Candidate Malpractice Policy

1. Purpose

Chieftain Training is committed to maintaining the integrity, fairness and credibility of all training, assessment and examination activities.

This policy explains what constitutes candidate malpractice, how suspected malpractice will be investigated, and the action that may be taken where malpractice is proven.

It applies to all candidates attending courses, assessments or examinations delivered by Chieftain Training, including courses conducted on behalf of, or under the approval of, external awarding, certification or regulatory bodies.

2. Scope

This policy applies to:

• classroom-based training;
• practical training and assessment;
• written and online assessments;
• oral examinations;
• practical examinations;
• coursework, assignments and portfolios;
• remote or blended learning;
• certification applications;
• identity and eligibility checks; and
• any other assessment activity undertaken through Chieftain Training.

Where the requirements of an awarding body, governing body or regulator are more specific than this policy, those requirements will take precedence.

3. Definition of Candidate Malpractice

Candidate malpractice is any action, attempted action or omission by a candidate that could:

• give the candidate an unfair advantage;
• disadvantage another candidate;
• undermine the integrity of an assessment or examination;
• result in an inaccurate assessment of competence;
• lead to the issue of a certificate or qualification to which the candidate is not entitled; or
• compromise the reputation or regulatory compliance of Chieftain Training or the relevant awarding body.

Malpractice may be deliberate or, in some circumstances, arise through reckless disregard of assessment rules.

4. Examples of Candidate Malpractice

Candidate malpractice includes, but is not limited to:

• cheating during an examination or assessment;
• copying another candidate’s work;
• allowing another candidate to copy work;
• communicating with another candidate when this is prohibited;
• using unauthorised notes, books, electronic devices or other materials;
• accessing examination questions or assessment material without authorisation;
• obtaining or attempting to obtain confidential assessment material in advance;
• sharing confidential examination or assessment material with others;
• using artificial intelligence, online services or third-party assistance where this has not been expressly permitted;
• submitting work produced wholly or partly by another person as the candidate’s own;
• plagiarism;
• falsifying logbooks, sea time, training records, experience, signatures or supporting documentation;
• submitting altered or fraudulent certificates;
• falsely claiming to have completed prerequisite training or experience;
• impersonating another candidate or arranging for another person to undertake an assessment;
• providing false information about identity, age, medical fitness or eligibility;
• tampering with assessment records or documentation;
• attempting to influence, intimidate, bribe or improperly pressure an instructor, assessor, examiner or member of staff;
• colluding with another candidate;
• deliberately disrupting an assessment;
• removing examination papers or controlled materials without permission;
• photographing, recording, copying or reproducing controlled assessment material;
• continuing to use prohibited assistance after being instructed to stop; or
• attempting to conceal evidence of malpractice.

5. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Candidates must not use generative artificial intelligence systems, including text-generating or answer-generating software, during assessments unless its use has been specifically authorised.

Where AI-assisted work is permitted, candidates must comply with any instructions regarding disclosure, referencing and the extent to which AI may be used.

Submitting AI-generated material as evidence of a candidate’s own knowledge or competence where such assistance is prohibited may be treated as malpractice.

6. Candidate Responsibilities

Candidates are responsible for:

• following instructions given by instructors, assessors and examiners;
• complying with examination and assessment rules;
• ensuring all information and documentation submitted is genuine and accurate;
• completing their own work unless collaborative work is expressly permitted;
• protecting the confidentiality of examination and assessment material; and
• asking for clarification where they are unsure whether a particular form of assistance is permitted.

A claim that a candidate did not understand the rules will not automatically prevent action being taken where malpractice has occurred.

7. Suspected Malpractice

Any instructor, assessor, examiner, invigilator, member of staff or other person who suspects candidate malpractice should report the matter promptly to the appropriate Course Director, Centre Manager, Principal or Quality Assurance representative.

Where necessary, immediate action may be taken to protect the integrity of the assessment. This may include:

• removing unauthorised material or equipment;
• stopping or suspending an assessment;
• separating candidates;
• retaining relevant documents or evidence;
• recording the circumstances;
• taking statements from those involved; or
• notifying the relevant awarding or regulatory body.

Where practical, the candidate will be informed that a malpractice concern has been raised.

8. Investigation

Suspected malpractice will be investigated fairly and proportionately.

The investigation may include:

• reviewing assessment papers or candidate work;
• examining electronic or documentary evidence;
• reviewing CCTV where lawfully available and relevant;
• obtaining statements from instructors, assessors, examiners or witnesses;
• comparing work submitted by different candidates;
• checking qualification, identity or experience records; and
• inviting the candidate to provide an explanation.

The candidate will normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegation before a final internal decision is made.

The standard applied by Chieftain Training when making an internal decision will normally be the balance of probabilities.

9. Referral to an Awarding or Regulatory Body

Where the assessment or qualification falls under the authority of an external organisation, Chieftain Training may be required to report suspected or proven malpractice.

Relevant organisations may include, where applicable:

• the Royal Yachting Association;
• the Maritime and Coastguard Agency;
• examination or certification bodies;
• Paddle UK;
• other National Governing Bodies; or
• other organisations responsible for the relevant qualification.

Where required, Chieftain Training will cooperate with any external investigation.

An awarding or regulatory body may impose sanctions independently of any action taken by Chieftain Training.

10. Possible Outcomes

Where malpractice is not substantiated, the matter will normally be closed and any suspended assessment may, where appropriate, be resumed or rearranged.

Where malpractice is established, action may include:

• a formal warning;
• disallowing part of an assessment;
• requiring an assessment to be repeated;
• awarding a fail result;
• invalidating the assessment;
• refusing certification;
• withdrawing a recommendation for certification;
• cancelling a course or examination result;
• removal from the course or examination;
• refusing further training or assessment;
• suspension from booking further courses for a specified period;
• permanent refusal of future bookings in serious cases;
• reporting the matter to the relevant awarding body or regulator; or
• referring suspected criminal conduct to the police or another appropriate authority.

The sanction will take account of the seriousness of the malpractice, whether it was deliberate, its potential consequences and any relevant awarding-body requirements.

11. Safety-Critical Qualifications

Chieftain Training delivers qualifications that may demonstrate competence to operate vessels, undertake safety duties or respond to emergencies.

For this reason, malpractice involving falsified practical competence, sea service, medical information, safety training, identity or professional certification will be treated particularly seriously.

Where Chieftain Training believes that issuing or supporting certification could create a risk to safety, certification may be withheld while the matter is investigated.

12. Certificates Already Issued

Where malpractice is discovered after a certificate or qualification has been issued, Chieftain Training may notify the issuing authority and provide relevant evidence.

The issuing authority may cancel, withdraw or amend certification in accordance with its own procedures.

13. Candidate Conduct During an Investigation

Candidates must not:

• interfere with evidence;
• contact or pressure witnesses;
• attempt to influence members of staff;
• threaten or intimidate any person involved in the investigation; or
• make knowingly false statements.

Such behaviour may itself constitute misconduct and may lead to additional action.

14. Confidentiality

Malpractice investigations will be handled confidentially so far as reasonably possible.

Information will only be shared with those who need it for the purpose of investigating, deciding or reporting the matter, including relevant awarding or regulatory bodies where required.

15. Record Keeping

Chieftain Training may retain records of malpractice allegations, investigations, evidence, decisions and correspondence in accordance with its data-protection and record-retention arrangements.

Records may also be retained where required by an awarding body, regulator or certification authority.

16. Appeals

A candidate who believes that Chieftain Training has made an incorrect decision may appeal in writing.

An appeal should:

• identify the decision being appealed;
• explain why the candidate believes the decision was incorrect; and
• provide any relevant supporting evidence.

Where possible, the appeal will be reviewed by a person who was not responsible for the original decision.

Where the matter falls within the jurisdiction of an awarding or regulatory body, the candidate may also have rights of appeal under that organisation’s procedures.

17. Review

This policy will be reviewed periodically and whenever there is a significant change to awarding-body, regulatory or assessment requirements.

Policy owner: Principal / Quality Assurance Coordinater
Last review: October 2026