Malpractice and Maladministration Policy

1. Policy

Datalaw recognises it has a responsibility to prevent instances of malpractice and maladministration, to establish and maintain, and always comply with, up-to-date written procedures for the investigation of suspected or alleged malpractice or maladministration.

Datalaw will be vigilant regarding learning and assessment malpractice and maladministration and where this occurs it will be dealt with in an open and fair manner.

The policy aims to –

• Define malpractice and maladministration in the context of learning, assessment and certification set out the rights and responsibilities, with regard to this, of the Learner and Centre Employees.
• In the interest of Learners and Centre Employees, Datalaw will respond effectively and openly to all requests for an investigation into an incident or a suspected incident of malpractice or maladministration.
• In all cases of suspected malpractice or maladministration, The Quality Manager must be notified immediately. The Quality Manager shall notify the awarding bodies / organisations and will advise the Datalaw on suitable action.
• The Quality Manager or their nominee will supervise any investigations resulting from allegations of malpractice or maladministration.
• The Quality Manager or their nominee will inform Learners and Centre Employees suspected of malpractice or maladministration of their responsibilities and rights.
• Datalaw reserves the right, in suspected cases of malpractice or maladministration, to withhold the issuing of results / certificates while an investigation is in progress. Depending on the outcome of the investigation results / certificates may be released or withheld.

2. Malpractice

Malpractice consists of those acts which undermine the integrity and validity of learning and assessment, the certification of qualifications, and/or damage the authority of those responsible for conducting the assessment and certification.

Datalaw does not tolerate actions (or attempted actions) of malpractice by Learners or Centre Employees in connection with qualifications delivered by Datalaw.

Datalaw acknowledges that it is required to report cases of malpractice to Awarding Organisations and Funding partners (as applicable) if evidence is found that results or certificates may be invalid.

3. Guidance

Datalaw requires its Coach/Trainers to ask Learners to declare that their work is their own, for instance

• For any internally assessed units, Coach/Trainers are responsible for checking the validity of the Learner’s work and provide a written declaration that the evidence is authentic.
• For competence-based qualifications, a centre and its learners must provide a declaration that the evidence is authentic, and that the assessment was conducted under the requirements of the assessment specification.
• Datalaw will verify the identity of a Learner before they take an examination.

Datalaw will take positive steps to prevent or reduce the occurrence of learner malpractice or maladministration. These steps may include –

• Using the induction period to inform Learners of the Centre’s Policy on malpractice and maladministration (this document) and the penalties for attempted and actual incidents of malpractice.
• Showing Learners, the appropriate formats to record cited texts and other materials or information sources including websites. Learners should not be discouraged from conducting research as evidence of relevant research often contributes to the achievement of qualification units. However, the submitted work must show evidence that the Learner has interpreted and synthesised appropriate information and has acknowledged any sources used.
• Introducing procedures for assessing work in a way that reduces or identifies malpractice, e.g., plagiarism, collusion, cheating, etc.

These procedures may include periods of supervised sessions during which evidence for assignments / tasks / coursework is produced by the Learner review, and amendment of assessment assignments / tasks / tools on a regular basis.

The Coach / Trainer assessing work for a single assignment / task in a single session for the complete cohort of Learners using oral questions with Learners to ascertain their understanding of the concepts, application, etc. within their work, Coach / Trainer getting to know their Learners’ styles and abilities, etc.

Ensuring access controls are installed to prevent Learners from accessing and using other people’s work when using networked computers ensuring that learners do not take prohibited material into an examination room.

4. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Datalaw recognises the growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in education and assessment. While AI tools can be useful to support learning, their inappropriate or undisclosed use can constitute malpractice.

5. Examples of Malpractice

Attempting to or carrying out any malpractice activity is not permitted by Datalaw. The following are examples of malpractice by Learners; this list is not exhaustive and other instances may be considered by Datalaw at its discretion –

• Plagiarism by copying and passing off, as the Learner’s own, the whole or part(s) of another person’s work (including artwork, images, words, computer-generated work (including Internet sources), thoughts, inventions and/or discoveries) whether published or not, with or without the originator’s permission and without appropriately acknowledging the source collusion by working collaboratively with other learners to produce work that is submitted as individual learner work.

Learners should however not be discouraged from teamwork, as this is an essential key skill for many sectors and subject areas, but the use of minutes, allocating tasks, agreeing outcomes, identification of individual input or product etc. are an essential part of teamwork and this must be made clear to the Learners.

• Impersonation by pretending to be someone else in order to produce the work for another or arranging for another to take one’s place in an assessment / examination / test.
• Fabrication of results and/or evidence.
• Failing to abide by the instructions or advice of an Awarding Organisation / Coach, a Supervisor, an Invigilator, or Datalaw conditions in relation to the assessment / examination / test rules, regulations and security.
• Misuse of assessment / examination material.
• Introduction and/or use of unauthorised material contradicting to the requirements of supervised assessment / examination / test conditions, for example, notes, study guides, personal organisers, calculators, dictionaries (when prohibited), personal stereos, mobile phones or other similar electronic devices.
• Obtaining, receiving, exchanging or passing on information which could be assessment / examination / test related (or the attempt to) by means of talking or written papers / notes during supervised assessment / examination / test conditions.
• Behaving in such a way as to undermine the integrity of the assessment / examination / test the alteration of any results document, including certificates.
• Writing down questions during an examination / test and taking them out of the examination room to give to other Learners.
• Cheating to gain an unfair advantage.
• Submitting AI-generated content as original work without acknowledgment.
• Using AI to complete assignments, tests, or assessments without permission.
• Relying on AI to fabricate evidence, generate false research, or impersonate others.
• Using AI tools during exams or assessments where such use is prohibited.

6. Acceptable use of AI:

• May include grammar checking, summarising, or initial idea generation — if explicitly allowed and properly referenced.
• Learners must always clearly identify and reference any use of AI in their work, as per academic integrity guidelines.

7. Examples of Maladministration

Attempting to or carrying out any maladministration activity is not permitted by Datalaw. The following are examples of maladministration; this list is not exhaustive and other instances may be considered by Datalaw at its discretion –

• Persistent failure to adhere to our Learner registration and certification procedures.
• Persistent failure to adhere to our centre recognition and/or qualification requirements and/or associated actions assigned to the centre.
• Late Learner registrations (both infrequent and persistent).
• Unreasonable delays in responding to requests and/or communications from the AO Inaccurate claim for certificates.
• Failure to maintain appropriate auditable records, e.g., certification claims and/or forgery of evidence.
• Withholding of information, by deliberate act or omission, from us which is required to assure the AO of the centre’s ability to deliver qualifications appropriately.
• Misuse of our logo and trademarks or misrepresentation of a centre’s relationship with the AO and/or its recognition and approval status with the AO.

Maladministration is essentially any activity or practice which results in noncompliance with administrative regulations and requirements and includes the application of persistent mistakes or poor administration within a Centre (e.g. inappropriate Learner records).

8. Employee Malpractice

The following are examples of malpractice by Employees. The list is not exhaustive and other instances of malpractice may be considered by Datalaw at its discretion –

• Failing to keep any Datalaw mark schemes secure.
• Alteration of any Datalaw mark schemes.
• Alteration of Datalaw assessment and grading criteria.
• Assisting Learners in the production of work for assessment, where the support has the potential to influence the outcomes of assessment, for example where the assistance involves an Employee producing work for the Learner.
• Producing falsified evidence or witness statements, for example for evidence the Learner has not generated.
• Allowing evidence, which is known by the Employee not to be the Learner’s own, to be included in a Learner’s assignment / task / portfolio / coursework.
• Facilitating and allowing impersonation.
• Misusing the conditions for Special Learner requirements, for example, where Learners are permitted support, such as an amanuensis, this is permissible up to the point where the support has the potential to influence the outcome of the assessment.
• Failing to keep Learner computer files securely.
• Falsifying records / certificates, for example by alteration, substitution, or fraud.
• Fraudulent certificate claims, that is claiming for a certificate prior to the Learner completing all the requirements of assessment.
• Failing to keep assessment / examination / test papers secure prior to the assessment / examination / test.
• Failing to validate the identity of Learners taking an examination / test.
• Obtaining unauthorised access to assessment / examination / test material prior to an assessment / examination / test.

9. Investigating Alleged Malpractice and Maladministration

As part of the investigation, Datalaw retains the right to involve the Learner and others in the investigation process deal with the Learner (if aged 18 or above) and/or the Learner’s Representative.

This may occur, for example, when a Learner’s account of events is at variance with that of the centre. Where Learners aged 18 or over are involved, they may wish to be assisted by centre personnel, parents or guardians.

During the investigation period, Datalaw may at its sole discretion, may withhold the release of results / certificates for test / examination papers if the security of a test / examination is considered at risk pending the outcome of the investigation.

If malpractice or maladministration is discovered by a Datalaw Representative or has been reported directly to Datalaw by a third party, Datalaw will investigate in a form commensurate with the nature of the malpractice or maladministration allegation. Such an investigation will require the full support of the Manager of all relevant Employees and personnel linked to the allegation.

10. Process After Discovering Malpractice and Maladministration

Any malpractice and maladministration or attempted acts of malpractice or maladministration which have influenced the assessment outcomes or certification must be reported to the relevant Awarding Organisation.

Datalaw understands that Awarding Organisations may reserve the right to carry out an independent investigation in full under any circumstances of alleged malpractice or maladministration relating to the centre and full cooperation from Datalaw would be forthcoming.

If Datalaw discovers or suspects anyone of malpractice or maladministration, Datalaw will make the individual fully aware (preferably in writing) at the earliest opportunity of the nature of the alleged malpractice and of the possible consequences should malpractice be proven.

Datalaw reserves the right to access any documents it holds in relation to alleged malpractice or maladministration. Also, as required by the regulator, Datalaw may report to the regulatory authorities’ certain cases (e.g., where Employees are found to have committed malpractice) and include details of the action taken.

It may be necessary during this process to notify the funding authorities and for Datalaw to share information with Awarding Bodies. Datalaw may have to notify the Police in some cases of malpractice.

11. Penalties and Sanctions applied by Datalaw

Where malpractice or maladministration against an Employee or Learner is proven, Datalaw will have to consider whether the integrity of its assessments / examinations / tests might be jeopardised if the Employee / Learner in question were to be involved in future Datalaw assessments / examinations / tests.

Datalaw may take disciplinary action to protect the integrity of its assessments / examinations / tests in the future. Datalaw reserves the right to refuse to issue certificates.

For further information on Learner appeals, see – Learner Appeals Process as outlined in the Learner Induction.

Reviewed Date	07/10/2025	Next Review Due Date	07/10/2026
Reviewed by	Julie Broadhead Quality Manager	Signature	Julie Broadhead

Datalaw 2025    Malpractice and Maladministration Policy    DPP044