Statement of purpose

The policy aims to protect the integrity of qualifications and centres by taking steps to identify and minimise the risk of malpractice by staff or learners, respond to any incident of alleged malpractice promptly, objectively and fairly.

 

This policy also provides centres with an outline of actions that should be taken in the event that any malpractice and maladministration is identified by a centre and also actions that Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance will take to address those concerns.

 

Scope

This policy covers actual or suspected malpractice or maladministration perpetrated by learners, centres, or Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance members of staff.

 

Definition of Malpractice

According to JCQ guidelines for “Suspected Malpractice in Examinations and Assessments”;

“Malpractice which includes maladministration and non-compliance, means any act, default or practice which is a breach of regulations or which:

• Compromises, attempts to compromise, or may compromise the process of assessment, the integrity of any qualification or the validity of a result or certificate and / or
• Damages the authority, reputation or credibility of any awarding body or centre or any officer, employee or agent of any awarding body or centre.”

 

Examples of malpractice

At learner / candidate level:

• Copying of assessments from course mates.
• Presenting another learners work as their own or plagiarism from external sources.
• Taking unauthorised materials into an examination room.
• Obtaining, receiving, exchanging, or passing on information related to an assessment or examination taking place by; talking, written paper or notes or any information passed on by electronic means.
• Unauthorised access to any Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance assessment or examination paper.
• Failure to follow the instructions of the invigilator.
• Knowingly / deliberately using AI in the creation of own work and presenting as their own

 

At centre staff level:

• Allowing candidates access to previous assessments or examination papers without approval.
• Assisting or prompting students with answers.
• Failing to supply an appropriate invigilator i.e. with no knowledge of the subject being assessed/examined.
• Failing to complete internal assessment, failing to record results in the prescribed way, failing to return completed work in accordance with awarding body regulations.
• Failing to conduct internal assessment using agreed assessment criteria.
• Failing to adhere to security regulations.
• Failing to comply with minimum Guided Learning Hours.
• Failing to comply with assessment or examination regulations, procedures or guidance documents.
• Allowing learners to access unauthorised materials during an assessment.
• Knowingly allow the use of AI in the creation of a learners work

At awarding organisation level:

• Providing coaching or training to training providers and / or candidates using material from confidential external assessments
• Allowing certification on the basis of incomplete or incorrect assessment records
• Assisting or prompting students with answers.
• Failing to comply with awarding organisation regulations and procedures.
• Failing to attend to operational requirements in accordance with policies and procedures.
• Showing a consistent lack of punctuality.

 

Prevention of Malpractice

Centres should seek to avoid potential malpractice by:

• Explaining roles and responsibilities of learners in the learning and assessment process; and unacceptable practice
• Informing learners of the potential penalties for attempted and actual incidents of malpractice
• Showing learners the appropriate formats to acknowledge sources and record cited texts/other materials and information sources
• Asking learners to declare that their work is their own
• Ensure adherence to all company and awarding body policies and procedures in relation to suspected / confirmed malpractice
• Identify any areas of concern or instances of suspected / actual malpractice and notify the awarding body
• Hold a clear and transparent policy that is accessible to all learners and can be actioned in the event of malpractice
• Utilise tools in order to recognise and prevent the production of learners work from sources of AI

 

Definition of maladministration

Maladministration is essentially any activity or practice that results in non-compliance with administrative regulations and requirements, including the application of persistent mistakes or poor administration.

 

Examples of maladministration

At learner / candidate level:

• Impersonating other candidates, or allowing themselves to be impersonated during an assessment, or colluding in the act of impersonation.
• Claiming false accreditation of prior learning.

 

At centre staff level:

• Photocopying assessments or examination papers without approval.
• Changing the date of an assessment/examination without approval.
• Obtaining unauthorised access to assessment material prior to an assessment or examination.
• Failing to keep completed assessments or examination scripts secure.
• Failing to send completed assessments or examination scripts to Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance on the prescribed day.

 

At awarding organisation level:

• Failing to keep assessments and examination paper contents secure.
• Failing to keep logins and database contents secure e.g. Data Protection Act.
• Failing to send results and paperwork in accordance with policies and procedures.
• Failing to keep assessment records, scripts and other materials secure.
• Failing to send papers and other assessments to assessors in accordance with policies and procedures.
• Failure of assessors, examiners and verifiers to retain, provide and return documents in accordance with policies and procedures.
• Inappropriate correspondence with centres and prospective centres.

 

Prevention of Maladministration

Centres should seek to avoid potential maladministration by:

• Explaining roles and responsibilities of learners in the learning and assessment process; and ensure they are aware of the correct administrative processes
• Informing learners of the potential penalties for attempted and actual incidents of maladministration
• Follow all regulatory policies and procedures to ensure administration is carried out within the required parameters
• Identify any areas of concern or instances of suspected / actual maladministration and notify the awarding body
• Hold a clear and transparent policy that is accessible to all learners and can be actioned in the event of maladministration

 

Suspected Malpractice or Maladministration at Centre or Learner level

If the centre has reason to believe that malpractice or maladministration has occurred:

• The centre should report the occurrence to the Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance’s Quality Assurance team as soon as practicable. Where applicable, centre staff may notify Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance through Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance’s Whistle Blower Policy (IGG/0.1/013).
• The accused should be made fully aware of any breach of Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance regulations in writing as soon as possible, with the possible consequences of their alleged actions.
• The Head of Centre should submit a full written report of the case with supporting evidence to Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance.
• The person accused of malpractice must be given the opportunity to respond to the accusation in writing.
• In serious cases, a director will have the power to suspend a member of staff, with full pay, pending investigation of the allegations. Suspension in these circumstances does not constitute disciplinary action.
• Learners should be made aware of the enquiries and appeals process if malpractice is established by the learner.
• If an interview with the accused is required, it must be conducted in the presence of the Head of Centre or other appropriate senior staff member. The Centre should ensure that two people are present that an accurate record of the meeting is made and forwarded to Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance as part of the supporting evidence. The accused must be given the opportunity to be accompanied by a person of their choice and should sign the record to indicate its accuracy.
• Any further action will be in the form of a detailed investigation and report from the centre, implemented by the Head of Centre. The report should contain:
• Statement of circumstances and facts surrounding the investigation.
• Written statements from all staff concerned.
• A written statement from the learner(s) concerned.
• Any extenuating circumstances e.g. medical reports.
• Details of centre’s procedure for informing learners of Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance’s regulations.
• Any unauthorised materials found during assessment / examination.
• Learner’s work or assessment materials relevant to the investigation.
• Relevant registers or other records of attendance (copies).
• Relevant schemes of work (copies).
• A written record of any interviews that have taken place.

 

In dealing with cases of malpractice, centres should be cognizant of any potential conflicts of interest that may be accrued. Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance’s Quality Assurance team reserve the right to observe or conduct any of the above actions, or to conduct its own investigation in to the matter where it feels that it is necessary.

 

Notification to relevant organisations

In line with conditions of recognition, Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance will inform:

• The relevant regulatory authorities where any event has occurred or is likely to occur that could have an adverse effect
• The centre, where malpractice, maladministration or any other occurrence may affect a centre undertaking any part of the delivery of a qualification which Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance makes available
• Another awarding organisation, where malpractice, maladministration or any other occurrence may affect that awarding organisation.

 

Where criminality is suspected, Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance will also report the matter to the police or other relevant statutory agency.

 

Application of Sanctions

All factors will be considered in determining whether any sanction should be levied. The least severe sanction or penalty will be considered first. Sanctions may be decided by Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance.

 

Learner Sanctions

• Learner sanctions could include, but are not limited to:
• The learner is issued with a warning.
• The learner may lose all marks related to that particular assessment.
• The learner may lose all marks related to that particular unit.
• The learner may be disqualified from the whole qualification.
• The learner may be periodically barred from registering on qualifications / training.
• The learner may be banned from registering on qualifications / training.
• In the case of significant malpractice, the incident may be reported to other awarding bodies, them regulators and/or the police.

 

Staff Sanctions

Please refer to the Disciplinary Policy. In general, staff sanctions could include, but are not limited to:

• The member of staff being issued with a written warning.
• The member of staff being issued a final written warning.
• The member of staff must be supervised by another member of staff for a set time period.
• The member of staff is required to undertake further training prior to conducting further responsibilities.
• The member of staff is suspended for a period of time.
• The member of staff may be banned from being involved in the delivery of Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance qualifications.
• The member of staff being demoted.
• The member of staff being dismissed.

 

Centre Sanctions

Centre sanctions could include, but are not limited to:

• The centre is issued a written warning,
• The centre may be required to produce an action plan or to address specific action points,
• The centre is required to take specific steps to rectify any issues arising from the occurrence,
• The centre may have direct claims status removed for some or all approved qualifications,
• The centre may have its approval status removed for some qualifications, or some centre staff,
• The centre may be required to operate under specific conditions, i.e. requiring all examinations to be invigilated by an external party nominated by Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance.
• The centre’s approval status is suspended and is not allowed to register or certificate any further learners temporarily.
• The centre may have its centre approval status removed.

 

Suspected Malpractice by a Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance Employee

The centre should report this to Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance immediately, in line with Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance Whistle Blower’s Policy if necessary. The enquiry will be dealt with the Investigation Policy and Procedure, Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance’s Disciplinary Procedure or other applicable policy/procedure as necessary.

 

Outcome of Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance Employee Investigations Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance will not normally disclose the outcome of internal investigations relating to Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance members of staff. However, where decisions are made arising out of those investigations that impacts the centre’s status or learner achievements, Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance will advise the centre on those impacts and decisions accordingly.

 

Decisions

The outcomes of any alleged malpractice investigations are to be communicated as soon as possible after the decision has been made, unless it is not practical to do so. If the decision is referred to Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance, Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance will make the decision known to the nominated party at the centre.

 

It is the responsibility of the centre to communicate those decisions to staff, learners and any other individuals affected by the decision. Where the centre has ceased working with Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance, decisions may be communicated directly to learners.

 

Investigation timelines and summary process

We aim to action and resolve all stages of the investigation within 10 working days of the receipt of the allegation.

The fundamental principle of all investigations is to conduct them in a fair, reasonable and legal manner, ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered without bias.

 

Where a member of Close Protection Academy Ltd. is under investigation, we may suspend them or move them to other duties until the investigation is complete.

 

Investigation report

After any investigation, Close Protection Academy Ltd. will produce a draft report for the parties concerned to check the factual accuracy. Any subsequent amendments will be agreed between the parties concerned and ourselves.

 

If it were an independent/third party that originally notified us of the suspected or actual case of malpractice, Close Protection Academy Ltd. will also inform them of the outcome (normally within 10 working days of making our decision). In doing so, we may withhold some details if disclosing such information would breach a duty of confidentiality or any other legal duty.

 

If it is an internal investigation against a member of staff acting on behalf of, or representing, Close Protection Academy Ltd., the report will be agreed by the managing director or a person of similar responsibility, along with the relevant internal managers, and appropriate internal disciplinary procedures will be implemented.

 

In addition to the above, Close Protection Academy Ltd. will record any lessons learnt from the investigation and pass these onto relevant internal colleagues to help prevent the same instance of maladministration or malpractice from reoccurring.

 

If the relevant party or parties wish to appeal against our decision to impose sanctions, please refer to our Complaints Procedure.

 

 

This policy was approved by: Nicholas Player & Jillian Robertson, 01/06/2025

 

Review Due 31/05/2026