Contents

Introduction

Suspected malpractice and maladministration may be identified by a variety of stakeholders, including learners, employees, members of teaching and assessment teams, or external parties. This policy explains how BCM Academy Ltd handles allegations, investigations, and reporting procedures related to malpractice and maladministration.

Prevention of Malpractice

BCM Academy Ltd takes reasonable steps to prevent malpractice and maladministration by providing guidance to learners regarding plagiarism and collusion, ensuring staff and learners understand this policy, maintaining robust assessment and quality assurance procedures, and reviewing assessment documentation before submission to awarding organisations.

Definitions of Malpractice and Maladministration

Malpractice

Malpractice includes any misconduct, unlawful discrimination, harassment, neglect, or activity that compromises assessment integrity, damages qualification validity, harms the reputation of BCM Academy Ltd or associated regulators, or reduces confidence in qualifications and assessment processes.

Maladministration

Maladministration refers to non-compliance with administrative regulations and awarding organisation requirements, including poor administration practices or repeated mistakes relating to learner records and assessment processes.

Reporting Malpractice and Maladministration

Suspected malpractice or maladministration may be reported verbally or in writing. Reports should include relevant details such as names, dates, qualifications affected, evidence available, actions taken, and information about any unfair advantage or disadvantage caused.

Whistleblowing

Individuals may report concerns anonymously. BCM Academy Ltd will investigate concerns where supporting evidence exists and will take reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality while complying with legal and regulatory obligations.

Reporting of Suspected Malpractice relating to Regulated Qualifications

Where regulated qualifications are affected, BCM Academy Ltd may conduct an initial investigation but must notify the relevant awarding organisation immediately if malpractice or maladministration could impact qualification integrity or create an adverse effect.

Investigation Procedure

Investigations are carried out in line with awarding organisation procedures. An independent investigating officer will review evidence, conduct interviews where necessary, establish facts, and determine whether malpractice or maladministration has occurred.

Notification of Findings

Following completion of an investigation, findings will normally be communicated in writing to relevant parties. Individuals may request factual corrections but cannot submit additional evidence once the investigation has concluded.

Decision

The investigator will decide, based on the balance of probability, whether malpractice or maladministration occurred. Outcomes may include disciplinary action, learner removal, reporting to awarding organisations, or certificate withdrawal.

Communicating Malpractice Investigation Decisions

Investigation decisions and any resulting sanctions or actions will be communicated in writing to affected individuals and relevant awarding organisations or regulatory bodies within the required timeframe.

Right of Appeal

Individuals may appeal investigation outcomes or concerns regarding fairness and objectivity by using the BCM Academy Ltd Appeals Procedure.

Contact Details

BCM Academy Ltd
20 Kingsmead, London, EN5 5AY
Telephone: +44 7920 803 459
Email: tauqir@bcm-academy.co.uk

Appendix A – Guidance for Investigators

Stage 1: Briefing and record-keeping

Investigators must understand their responsibilities, maintain detailed written records of all actions taken, and ensure evidence is securely stored throughout the investigation process.

Stage 2: Reviewing the evidence

Investigators review evidence, awarding organisation guidance, and all related documentation to determine what occurred, why it happened, who was involved, when it occurred, and what actions were taken.

Stage 3: Interviews

Interviews should be properly planned, documented, and conducted fairly. Interviewees may be accompanied by another person, and additional safeguarding arrangements apply for minors and vulnerable adults.

Stage 4: Other contacts

Investigators may contact learners or other individuals through interviews, telephone, email, or written communication to gather further evidence and confirm facts relevant to the investigation.

Stage 5: Documentary evidence

Documentary evidence should be authenticated wherever possible. Investigators may obtain independent expert opinions and maintain receipts or records for all collected documentation.

Stage 6: Conclusions

After reviewing all available evidence, investigators will determine the outcome of the investigation and whether malpractice or maladministration has occurred.

Stage 7: Reporting

A draft report will be prepared and shared with relevant parties for factual review before finalisation. Serious teacher misconduct may also be reported to relevant teaching regulators.

Stage 8: Actions

Any resulting action plan must be implemented, monitored, and reviewed to ensure continued compliance and assessment integrity.

Appendix B – Examples of Malpractice

Staff malpractice

Staff malpractice includes actions by employees, contractors, invigilators, or other authorised individuals that compromise assessment integrity, security, or awarding organisation requirements.

Breach of security

This includes failing to keep assessment materials secure, revealing confidential examination information, tampering with learner work, or allowing unauthorised access to assessment materials.

Deception

Deception involves providing learners with unauthorised assistance, prompting answers, sharing assessment materials improperly, or giving support beyond qualification requirements.

Failure to cooperate with an investigation

This includes refusing to provide requested information, failing to meet investigation deadlines, or not reporting suspected malpractice incidents immediately.

Awarding Organisation and Regulatory Requirements

Examples include denying access to records or premises, failing to conduct proper internal quality assurance, or not following awarding organisation assessment procedures.

Maladministration

Maladministration includes poor administration practices, failure to supervise assessments correctly, inaccurate record keeping, improper handling of assessment materials, or non-compliance with certification procedures.

Learner malpractice

Learner malpractice includes plagiarism, collusion, impersonation, possession of unauthorised materials, disruptive behaviour, falsification of documents, or deliberate attempts to undermine assessment integrity.

Appendix C Malpractice Report

The malpractice report may include investigation details, written statements, learner evidence, corrective actions, mitigating factors, conclusions reached, sanctions applied, and measures introduced to protect future assessment integrity.