Ofqual has fined the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM) £150,000 after finding serious weaknesses in how the awarding organisation retained and managed evidence from music assessments. The regulator’s enforcement panel identified three incidents in 2024 and 2025 in which recordings or marking records were unavailable when needed for learner reviews or a suspected-malpractice inquiry.
ABRSM has also agreed to contribute £10,000 towards Ofqual’s investigation and enforcement costs and commission an independent audit of its assessment record-retention arrangements. Ofqual said ABRSM identified the issues and had taken steps to improve its arrangements, but concluded that weaknesses in controls meant important evidence could not always be accessed when required.
Three incidents affected assessment evidence
The largest incident involved 8,539 audio recordings of completed learner assessments that were not retained because of a software error. Of those learners, 20 had asked for a review of marking. Ofqual found that their reviews could not be conducted using all the original assessment evidence. The finding concerns the availability of material for review; the regulator’s notice does not say that the marks were wrong or specify how any individual review would otherwise have concluded.
In a separate incident, recordings and completed marking records relating to 16 learners were deleted in error. Ofqual said this delayed the issue of results and meant those learners could not fully challenge their marks because the relevant evidence was no longer available. The public notice does not give individual results or describe the eventual outcome of each case.
The third case arose after ABRSM identified potential malpractice involving a single tutor overseas who had entered 710 learners for assessments. Ofqual said 231 recordings were no longer available, limiting ABRSM’s ability to investigate the extent of the suspected malpractice. This is a limitation on an inquiry, not a finding that all the tutor’s learners were involved in wrongdoing. The enforcement account does not state the inquiry’s ultimate conclusion.
Certificate titles also came under scrutiny
Alongside the recording problems, Ofqual found that about 72,000 certificates had been issued with incorrect qualification titles. It said this created a risk of confusion for learners, employers and education providers. ABRSM later corrected the error, notified learners and offered replacement certificates. The regulator nevertheless found that the organisation did not initially take all reasonable steps to address the problem.
The certificate issue is distinct from the missing assessment records: the former concerned how qualifications were described on documents, while the three incidents concerned whether assessment evidence and marks remained available. Both matter to confidence in a qualification system, but the notice does not claim that the title errors changed what learners had studied or achieved.
Why retained evidence matters
Assessment recordings and records can help an awarding organisation review how work was marked and examine possible malpractice. When evidence is lost, a review may have to proceed without the full original material, while investigators may be less able to establish what happened. That can constrain the process available to learners and the organisation, even where no conclusion about the underlying mark or suspected conduct is given.
Ofqual’s stated rationale is that awarding organisations must keep assessment evidence and ensure it can be retrieved when needed, both to protect learners and maintain confidence in qualifications. ABRSM has been recognised by Ofqual since 2010 and provides regulated music qualifications through face-to-face and digital assessments. The case therefore concerns the systems behind those assessments, not a general judgement on music tuition or on every qualification the board offers.
The agreed penalty is a monetary enforcement measure, accompanied by the costs contribution and audit commitment. The notice does not describe it as a criminal conviction. An independent audit is intended to examine ABRSM’s record-retention arrangements; the published account does not set out its findings, timetable or a broader guarantee that similar errors cannot recur.
For learners and families, the practical lesson in the regulator’s findings is that assessment evidence is part of the safeguards around results, not merely an administrative archive. Ofqual has documented specific failures and their limits: 20 requested reviews lacked all original evidence, 16 learners experienced delays and restricted challenges, and an inquiry involving 710 entries lacked 231 recordings. It has not published individual outcomes beyond those points. Keeping those distinctions clear is important when describing both the seriousness of the enforcement action and what it does, and does not, establish.
