Reviewing the Reviewers

The latest Peer Review result, Threshold Competence, concurred with our assessment of the sample. It does however once again confirm our concerns about the (re)emergence of inconsistency. Most telling are that certain issues recorded as “other areas of concern” are clearly more significant than issues we have previously seen recorded as “major areas of concern” and leading to “below competence” outcomes. I can think of one firm in particular, who we assisted appeal, who will find this particularly galling.
It also confirms the very candid views of a recent Peer Reviewer who was a delegate on our last training tour. He was highly critical of the lack of training and ongoing monitoring involved in the operation of the scheme and expressed the view that he could not see how any appeal could fail to succeed. A representative of the firm above managed to put him right on this point at half time.
Prediction time – this will become a major recurring theme as the scheme “rolls out”. We are trying to maintain, unfortunately retrospectively, a register of results so that these inconsistencies can be pointed out and/or utilised, comparatively, in appeals. We would be very grateful for any contributions to this archive and obviously these will be treated in the strictest confidence (unless you get excellent of course and want this publicising as widely as possible).