽the聽2009聽Act,聽the聽amount聽of聽any聽Monetary聽Penalty聽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鈥檚聽turnover.

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

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

6. OTHM has a legal obligation to comply with its Conditions of Recognition (s132(3)聽of聽the聽2009聽Act),which聽includes聽the聽骋别苍别谤补濒听颁辞苍诲颈迟颈辞苍蝉听辞蹿听搁别肠辞驳苍颈迟颈辞苍 and any other relevant Conditions set by Ofqual.

7. The聽骋别苍别谤补濒听颁辞苍诲颈迟颈辞苍蝉听辞蹿听搁别肠辞驳苍颈迟颈辞苍,聽Qualification聽Level聽Conditions聽and Subject Level Conditions can be found on Ofqual鈥檚 website.