CAPITAL NEWS
TAXI EXAMINER DOCTORED LONDON KNOWLEDGE RESULTS AND ASKED CANDIDATES SAME QUESTIONS
A former London taxi driver examiner has had his claim of unfair dismissal dismissed after he ‘doctored’ candidates’ Knowledge of London (KoL) test scores. In March 2018, Mr J. Harvey’s manager, Katie Chennells, raised with him that the scores he was awarding were ‘noticeably higher’ than his colleagues’. A Tribunal states that they were at a yearly average of 85% in 2017, 85% in January 2018 and 80% in February 2018. Ms Chennells suggested the claimant could be ‘inflating his scores’ by repeating the questions so candidates could ‘rehearse his questions and give perfect answers’. Ms Chennells claimed that Mr Harvey agreed to ‘keep an eye on’ using repeat questions. In his evidence, the claimant stated that all examiners asked repeat and ‘banker’ questions. But, having reviewed 32 appear- ances that Mr Harvey conducted in October and November 2018, Ms Chennells found that his scores still ranged between 83 and 100% - an average of 91%. In 2019, documents state the claim- ant’s average yearly score was 78%. The department’s average was 51%. Then, in 2020 Mr Harvey’s scores ‘crept up slightly’ to an average of 82% compared to the department average of 54%. A year later, the claimant’s average scores reached 92%, compared to the department average of 60%. Papers state Ms Chennells again asked Mr Harvey to not repeat questions and that he should not prompt candidates to repeat their answers as that indicated their first
16
attempt was wrong. The Tribunal said that it accepted that examiner rules allow candidates to go back on a route and correct errors without being penalised, but ‘it is implied that is because of their own initiative and not the examiners’. By the end of May 2022, Mr Harvey’s scoring average was 90%. A disciplinary process was initiated later that year. The claimant defended himself, arguing that he had been attempting to deliver a ‘modern KoL’, and that he ‘penalises hesitation fairly in relation to
which stage each
candidate is on’. He added that he was ‘open to reward candidates for more than one valid route from A to B’ and suggested that this approach ‘isn’t necessarily carried out by all examiners’. He also underlined that ‘no formal training has ever taken place’, so he is ‘self-taught’. In addition, Mr Harvey stressed that he considers his ‘style’ of examination to be ‘relevant to driving a taxi in 2022’, and that ‘no regular auditing takes place’ and appearances are ‘not recorded for quality control and review’. He ‘strongly disagreed’ that ‘statistics alone’ should determine how an exam is delivered and the tribunal heard he’d be willing to ‘fall
on his sword’. Mr Harvey resigned in March 2023. Ms Chennells claimed he was ‘not a reliable witness’ and was ‘prone to exaggeration and re-writing of history to suit his own narrative’. The claimant argued that KoL examiner guidelines are ‘imprecise’ and to achieve greater consistency as the respondent wanted, officials should have revised the guidelines and made some changes to the format of the examination itself. As an examiner Mr Harvey claimed he was ‘presentable and amenable’, and his demeanour ‘enabled candidates to perform well’. Judge Joanne Galbraith-Marten concluded: “Ms. Chennells tried to tackle the situation by monitoring the claimant’s scores and providing feedback to encourage him to adhere to the Examiner Guidelines more closely but by April 2022, it became apparent the claimant was not prepared to do so.” Papers added that Ms Chennells had ‘run out of options’ when she initiated the disciplinary procedure, as it ‘became apparent the claim- ant was not going to change and that was deliberate’. Documents read: “It was only at that point, four years after she originally raised her concerns that the disciplinary process was initiated albeit opaquely by Ms. Chennells.” Mr Harvey’s claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed, as the Tribunal found that he had ‘convinced himself’ that the only way he could achieve a required average rolling score of between 30 and 70% was by ‘doctoring’ his results and ‘deliberately failing’ 30% of candidates.
MAY 2024 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
