Post-results services
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).
Download JCQ's post-results service guide:
Services available
The information below gives a description of each service, completion deadline and list of qualifications where the services are available.
View key dates for Edexcel Functional Skills assessments
Download our results enquiry form for LCCI qualifications:
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 guides | |
|---|---|
| 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.
Find out how to decline grades and amend vocational achievement
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.
For further information, please refer to the Joint Council for Qualifications guidance
From summer 2020, it is an Ofqual requirement for exam boards to give the reasons for every mark change.
From Autumn 2020 reviews, you’ll be able to see the reasons for review of marking decisions through Edexcel Online once an outcome has been issued for your review of marking request.
The reasons will be available on the Post Results Enquiry Detail page of Edexcel Online. Select the relevant qualification page, select Post Results Track progress page, search for the request(s) using the search criteria and use the View link to access the Post Results Detail page where the reason for the review of marking decision will be shown.
If there has been a mark change, we’ll give the reason at component level with a comment on why the mark has changed.
A centre which is dissatisfied with the outcome of a review of marking or moderation (RoMM), special consideration or access arrangement request, or malpractice determination 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 to lodge an appeal. Appeals should be sent by email to:
Please note that it is not necessary to submit applications to appeal in hard copy, by post, unless specifically requested by the 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 be lodged on either of the following two bases:
- That 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,
Or
- that there had been a marking or moderation error that has not been corrected at the review stage.
The appeals office may refuse to accept an appeal application if valid grounds are not presented. That is if no specific marking or moderation error is identified or if no procedural grounds are cited.
JCQ rules and guidance
JCQ Appeals Booklet
Access Arrangements, Reasonable Adjustments and Special Consideration guidance
Suspected Malpractice in Examinations and Assessments
Ofqual Regulations
Ofqual guidance on reviews and appeals
Changes to regulations for enquiries and appeals
General Conditions of Recognition
Pre-reform GCE Qualification Level Conditions and Requirements
GCE Qualification Level Conditions and Requirements
GCSE (9 to 1) Qualification Level Conditions and Requirements
In considering whether or not to appeal on the grounds of a marking or moderation error it is important to note Ofqual’s ‘Guidance on considering marking errors on a review or appeal’, which states that:
‘Following a review or an appeal, a reasonable mark should not be replaced with another such mark, simply because those carrying out the review or the appeal would have given a different mark if they were the original Assessor. We do not consider that one such mark should be replaced with another (often higher) mark, as then Learners who request a review or appeal would be unfairly advantaged over those who do not. A review or appeal should not be an opportunity for a Learner to have a second go at getting a better mark. Such a review or appeal should only interfere with a mark where there has been a Marking Error.’
Ofqual has defined a marking error as:
‘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’.
For additional information on the appeals process, please refer to the Joint Council for Qualifications document ‘A Guide to the Awarding Bodies Appeals Processes’
Further Guidance
If you are unsure if you have grounds to appeal, are unsure how to present your grounds for appeal, or would like further guidance on the appeals process, the Appeals Office can be contacted at edexcelappeals@pearson.com and we would be happy to arrange a time to discuss matters with you.
When an appeal is lodged on procedural grounds, we will carry out a preliminary appeals investigation. This will take the form of a fresh examination of all the 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 GCSE, AS, A level and Project qualifications 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 6 calendar weeks of receipt of the letter of appeal. In the event that the appeals office is unable to complete its enquiries within 6 calendar weeks, 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 to an appeals panel which is made up of people who are wholly independent of Pearson.
If, following an appeal hearing, the centre remains dissatisfied, it may submit an appeal to:
Ofqual's Examinations Procedures Review Service (EPRS)
Reform of the Exam Procedures Review Service
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.
