If you're a centre with a concern about a student's results, you can use our post-results services. Find out more below about the services available. The information on this page should be used along with guidance from the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ).
The information below gives a description of each service, completion deadline and list of qualifications where the services are available.
All Exams Officers can request post-results services, but you will need to get permission from students before applying.
Requests must be made through Edexcel Online and you will receive an automatic confirmation email acknowledging the receipt of the application. We can't accept late requests, so please ensure that you retain your confirmation emails.
|How to request post-results services for BTEC qualifications||
This video shows you how to submit 'Reviews of marking and moderation' (RoMM) and 'Access to scripts' (ATS) requests for our BTEC Firsts (from 2012) and BTEC Nationals (from 2016) externally assessed units:
For BTEC Firsts, onscreen, on-demand tests, read this guidance sheet (PDF)
|How to request post-results services for Edexcel qualifications||
This video shows you how to submit 'Reviews of marking and moderation' (RoMM) and 'Access to script' (ATS) requests for our Edexcel components/units:
The documents below provide full details on which services are available for each of our Edexcel and BTEC components/units.
Declining grades for BTEC
In order to resit an externally assessed unit, learners must have a valid and open BTEC registration. This means that if you've claimed their full qualification award, but want to resit the assessment, you'll need to decline their grade before you'll be able to enter them for the resit.
Our Reviews of marking and moderation (RoMM) services allow you to request us to run additional checks that the grades we've issued your candidates are correct.
Our approach to managing all post-results services is to ensure that every candidate has a result that accurately reflects their performance, to maintain confidence in our qualifications and outcomes. However if, as a centre, you have concerns regarding the marking for a component or subject cohort, you should submit requests for reviews of marking for all candidates you believe to be affected. This will enable us to take a holistic view of the quality of marking and allow us to take any corrective action which may be required in a timely fashion.
You must obtain written candidate consent for reviews of marking after the publication of results, as with these services, candidates’ marks and subject grades may be lowered. Candidates must be informed of this possible outcome and provide their written consent before an application is submitted.
If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of a review of marking or moderation (RoMM), special consideration or access arrangement request, you may wish to appeal against the decision.
We will allow the head of centre (or designated member of the centre’s senior management team or examinations manager) 30 calendar days from the receipt of the outcome, during which an appeal may be lodged by email to:
or in writing to:
Pearson Appeals Office
An application form can be found in the Joint Council for Qualifications document ‘A Guide to the Awarding Bodies’ Appeals Processes’.
We cannot accept appeals directly from candidates, their parents or other third parties acting on their behalf. However, private candidates may appeal directly without the support of the entering centre.
Appeals should normally be lodged on the basis of whether the awarding body used procedures that were consistent with the regulatory requirements (see links below), and applied its procedures properly and fairly in arriving at judgments. The appeals office may refuse to accept an appeal if no procedural ground is specified.
The procedures which are open to investigation include the full range of processes involved in, and leading to, the award of grades:
- the setting of papers
- marking and moderation
- the grade award
- reviews of marking and moderation
- other administrative arrangements.
The appeals process is not generally directly concerned with making judgments about the quality of candidates’ work, as this is the responsibility of senior examiners and moderators.
Therefore appeals do not normally involve the further review of marking or moderation of work, unless the initial appeals investigation suggests that procedures were not followed during the review or marking or moderation.
For AS and A level and Project qualifications and GCSE qualifications in the subjects of English Language, English Literature and Mathematics, Ofqual has extended the grounds of appeal so that schools and colleges can make additional grounds that:
- a marking or moderation error was not corrected during the review of marking or moderation; or
- a marking or moderation error occurred during the review of marking or moderation.
‘The awarding of a mark or the arrival at an outcome of Moderation which could not reasonably have been given or arrived at given the evidence generated by the Learner(s) (and for Moderation, the centre’s marking of that evidence), the criteria against which Learners’ performance is differentiated and any procedures of the awarding organisation in relation to Moderation or marking, including in particular where the awarding of a mark or outcome of moderation is based on: an Administrative Error, a failure to apply such criteria and procedures to the evidence generated by the Learner(s) where that failure did not involve the exercise of academic judgment, or an unreasonable exercise of academic judgment’.
When an appeal is lodged, we will carry out a preliminary appeals investigation. This will take the form of a fresh examination of all available evidence and may involve research officers, subject-related assessment staff and senior examining personnel. We will inspect the review of marking or moderation (RoMM) files and other relevant records for accuracy.
For AS, A level and Project qualifications and GCSE English Language, English Literature and Mathematics only, we will also refer, where it has been identified by the appellant, the details of the alleged marking or moderation error to a senior examiner or moderator for further review and response. That senior examiner or moderator will not have had any involvement in the original marking or moderation of the component.
We will acknowledge each letter of appeal within two working days of receipt, at which point, we will provide further written guidance on the Pearson appeals process. We will send a letter, summarising the results of the initial appeals investigation, normally within 5 calendar weeks of receipt of the letter of appeal. In the event that the appeals office is unable to complete its enquiries within 25 days, we will advise the centre of the likely extent of any delay.
If, following the initial investigation, a centre remains dissatisfied with our response, the head of centre may request the opportunity to present the case in person at a hearing of the Pearson appeals panel. If, following an appeal hearing, the centre remains dissatisfied, it may submit an appeal to:
We will normally expect centres to contribute towards the costs of appeal investigations and hearings. The maximum amounts that we will charge are £120 per examination component for the initial appeal investigation, and £150 for any subsequent appeal hearing. There is no requirement for any fee to be submitted with the initial letter of appeal. We will not charge centres for special consideration appeals, nor for other appeals if an appeal is upheld.