< News | 13.03.2017

Disciplinary matters: Breach of examination and/or assessment regulations

Disciplinary matters: Breach of examination and/or assessment regulations

The requirement not to provide assignments to another candidate was only introduced in May 2013. Candidates who have provided their assignments to another candidate having enrolled on either continuous assessment or coursework assessment between May 2013 and May 2014 have had their decisions published unascribed (without their name or employer details). Candidates who enrolled after May 2014 and breach this requirement will have their names and employer details published along with the disciplinary decision.

Bijay Tamang, Be Wiser Insurance, Barrett House Savoy Close, Andover, UK (Order effective from 13 December 2016):

The candidate was found to have given their P05 assignment to another candidate, in breach of the assessment guidelines. The CII case examiner invited the respondent to approve and sign a consensual order under Rule 9.1 of the CII Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2015, to which the respondent agreed. The respondent was reprimanded and required to complete the CII online ethics course.

Nyasha Chirau, Be Wiser Insurance, Winchester House, Winchester House, Andover, UK (Order effective from 14 December 2016) Matthew Galloway, Be Wiser Insurance, Barrett House, Savoy Close, Andover, UK (Order effective from 14 December 2016):

The above candidates were found to have plagiarised a P05 assignment written by another candidate, in breach of the assessment guidelines. The CII case examiner invited the respondents to approve and sign a consensual order under Rule 9.1 of the CII Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2015, to which the respondents agreed. The sanctions issued were that:

a) respondents be reprimanded

b) their assignment result disallowed

c) they were excluded from CII examinations and assessments for 18 months and would have to take the CII online ethics course before taking any CII exams and assessments or applying for recognition of prior learning in future or applying to renew membership of the CII

d) no examinations, assessments or qualifications obtained by the respondents during the period of exclusion would be eligible for CII recognition of prior learning for 18 months.

The case examiner reduced the sanction that would otherwise have been applied in respect of the offence for c) and d) from two years, in light of the respondents’ early admission of the charge.

Ashmal Kahn Dip PFS, AK Advisory, Cambrai Court, 1229 Stratford Road, Birmingham, UK
(Order effective from 5 January 2017):

The exam candidate had papers underneath his desk and a mobile phone on his desk during an AF3 examination, which was in breach of the CII examination admission rules.  The CII case examiner invited the respondent to approve and sign a consensual order under Rule 9.1 of the CII Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2015, to which the respondent agreed. The sanctions issued were that the respondent:

a) be reprimanded

b) would be required to take the CII online ethics course before taking any CII exams and assessments, before applying for recognition of prior learning in future, or before applying for membership of the CII

c) have his examination result withdrawn.

Natalie Cain, AEG Aegon, Serco, Ribble House, Ballam Road, Lytham, UK (Order effective from 10 January 2017) Jennifer Lord, AEG Aegon, Serco, Ribble House, Ballam Road, Lytham, UK (Order effective from 10 January 2017):

The above candidates were found to have collaborated with another P62 candidate when completing an assignment and sharing feedback on their assignment with another candidate and a third party, in breach of the assessment guidelines. The CII case examiner invited the respondents to approve and sign a consensual order under Rule 9.1 of the CII Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2015, to which the respondents agreed. The sanctions issued were that:

a) the respondents be reprimanded

b) their assignment result disallowed

c) they were excluded from CII examinations and assessments for 24 months and would have to take the CII online ethics course before taking any CII exams and assessments or applying for recognition of prior learning in future, or applying to renew membership of the CII

d) would not be eligible for CII recognition of prior learning for examinations, assessments or qualifications obtained by the respondents during the 24-month period of exclusion.

Unascribed cases (order effective from 19 and 20 December 2016):

Two candidates were found to have given their completed assignments to another candidate, in breach of the coursework assessment guidelines. The CII case examiner invited the respondents to approve and sign a consensual order under Rule 9.1 of the CII Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2013, to which the respondents agreed. The respondents were each reprimanded and were required to complete the CII online ethics course before taking any CII exams, assessments or applying for recognition of prior learning in future. In line with earlier precedent, the case examiner decided not to publish the respondents’ names due to the relatively recent introduction and publication of warnings not to provide assignments to other candidates.

Share

Related articles

A glimpse into the future

A glimpse into the future

In November, the local Vue Cinema welcomed the Insurance Institute of Bolton’s showcase learning and development session of the year, titled ‘A Glimpse into the future’, hosted by Martin Ashfield.

Belfast V Dublin Match

Belfast V Dublin Match

The annual Belfast v Dublin rugby match took place on Friday 9 March at Wanderers RFC in Dublin, with Belfast/Dublin combined winning 35 – 15.

NEW GENERATION GROUP 2018/19

NEW GENERATION GROUP 2018/19

More than forty rising stars from across the insurance profession attended the launch event for the CII’s flagship talent programme: the New Generation Group in October.