Policies

APPEALS POLICY AND PROCEDURE

Organisation: Boxology Limited
Trading names: Boxology® Academy and Boxology® Online
Company number: 10523458
Responsible person: Cathy Brown – Director, Boxology Limited
Version: 3.0
Effective date: 3 August 2026
Review date: 3 August 2027, or sooner where legal, organisational, CIMSPA or delivery requirements change

1. Purpose

Boxology Limited is committed to ensuring that decisions affecting learners and participants are:

  • fair;

  • evidence-based;

  • consistent;

  • transparent;

  • made by appropriately competent people;

  • free from improper bias or conflicts of interest; and

  • capable of review through an accessible appeals process.

This policy explains how a person may challenge an eligible decision made by Boxology Limited and how that appeal will be considered.

The appeals process is intended to identify whether:

  • the correct procedure was followed;

  • relevant evidence was considered;

  • the decision was reasonably supported;

  • a conflict of interest affected the outcome;

  • an adjustment or special consideration was properly considered; or

  • a sanction or administrative decision was disproportionate.

An appeal is not automatically a complete reassessment or reinvestigation.

2. Organisational identity and separation

Boxology® Academy and Boxology® Online are commercial boxing-education brands operated by Boxology Limited.

Boxology Limited is legally and financially separate from:

  • HEADGUARD C.I.C., company number 16212678, which is a community interest company and is not a registered charity; and

  • any separate HEADGUARD Charitable Incorporated Organisation that may be registered in the future.

Boxology Academy Limited, company number 10803282, was dissolved on 25 June 2019 and has no current activity or role. Current use of “Boxology Academy” refers to a trading brand operated by Boxology Limited.

This policy belongs to Boxology Limited. It is not automatically the appeals policy of HEADGUARD C.I.C. or any future registered HEADGUARD CIO.

Where Boxology Limited delivers education or services for HEADGUARD or another partner, the applicable written agreement should identify:

  • which organisation made the decision;

  • which organisation is responsible for reviewing it;

  • the relevant appeals or complaints route;

  • safeguarding responsibilities; and

  • information-sharing arrangements.

Any future HEADGUARD CIO will be independently governed by its trustees and must approve its own policies and decision-making arrangements.

3. CIMSPA-endorsed training

Boxology Limited is a CIMSPA Training Provider Partner and delivers specific educational products that are endorsed and quality assured by the Chartered Institute for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity — CIMSPA.

Where applicable, the course information will identify:

  • that the course is CIMSPA-endorsed;

  • the applicable CPD points;

  • assessment requirements;

  • completion requirements; and

  • the status of the certificate issued.

CIMSPA endorsement applies only to the specific educational products approved by CIMSPA. It does not mean that every Boxology course, membership, event, product or HEADGUARD programme is CIMSPA-endorsed.

Boxology Limited remains responsible for:

  • course delivery;

  • assessment decisions;

  • internal quality assurance;

  • reasonable adjustments and special consideration;

  • learner records;

  • Boxology certificates;

  • complaints and appeals; and

  • the accuracy of CPD information supplied by Boxology.

Boxology Limited will maintain and operate this appeals procedure in accordance with the quality-assurance requirements applying to its CIMSPA-endorsed provision.

4. Scope

This policy may be used to appeal against a Boxology Limited decision concerning:

  • an assessment result;

  • a finding that assessment evidence did not meet the required standard;

  • refusal to permit or accept an assessment submission;

  • an assessment-related administrative decision;

  • a reasonable-adjustment decision;

  • a special-consideration decision;

  • a malpractice or maladministration finding;

  • a sanction resulting from malpractice or maladministration;

  • invalidation of an assessment;

  • refusal, correction or withdrawal of a certificate;

  • correction or cancellation of a CPD record;

  • eligibility to progress or complete a course;

  • a decision affecting recognition of prior learning;

  • a decision to suspend or remove someone from assessed provision; or

  • another formal Boxology decision where an appeal has expressly been offered.

The policy applies to:

  • prospective, current and former learners;

  • members undertaking assessed learning;

  • learners funded by employers or organisations;

  • participants undertaking assessment through an approved partner programme;

  • children or young people where a formal assessment or appealable decision applies;

  • authorised representatives; and

  • people directly affected by a malpractice or certification decision.

5. What is an appeal?

An appeal is a request for Boxology Limited to review a formal decision because the appellant believes that the decision-making process or outcome was materially flawed.

An appeal is different from:

  • a request for an explanation;

  • dissatisfaction with customer service;

  • a complaint about staff conduct;

  • an allegation of safeguarding concern;

  • a request to change a course date;

  • a request for discretionary support; or

  • disagreement with course content.

Those matters may fall under another Boxology policy.

6. Matters handled under other policies

Complaints

A concern about:

  • tutor or assessor conduct;

  • discrimination;

  • unreasonable delay;

  • poor communication;

  • customer service;

  • failure to follow a published process; or

  • the way an assessment was administered

may be considered under the Complaints Policy and Procedure.

Where a submission contains both an appeal and a complaint, Boxology Limited will explain how each element will be handled.

Malpractice and maladministration

A new allegation of cheating, falsification, assessor misconduct, procedural failure or another integrity concern may first require consideration under the Malpractice and Maladministration Policy.

Safeguarding

A concern involving a child, adult at risk, abuse, exploitation, inappropriate conduct or immediate danger must follow the relevant Safeguarding and Learner Welfare Policy.

Safeguarding action must not be delayed while an appeal is considered.

Consumer or contractual matters

A request concerning cancellation, refunds, membership payments or product returns will normally be considered under the applicable terms and conditions or Complaints Policy rather than this Appeals Policy.

7. Who may appeal?

An appeal may be submitted by:

  • the person directly affected by the decision;

  • a parent or person with parental responsibility for a child;

  • an authorised representative;

  • an employer or commissioning organisation where it has a legitimate interest in the decision; or

  • a partner organisation where the applicable written agreement permits it.

Where an appeal is made on behalf of an adult, Boxology Limited may request confirmation that the representative is authorised to act.

This will not prevent urgent action where the information raises a safeguarding, legal or safety concern.

8. Appeals involving children and young people

A child or young person may appeal:

  • directly;

  • through a parent or guardian;

  • with support from a teacher, social worker or support worker;

  • through an appropriate partner organisation; or

  • with assistance from another trusted adult.

The process will be explained in accessible and age-appropriate language.

The child or young person will not be required to:

  • confront the person whose decision is being appealed;

  • disclose unrelated personal information;

  • discuss trauma or abuse unnecessarily; or

  • manage the process without appropriate support.

Their own views will be heard and taken seriously.

Where the appeal raises a safeguarding concern, the safeguarding procedure will take priority.

9. Grounds for appeal

An appeal must identify one or more proper grounds.

Possible grounds include:

  • a material procedural error;

  • the published assessment process was not followed;

  • relevant evidence was overlooked or misunderstood;

  • the decision was not reasonably supported by the available evidence;

  • the wrong assessment criteria were applied;

  • an assessor or decision-maker lacked appropriate authority;

  • an undeclared conflict of interest or bias may have affected the decision;

  • an approved reasonable adjustment was not implemented;

  • a reasonable-adjustment or special-consideration request was not considered properly;

  • new material evidence has become available that could not reasonably have been provided earlier;

  • a malpractice finding was based on materially inaccurate information;

  • the sanction imposed was disproportionate;

  • an administrative error affected the result, certificate or CPD record; or

  • Boxology Limited did not apply its policy fairly or consistently.

10. Matters that are not normally grounds for appeal

The following will not normally be sufficient on their own:

  • simple disagreement with the result;

  • disappointment with a result;

  • failure to achieve the required standard;

  • a wish to obtain additional marks without identifying an error;

  • evidence that could reasonably have been submitted at the original assessment but was not;

  • dissatisfaction with clearly published course requirements;

  • failure to complete required work;

  • failure to attend;

  • personal circumstances that were not disclosed until after the assessment without a reasonable explanation; or

  • a request for a different outcome without identifying any proper appeal ground.

Boxology Limited will nevertheless consider whether disability, safeguarding, illness, communication difficulty or another significant circumstance explains why information was not provided earlier.

11. Seeking clarification before appealing

A learner may request clarification of:

  • the assessment result;

  • assessor feedback;

  • the evidence that did not meet the standard;

  • the applicable assessment criteria;

  • the reason for an administrative decision; or

  • the available reassessment route.

Requesting clarification does not prevent a formal appeal.

Where clarification resolves the matter, a formal appeal may no longer be necessary.

A learner should not be pressured to abandon a legitimate appeal merely because an informal explanation has been offered.

12. Time limit

A formal appeal should normally be submitted within 10 working days after the written decision was communicated.

Boxology Limited may accept a late appeal where there is a reasonable explanation, including:

  • illness or injury;

  • disability-related circumstances;

  • bereavement;

  • safeguarding concerns;

  • delayed receipt of the decision;

  • difficulty obtaining necessary information;

  • overseas or partner-programme circumstances; or

  • another significant reason.

A late appeal should explain why it could not reasonably have been submitted within the normal period.

Boxology Limited will not impose a rigid time limit where doing so would be unfair or prevent consideration of a serious integrity or safeguarding concern.

13. How to submit an appeal

Appeals should normally be sent to:

Email: info@boxology.academy

Post:
Boxology Limited
Brook Cottage
High Street
Paulerspury
Towcester
England
NN12 7NR

The appeal should include, where possible:

  • the appellant’s full name;

  • contact details;

  • course and assessment details;

  • the decision being appealed;

  • the date the decision was received;

  • the grounds for appeal;

  • relevant supporting evidence;

  • any reasonable adjustment required;

  • any immediate concern about certification or progression; and

  • the outcome being requested.

An appeal will not automatically be rejected because some information is unavailable.

14. Accessibility

Boxology Limited will make reasonable efforts to ensure the appeals procedure is accessible.

Adjustments may include:

  • accepting a verbal appeal;

  • helping the appellant put the appeal into writing;

  • accepting audio or video submissions;

  • providing information in an accessible format;

  • allowing additional time;

  • using clear or simplified language;

  • communicating through an authorised representative; or

  • allowing a support person to assist.

No fee will be charged for an internal appeal.

15. Acknowledgement

Boxology Limited will normally acknowledge an appeal within five working days.

The acknowledgement should confirm:

  • receipt of the appeal;

  • the decision understood to be under challenge;

  • the grounds identified;

  • whether further information is required;

  • who will review the appeal;

  • any interim action being taken; and

  • the expected response timescale.

Where the submission is not an appeal but falls under another policy, Boxology Limited will explain the appropriate route.

16. Initial review of eligibility

Boxology Limited will first determine whether:

  • the appeal concerns an eligible decision;

  • it was made by or on behalf of Boxology Limited;

  • proper grounds have been identified;

  • the appellant is directly affected or authorised to act;

  • the appeal was submitted within the applicable period or should be accepted late;

  • another procedure must be completed first;

  • safeguarding or legal action is required;

  • there is a conflict of interest; and

  • temporary action is required.

Rejecting an appeal at this stage must not be used to avoid reviewing a legitimate challenge.

Where an appeal is considered ineligible, Boxology Limited will explain why and identify any alternative procedure.

17. Interim action

While an appeal is pending, Boxology Limited may take proportionate interim action, including:

  • pausing certification;

  • withholding submission or confirmation of CPD points;

  • preserving assessment evidence;

  • suspending a reassessment deadline;

  • maintaining temporary access;

  • preventing destruction or alteration of records;

  • appointing a different assessor;

  • restricting contact where safeguarding is relevant; or

  • notifying a partner organisation that the decision is under appeal.

An interim measure is precautionary and does not determine the appeal outcome.

18. Appointment of the reviewer

The appeal will be considered by a person who is:

  • appropriately competent;

  • able to act fairly;

  • sufficiently independent from the original decision; and

  • free from a material conflict of interest.

The reviewer should not be:

  • the person whose conduct is being challenged;

  • solely responsible for the original decision;

  • personally or financially interested in the outcome; or

  • otherwise unable to act impartially.

Where Boxology Limited cannot provide a sufficiently independent internal reviewer, it may appoint:

  • an independent assessor;

  • an external quality-assurance professional;

  • an appropriately experienced education consultant;

  • a safeguarding specialist where relevant;

  • a professional adviser; or

  • another suitable independent person.

Where the appeal concerns Cathy Brown, another appropriate person should conduct or oversee the review.

Where it concerns both Boxology directors, an appropriately independent reviewer should be appointed.

19. Appeal review process

The reviewer may:

  • examine the original decision;

  • review assessment evidence;

  • review feedback and assessment criteria;

  • examine reasonable-adjustment or special-consideration records;

  • consider relevant policies and course documents;

  • obtain a response from the original assessor or decision-maker;

  • speak with the appellant;

  • consult an independent assessor;

  • review digital, video or written evidence;

  • seek information from a partner organisation;

  • obtain specialist advice; and

  • consider whether other learners or decisions may have been affected.

The review will be proportionate to the issues raised.

The reviewer must consider both information that supports and information that does not support the appeal.

20. Assessment appeals

An assessment appeal will normally examine whether:

  • the correct criteria were applied;

  • the evidence was assessed properly;

  • the assessor was competent and authorised;

  • the assessment was conducted fairly;

  • agreed adjustments were implemented;

  • feedback and records support the decision;

  • an administrative error occurred; and

  • internal quality-assurance requirements were followed.

An appeal does not automatically entitle the learner to a higher result.

Where appropriate, Boxology Limited may arrange:

  • review of the original evidence by another competent assessor;

  • additional internal quality assurance;

  • reassessment;

  • correction of an administrative error; or

  • a fresh assessment under controlled conditions.

A fresh assessment will not normally be used to disadvantage a learner who has raised a legitimate appeal.

21. Reasonable-adjustment and special-consideration appeals

An appeal concerning reasonable adjustments or special consideration will examine whether:

  • the learner’s circumstances were properly understood;

  • relevant information was considered;

  • the learner was asked only for proportionate evidence;

  • suitable alternatives were considered;

  • an essential competence was identified correctly;

  • safety concerns were based on evidence rather than assumptions;

  • the decision complied with the applicable policy; and

  • the outcome was reasonable and proportionate.

Where the original decision is overturned, Boxology Limited may:

  • implement the adjustment;

  • offer an alternative adjustment;

  • repeat an assessment;

  • extend a deadline;

  • disregard an affected attempt;

  • provide additional access; or

  • take another appropriate corrective step.

22. Malpractice and maladministration appeals

An appeal against a malpractice or maladministration decision will consider whether:

  • the allegation was investigated fairly;

  • the person was informed of the substance of the concern;

  • they had a reasonable opportunity to respond;

  • relevant evidence was considered;

  • the finding was reasonably supported on the balance of probabilities;

  • conflicts of interest were managed;

  • safeguarding or legal restrictions were handled properly; and

  • the sanction or corrective action was proportionate.

The appeal reviewer may uphold the underlying finding but change the sanction where the original sanction was disproportionate.

23. Certificates and CPD records

Where an appeal concerns certification or CPD information, Boxology Limited will consider:

  • whether the learner completed the required course elements;

  • whether the assessment standard was met;

  • whether the certificate accurately describes the achievement;

  • whether an administrative error occurred;

  • whether the CPD points stated are correct;

  • whether the course was CIMSPA-endorsed at the relevant time; and

  • whether records supplied to CIMSPA require correction.

A certificate or CPD record will not be altered merely to satisfy an appellant where the evidence does not support the change.

Where an error is identified, Boxology Limited will correct the relevant records and notify CIMSPA or another appropriate party where necessary.

24. Appeals involving HEADGUARD or another partner

Where a decision arose through a HEADGUARD or partner programme, Boxology Limited will identify:

  • which organisation made the decision;

  • whether the decision relates to Boxology education or assessment;

  • whether it concerns participant selection, safeguarding, funding or project governance;

  • which organisation holds the relevant evidence;

  • what information may lawfully be shared; and

  • which policy applies.

Boxology Limited may consider appeals relating to its own:

  • assessment decisions;

  • education delivery;

  • certification;

  • personnel;

  • materials; and

  • contractual responsibilities.

HEADGUARD C.I.C. remains responsible for decisions made solely within its own legal and operational responsibilities.

A proposed HEADGUARD CIO must not be presented as responsible for a decision made before it has been registered and begun operating.

25. Appeal outcome

Boxology Limited aims to issue a written appeal outcome within 20 working days after receiving sufficient information to conduct the review.

The appeal may result in:

  • the original decision being upheld;

  • the decision being partially amended;

  • the decision being overturned;

  • correction of an administrative error;

  • review by another assessor;

  • reassessment;

  • additional evidence being considered;

  • implementation of an adjustment;

  • reduction, removal or amendment of a sanction;

  • correction, replacement or withdrawal of a certificate;

  • correction of a CPD record;

  • further investigation;

  • referral under another policy; or

  • referral to another responsible organisation.

The written outcome should explain:

  • the issues considered;

  • the evidence reviewed;

  • the findings;

  • the decision;

  • the reasons;

  • any corrective action; and

  • any further available route.

26. Delays

An appeal may take longer than 20 working days because of:

  • complexity;

  • the amount of evidence;

  • illness or absence;

  • safeguarding or police involvement;

  • the need for an independent assessor;

  • partner or overseas delivery;

  • technical evidence;

  • legal or professional advice; or

  • the potential impact on other learners.

Where the appeal is delayed, the appellant will be told:

  • the reason;

  • what remains outstanding; and

  • the revised expected response date.

Fairness and a proper review will take priority over an arbitrary deadline.

27. CIMSPA escalation

A learner should normally complete Boxology Limited’s internal appeal procedure before contacting CIMSPA about Boxology’s endorsed provision.

CIMSPA’s own appeals procedure applies where the decision under challenge was made by CIMSPA, including certain decisions concerning a member, partner or CIMSPA’s own processes.

CIMSPA does not automatically become a second assessor for every Boxology assessment decision.

Where a concern instead relates to:

  • Boxology’s compliance with CIMSPA endorsement requirements;

  • inaccurate endorsement or CPD claims;

  • serious quality-assurance failures;

  • Boxology’s conduct as a Training Provider Partner;

  • systemic malpractice or maladministration; or

  • failure to operate a fair internal process,

CIMSPA will determine whether the matter falls under its complaints, appeals, malpractice, disciplinary or partnership procedures.

Boxology Limited will cooperate with CIMSPA where the matter properly falls within its remit.

A person appealing a decision made directly by CIMSPA must follow CIMSPA’s current Appeals Policy and Procedure.

28. Fees

Boxology Limited does not charge a fee for submitting or considering an internal appeal.

A learner may be charged the ordinary published fee for a future resit or reassessment where:

  • the original decision was properly made;

  • no procedural or administrative error occurred;

  • the learner had not yet met the required standard; and

  • the fee was clearly disclosed.

No resit or reassessment fee will normally be charged where the need arose because of:

  • Boxology Limited’s material error;

  • failure to provide an approved adjustment;

  • an invalid assessment process;

  • assessor misconduct; or

  • another failure for which Boxology Limited is responsible.

29. Confidentiality and data protection

Appeals will be handled as confidentially as reasonably possible.

Information may be shared with people who reasonably need it to:

  • review the appeal;

  • provide an independent assessment;

  • protect a participant;

  • implement the decision;

  • comply with safeguarding obligations;

  • obtain professional advice;

  • correct a certificate or CPD record;

  • respond to CIMSPA; or

  • comply with the law.

Information will not automatically transfer between Boxology Limited, HEADGUARD C.I.C. and any future registered HEADGUARD CIO.

Personal information will be handled under the Boxology Limited Privacy Notice.

30. Protection from disadvantage

A person will not be treated unfairly merely because they:

  • submitted an appeal in good faith;

  • supported another person’s appeal;

  • provided relevant evidence;

  • requested an adjustment; or

  • challenged a decision through an appropriate procedure.

Retaliation, intimidation or victimisation may be dealt with as a separate conduct or malpractice matter.

An unsuccessful appeal is not automatically frivolous or malicious.

31. Finality of the internal process

The internal appeal outcome will normally be Boxology Limited’s final decision on the matter.

Boxology Limited may reopen an appeal where:

  • significant new evidence becomes available;

  • a safeguarding or legal issue emerges;

  • the decision was affected by fraud or serious misconduct;

  • another learner may have been affected;

  • CIMSPA requests further consideration; or

  • the interests of fairness clearly require it.

Completing the internal process does not remove any statutory right or prevent a person from contacting an external body that genuinely has jurisdiction.

32. Records and retention

Boxology Limited will retain proportionate records of:

  • the original decision;

  • the appeal;

  • supporting evidence;

  • acknowledgement;

  • reviewer appointment;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • correspondence;

  • review findings;

  • outcome;

  • corrective action;

  • CIMSPA communication where applicable; and

  • closure.

Appeal records will normally be retained for six years after closure, subject to the Boxology Limited Privacy Notice.

Records may be retained longer where necessary because of:

  • safeguarding;

  • legal proceedings;

  • certificate verification;

  • insurance;

  • continuing risk; or

  • CIMSPA quality-assurance requirements.

33. Monitoring and quality improvement

Boxology Limited will review appeal records to identify:

  • recurring assessment issues;

  • inconsistent decisions;

  • unclear criteria;

  • tutor or assessor training needs;

  • reasonable-adjustment failures;

  • administrative weaknesses;

  • recurring certificate or CPD errors;

  • accessibility barriers;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • weaknesses in partner arrangements; and

  • required policy or course changes.

Where an appeal identifies a potential wider problem, Boxology Limited will consider whether other learners, assessments or certificates should be reviewed.

CIMSPA’s current quality-assurance framework expects Training Provider Partners to retain current appeals procedures and examples showing how appeals have been handled and closed.

34. Policy review

This policy will be reviewed at least annually and sooner where:

  • legislation changes;

  • CIMSPA standards or requirements change;

  • Boxology courses or assessments change;

  • HEADGUARD or partner arrangements change;

  • an appeal identifies a policy weakness;

  • quality assurance identifies inconsistent assessment;

  • new delivery methods are introduced; or

  • operational experience shows that the procedure requires amendment.

The person responsible for review is:

Cathy Brown – Director, Boxology Limited

35. Contact

Boxology Limited
Trading as Boxology® Academy and Boxology® Online
Company number 10523458
Registered office: Brook Cottage, High Street, Paulerspury, Towcester, England, NN12 7NR

Email: info@boxology.academy

 
 

Boxology® Company number 10523458