When quality assurance fails: why procedures alone do not protect qualification standards

The credibility of a qualification depends on confidence that every certificate has been properly earned. Policies, procedures and sampling plans all contribute to that confidence, but their existence does not in itself guarantee effective quality assurance. The real test is whether an awarding organisation or assessment centre can identify risks, recognise warning signs and act promptly when something does not look right.

This point was illustrated by an Ofqual enforcement announcement published on 27 October 2026. Ofqual fined Innovate Awarding £185,000 following serious failings in its oversight of a centre delivering a Level 3 Diploma in Business Administration. It also required a contribution of £15,000 towards its investigation and enforcement costs.

Ofqual reported weaknesses in the approval and monitoring of the centre, scrutiny of certification activity, investigation of concerns about learner evidence and the maintenance of accurate records. Of 851 certificates issued to learners registered through the centre, 847 were subsequently revoked.

The case is significant because it demonstrates that quality assurance must operate as an active system. It cannot be treated as a collection of documents that are reviewed only when an external visit is due.

Centre approval is the beginning, not the end

Before approving a centre, an awarding organisation needs enough evidence to understand whether the organisation has the people, systems, resources and controls required to deliver and assess its qualifications properly.

However, even a thorough approval process provides only a picture at one point in time. Staff change, delivery models develop, learner numbers grow and commercial pressures can increase. Monitoring therefore needs to continue throughout the relationship and reflect the level of risk presented by the centre and its provision.

For an assessment centre, the same principle applies internally. Initial approval of assessors and internal quality assurers must be followed by continuing support, observation, sampling and review.

Sampling must tell us something useful

An internal or external quality assurer should not sample evidence simply to demonstrate that a prescribed number of portfolios has been checked.

Sampling should help answer important questions:

• Has the assessment been planned according to the recognised principles?
• Are assessment decisions valid, consistent and supported by sufficient evidence?
• Is the assessor applying the qualification requirements correctly?
• Is feedback helping learners understand what they have achieved and what they still need to do?
• Are agreed actions being completed and checked?

A sampling plan should therefore be responsive. Where concerns are identified, the sample may need to be widened and additional controls introduced. It should take account of all potential risks that can occur during the learners journey from recruitment, registration through to certification,

Data can reveal warning signs

Quality control is often seen as quality assurance. Traditionally the IV process focussed on sampling finished portfolios and evidence.Looking at end products only is not assuring quality it is putting quality at risk. If poor quality is identified at the end then it is potentially too late and likely to be expensive to correct. Quality assurance is based on the premise that “prevention is better than cure”.  That is by having effective training and assessment systems in place and by monitoring their implementation short falls in delivery of assessment can be prevented and/or dealt with at an early stage, so minimising their impact. For example: unusual patterns in registrations, training and assessment timescales, achievement rates or certificate claims may have a reasonable explanation but may also indicate that further investigation is needed.

Digital assessment systems like SwiftTrack can support this work by maintaining evidence, feedback, decisions and quality-assurance activity within an auditable record. Technology helps, but it does not replace professional judgement or the willingness to challenge what the information appears to show.

Concerns must lead to action

Quality systems need clear arrangements for reporting and investigating suspected malpractice or maladministration. Responsibilities should be understood, evidence preserved and decisions properly recorded.

It is equally important to consider the possible effect on learners. If concerns relate to assessment evidence or certification, the organisation must determine whether other learners, qualifications or centres could be affected. Delay can increase the eventual impact on learners and confidence in the qualification.

The people operating the system matter

Even a well-designed system will be ineffective if the people using it lack the necessary competence, authority or confidence.

Assessors need to understand the standard and make evidence-based decisions. Internal quality assurers need to recognise risk, challenge inconsistencies and support improvement. Managers need to respond when concerns are raised. External quality assurers and awarding-organisation staff need to connect evidence from individual samples with the wider picture presented by the centre.

This is why assessor, IQA and EQA development should be treated as part of an organisation’s quality strategy rather than simply as a qualification requirement.

Would an independent review help?

Organisations can become familiar with their own systems. Processes may continue because they have always been used, while gaps, duplication or unclear responsibilities become harder to recognise from inside the organisation.

An independent review can provide constructive challenge before a problem occurs or an external audit identifies it. It can examine whether documented arrangements are being implemented, whether records provide a dependable audit trail and whether monitoring is focused on the areas of greatest risk.

RI Training provides independent reviews of assessment-centre quality systems for awarding organisations, training providers and assessment centres. The review can cover governance, centre approval, assessor and IQA arrangements, sampling, certification controls, malpractice, appeals, evidence management and the use of management information.

The purpose is not simply to identify non-compliance. It is to help the organisation understand what is working, where control could be strengthened and which actions should take priority.

Find out about RI Training’s Independent Centre Quality Systems Review

Source: Ofqual, “Ofqual fines Innovate Awarding £185,000 over failures to deal with fraud risks”, published 27 October 2026: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-fines-innovate-awarding-185000-over-failures-to-deal-with-fraud-risks

This article was developed with support from AI and was reviewed, challenged and amended by RI Training to reflect our professional knowledge and experience.