5. Mrs P complains that despite submitting further evidence to Ofqual in July 2024 it refused to carry out an internal review of its decision.
6. Mrs P says Ofqual’s lack of action caused considerable upset, distress and frustration. She wants Ofqual to look again at its decision and carry out an internal review.
7. Mrs P is concerned her daughter, Ms P, was not awarded the correct grades by her school in 2021.
8. Students did not sit exams in 2021 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and were instead awarded grades by their teachers. These grades were reviewed by an awarding body to ensure compliance with the rules before being issued.
9. Mrs P originally complained to Ofqual in July 2022 as she was concerned the awarding body had not appropriately investigated her complaint about her daughter’s grades.
10. We previously considered this complaint and decided to take no further action on 24 February 2024 after we found no indication Ofqual had done anything wrong.
11. Following our decision, Mrs P put further evidence to Ofqual and asked it to look again at its decision under its internal review process.
12. Ofqual declined an internal review on 26 July. It decided to take no further action and signposted Mrs P to our Office if she remained dissatisfied.
15. Mrs P says despite providing Ofqual with further evidence it refused to carry out an internal review.
16. She is frustrated Ofqual had seemingly ignored their evidence and, as a result, reached an unfair and flawed decision.
17. Ofqual says the further evidence supplied by Mrs P does not represent new information. It also says there is no indication its investigators overlooked or misunderstood parts of Mrs P’s complaint at the earlier stages of its complaint handling in 2022, or when it looked again at their concerns more recently in 2024.
18. Ofqual’s complaints guidance says if someone is unhappy with the outcome of their complaint, they can request an internal review. An internal review is when somebody who has not been involved in the case reviews how it was handled.
19. Ofqual’s complaints guidance says one of the following criteria needs to be clearly demonstrated for it to consider an internal review: 20. ‘We reached the outcome based on inaccurate facts, and if we had accurate facts that could change our decision.
21. You have new and relevant information that was not previously available and which might change the outcome.
22. We overlooked or misunderstood parts of your complaint or did not take account of relevant information, which could change the outcome.
23. How the decision or outcome is not reasonable given the findings of your complaint.’
24. It is important to set out here that we will not comment on matters which we have already given a view on in February 2024. We will only look at whether Ofqual considered Mrs P’s request for internal review in line with applicable guidance and standards alongside some additional concerns which were recently raised as part of Mrs P’s request.
25. We can see Mrs P’s 9 July email set out five points which she felt warranted an internal review.
26. Ofqual’s 26 July response set out its consideration of each of those five points and why it did not see they met the threshold for internal review (set out in paragraph 18).
27. While we have considered all the relevant evidence before reaching our decision, our statement will not list and respond to every claim set out by Mrs P in each of those five points, or comments she made in additional May and July 2024 correspondence with Ofqual.
28. We will give a high-level overview of Ofqual’s 26 July response alongside its response to those additional concerns. This will allow us to reach a view on whether its decision was reached in line with applicable guidance.
Point one
29. Mrs P is concerned Ofqual failed to act against the awarding body. She sets out a sequence of events which she says clearly shows the awarding body was essentially ‘rubber stamping’ the grading decisions made by the school without any real scrutiny of the evidence it used to reach those decisions.
30. Further to this, Mrs P raises concerns Ofqual had not fully considered all the events surrounding an allegation her daughter plagiarised a piece of work during her exams which led to a reduction in her grade.
31. Ofqual says it had already explained in previous correspondence how it carries out any regulatory action. We will not cover this point here, as we do so separately at the end of this statement under ‘further matters’.
32. Ofqual does not agree the awarding body was rubber stamping decisions made by the school and says this claim, alongside the other events Mrs P describes concerning her daughters grade reduction and the reasons for this, have already been investigated in November 2022.
33. It says its November 2022 investigation report, alongside later responses in 2024 clearly set out its decision in response to these allegations. It did not see Mrs P’s further evidence as new information which showed its previous investigations overlooked anything or were flawed in any way.
34. Ofqual did not therefore see Mrs P’s claims under point one met the grounds for internal review.
35. Having carefully examined Ofqual’s consideration of this initial point, we cannot see any indication it failed to take Mrs P’s concerns seriously and carefully investigate them. It refers to key correspondence to support its rationale and appears to have considered the relevant evidence before reaching its decision.
36. We are therefore satisfied Ofqual’s decision is in line with its complaint guidance.
Point two
37. Mrs P says an Ofqual staff member should not have been involved in a review of her Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
38. Ofqual declined to provide FOIA information to Mrs P relating to its enforcement action. Mrs P says it was wrong to have a staff member, who managed Ofqual’s enforcement team, review this decision.
39. Ofqual says if Mrs P remains dissatisfied with its handling of her FOIA request, she can raise this with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
40. It says ICO guidance states reviews should be carried out by a senior member of staff who did not deal with the original FOIA request. It also says its previous responses already set out the staff member Mrs P refers to did not manage the enforcement team who deal with compliance to Ofqual’s rules.
41. It explains the member of staff was well placed to give a response to these matters and does not agree their involvement represents a conflict of interest.
42. For these reasons, Ofqual did not see Mrs P’s claims under point two met the grounds for internal review.
43. Having carefully reviewed Ofqual’s consideration of this second point, we cannot see any indication it failed to carefully investigate them. It again refers to key correspondence to support its rationale and appears to have considered the relevant evidence before reaching its decision.
44. It also signposts Mrs P to the ICO should she wish to pursue Ofqual’s handling of her FOIA. The ICO is the correct forum to consider whether Ofqual met its data sharing responsibilities.
45. Overall, we are satisfied Ofqual’s decision is in line with its complaint guidance.
Point three
46. Mrs P says Ofqual continues to ‘turn a blind eye’ to the school’s use of Centre Assessed Grades (CAGs) when it should have awarded her daughter Teacher Assessed Grades (TAGs).
47. CAGs were based on grades teachers predicted their students would most likely have achieved in their exams. TAGs were awarded and determined by teachers based on academic performance. Both grades were used at different stages during the COVID-19 Pandemic as students were unable to sit typical exams due to restrictions.
48. Ofqual says it has already given a response to this concern in December 2022. It says Mrs P’s comments do not represent new information and do not show Ofqual’s previous investigations overlooked anything or were flawed in any way.
49. For these reasons, Ofqual did not see Mrs P’s claims under point three met the grounds for internal review.
50. Our February 2024 statement already gave a view in relation to the use of CAGs and TAGs, so we will not repeat it here. Overall, we are satisfied Ofqual’s recent consideration and rationale took into account the relevant evidence and reached a view in line with its complaint guidance.
Point four
51. Mrs P says they are still concerned by a lack of Ofqual investigation into claims their daughter committed candidate malpractice (plagiarism allegation). She notes her daughter’s head teacher at the time of the events ‘broke FOIA/DPA Legislation’ which meant key evidence was not released to her in a timely manner.
52. She says this evidence, which has since been submitted to Ofqual, shows a clear timeline of events which casts serious doubt on the awarding body’s decision making and should have resulted in Ofqual taking enforcement action against it. Mrs P further alleges Ofqual attempted to hide or cover-up that it did not take enforcement action against the awarding body.
53. As set out earlier in our statement, we will not consider the allegations concerning Ofqual’s regulatory action or enforcement action here. We will do so separately at the end of this statement under ‘further matters’.
54. Ofqual says any FIOA breach by the head teacher is not for Ofqual to comment on and is for the ICO to consider.
55. It says it has already investigated Mrs P’s allegations around what evidence the school used when reaching a decision on her daughter’s candidate malpractice. It summarises its views and refers to its previous responses where this matter was considered.
56. Ofqual says Mrs P’s comments do not represent new information and do not show Ofqual’s previous investigations overlooked anything or were flawed in any way. For these reasons, Ofqual did not see Mrs P’s claims under point four met the grounds for internal review.
57. We reviewed the previous responses described by Ofqual in this section. We can agree they have already given sufficient explanation around these matters, and we are satisfied there is nothing more it can add. As such, we are satisfied Ofqual’s 26 July investigation report considered the relevant evidence and reached a view in line with its complaint guidance.
Point five
58. Mrs P says there is a lack of public confidence in Ofqual due to its failure to take enforcement action against the awarding body and order it to re-examine their daughter’s grades.
59. We will consider Mrs P’s concerns around enforcement action in the next section of this statement.
60. Ofqual says it is unable to insist the awarding body change their daughter’s TAGs or re-investigate decisions it reached at investigation or appeal. It says this information and its overall remit was clearly set out on page one of its November 2022 investigation report.
61. We agree Ofqual very clearly set out its remit in November 2022, which included its inability to insist the awarding body change Ms P’s grades. It also clearly stated it was not in remit to re-investigate decisions reached by the awarding body.
62. While we acknowledge Ofqual’s remit, we must bear in mind its November 2022 investigation and subsequent reviews into the awarding body’s actions found no failings which would warrant re-examination of Ms P’s TAGs.
63. We are therefore satisfied Ofqual’s recent consideration took account of the relevant evidence and reached a view in line with its complaint guidance.
Further matters
64. We agreed to respond to some further points raised by Mrs P. The issue concerning regulatory action is one which is mentioned frequently in her recent correspondence with Ofqual. We decided to consider it separately here to allow for clarity.
65. We understand the two further points, concerning whistleblowing and tampering of evidence, are issues which Mrs P wanted further clarity on.
66. We approached Ofqual during our primary investigation to get its response to these further matters in the hope we can provide Mrs P with clarity and reassurance.
Regulatory action
67. Mrs P says Ofqual attempted to hide or cover-up that it did not take enforcement action against the awarding body. She says Ofqual would neither confirm nor deny it had taken regulatory action.
68. We understand Mrs P recently approached the awarding body itself who confirmed Ofqual had not taken any regulatory action against it.
69. Mrs P is frustrated Ofqual did not take regulatory action and would not confirm this with her when asked.
70. Ofqual says its response to Mrs P, that it can neither confirm nor deny whether regulatory action took place, relates to her FOIA request received in early 2024.
71. It says its ability to discharge its investigations and enforcement functions would likely be prejudiced if the public were able to discern from a series of FOIA disclosures those cases on which action had been taken and those where no action has been taken.
72. It says this approach is in line with section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). Section 31 of the Act says information can be withheld if it is felt releasing it could make it harder for an organisation to carry out its enforcement activities.
73. Ofqual says this approach is also relevant to how it deals with enquiries received during the complaints process concerning its regulatory and enforcement action.
74. It says it tried to be as open as it could with Mrs P on this subject during the complaints process but could only provide limited detail as it had in response to her FOIA request.
75. Ofqual reviewed the action it took following its initial November 2022 investigation (where it found the awarding body had ‘fallen short’ of its obligations) and found it had correctly passed those findings to its compliance team. It says it is for its compliance team to decide whether any regulatory action will be taken, and if so, what regulatory action it will take.
76. It told Mrs P any formal regulatory action it takes can be viewed on its website. It also explained that there are a range of ‘less formal’ actions it may take which may not be published on its website. Ofqual says it handled these matters in line with its regulatory action guidance.
77. Ofqual’s regulatory action guidance sets out how it uses its powers as a regulator. This guidance sets out, among other things, that as a regulator it will act where it believes it is appropriate to do so.
78. Our complaint standards say public bodies should give people information and, if appropriate, advice that is clear, accurate, complete, relevant and timely.
79. We understand Mrs P is frustrated Ofqual did not take formal regulatory action against the awarding body. We can see further frustration was caused when Ofqual declined to give further detail on this matter during her FOIA request and during the complaints process.
80. Ofqual is a regulator and therefore has wide-ranging discretion about whether it will take regulatory action, and, where it decides to act, what form this will take. It is therefore within Ofqual’s gift to either pursue, or not pursue any failings or shortcomings it identifies following investigation.
81. Our previous 24 February 2024 statement found Ofqual correctly passed its November 2022 investigation findings to its compliance team. As such, we have already found there are no indications of failings in the action it took following its investigation.
82. We balanced this alongside Ofqual’s attempts to be as clear as possible about this matter during the FOIA process and the complaints process. Ofqual clearly set out to Mrs P on 5 April, 8 May and 8 July 2024 how its regulatory process works and gave a number of reasons why it typically did not give details around any enforcement action it did or did not take (aside from what is set out on its website).
83. We are satisfied Ofqual attempted to give as detailed explanation as it reasonably could under the circumstances, and we see this approach is in line with our complaint standards.
84. We recognise Mrs P is frustrated by Ofqual’s reluctance to clarify whether it took regulatory action. We also appreciate this frustration was compounded when the awarding body clarified directly that Ofqual had not taken regulatory action.
85. We appreciate Mrs P likely experienced some frustration. We do not see this was caused by any failing or poor service from Ofqual. We have therefore decided to take no further action in this part of Mrs P’s complaint.
86. We appreciate our decision will likely be disappointing, but we hope we have clearly set out our reasons.
Whistleblowing
87. Mrs P says Ofqual did not respond to their whistleblowing claim. She says this is concerning and shows Ofqual is not being open and honest.
88. Mrs P tells us the whistleblowing claim they made Ofqual aware of came from a teacher at their daughter’s school. They say this teacher could confirm it was incorrectly awarding candidates, like her daughter, with CAGs instead of TAGs in 2021.
89. We agreed with Mrs P that our Office would put her concerns to Ofqual directly and get its response as this issue was not considered during the complaints process. We felt this approach would be helpful as we could give timely clarity on it alongside the other matters set out in this statement.
90. Ofqual says a whistleblower must be a worker within the organisation they are whistleblowing about. It says Mrs P does not work for the school and cannot therefore be considered as a whistleblower. It adds that no whistleblowing reports have been received from school staff.
91. Whistleblowing guidance says a whistleblower must be a worker, as Ofqual set out. It also says a whistleblower can tell their employer of their concerns, can seek legal advice or report their concerns to a prescribed person or body (Ofqual is listed as a prescribed body).
92. We understand Ofqual received no whistleblowing reports from staff at Ms P’s school.
93. Based on the above, we see no indication Ofqual did anything wrong. Its understanding of the whistleblowing process, and its response to Mrs P’s concerns appears to be in line with whistleblowing guidance.
94. For this reason, we decided to take no further action in this part of Mrs P’s complaint. We hope we have provided Mrs P with some reassurance in this matter.
Tampering of evidence
95. Mrs P says two senior members of staff at her daughter’s school revised paperwork in her GCSE English Language and Literature TAG evidence bundles on 1 September 2021, ahead of a stage two appeal.
96. She says this is clear tampering of evidence and took place while her daughter was in the middle of appealing her grades to the awarding body. Mrs P says this was not investigated by Ofqual.
97. Ofqual told us it addressed this point on more than one occasion. For example, it says it was considered on 24 May 2022 during the Examination Procedures Review Service (EPRS) stage. EPRS is a process which allows Ofqual to review appeal decisions made by the awarding body.
98. It says Mrs P’s allegation was not supported by clear evidence. Its investigator added that it was also unclear what could have been changed in the bundles which might have made a ‘material difference to the appeal.’
99. Ofqual says it reviewed the management of the EPRS application and there was nothing to indicate there were any errors in its handling, or that anything was overlooked. It concluded there was ‘nothing to indicate the awarding body deviated from its appeals process, or failed to comply with our rules, when it dismissed the appeal.’
100. Ofqual says Mrs P also supplied paperwork during the initial stages of its complaint handling which alleged senior leaders at the school made the head of English revise Ms P’s English Language and Literature assessment documents.
101. It says its investigations did not bear this claim out and it does not agree, upon reviewing the evidence again when asked by our Office, that there were any errors by the awarding body which would ‘materially impact’ the TAGs Ms P was awarded.
102. Overall, we are satisfied Ofqual considered this element of the complaint and gave Mrs P its response in line with our complaint standards. We hope the additional information we provide gives Mrs P some reassurance in this matter.
103. We understand Mrs P steadfastly believes Ofqual ignored evidence and reached an incorrect conclusion on the matters set out in this statement.
104. Having considered Mrs P’s complaint, we are not persuaded there is any indication Ofqual failed to consider all the relevant evidence before reaching a decision. Rather, there appears to be a fundamental difference of opinion between Mrs P and Ofqual about what the evidence shows.
105. A difference of opinion is not an indication of a failing. We are satisfied Ofqual's decision making in the above matters is in line with applicable guidance and standards.
106. We have therefore decided to take no further action in Mrs P’s complaint.
107. We appreciate Mrs P, Ms P and their family continue to be upset by their experience and recognise our decision will likely come as a disappointment. We hope our statement clearly sets out our decision and provides some clarity and reassurance in these matters.
1. We have carefully considered Mrs P’s complaint about Ofqual. We appreciate this complaint is very important to Mrs P and her daughter, Ms P, who received the disputed grades in 2021.
2. Ms P is happy for her mother to represent her in this complaint. Mrs P took the lead in complaining to Ofqual and in bringing these matters to our Office. For this reason, we have primarily referred to Mrs P in this statement when describing the complaint matters.
3. We can see Ofqual acted in line with applicable guidance and standards in its decision to decline an internal review in July 2024. We can also see it handled Mrs P’s further concerns in line with applicable guidance.
4. For this reason, we have decided to take no further action in Mrs P’s complaint. We appreciate our decision will be disappointing to Mrs P, Ms P and their family, but we hope our statement clearly sets out how we reached our decision.