The CPD Register publishes a public review of CPD Accreditation Organisations operating in the UK market. This page explains the methodology we apply, the criteria we assess, and the reasoning behind each criterion.
We publish this methodology in full so that CPD Training Providers, consumers, and the organisations we list can understand exactly how our findings are made and what they do and do not represent.
The CPD Register is an independent Certification Body for the CPD accreditation sector, operating under UK Intellectual Property Office Certification Mark status granted in January 2025. Certification with The CPD Register is voluntary and is comparable in nature to ISO certification or B Corp certification, it is a standards-based assurance programme, not a statutory regulatory framework.
No body in the UK holds statutory regulatory authority over CPD accreditation. The sector is not currently subject to a recognised regulator in the way that, for example, Ofqual regulates qualifications or the FCA regulates financial services. This is precisely why independent transparency around the sector matters and why we publish our listings.
Our listings report verifiable factual observations about CPD Accreditation Organisations operating in the UK market. Each finding on each listing is sourced from:
Our listings do not report:
Where an organisation's own public material is the source of a finding, we provide a direct URL and the date on which we accessed it. Where Companies House or another register is the source, we link to the relevant entry.
We list organisations operating in the UK market that accredit training providers and their courses, activities, or programmes, whether labelled as "CPD accreditation", "training accreditation", "course accreditation", or similar. Where an organisation positions itself differently from this, for example, as an international accreditation body that accredits practitioners as well as training, we note that positioning in the listing so that the reader can understand the context of the finding.
Each listing is reviewed on a quarterly cycle. The date of the most recent review is stated on the listing. Where material changes occur between reviews (for example, a Companies House status change or a new regulatory ruling), we update listings outside the quarterly cycle.
If an organisation believes a finding is inaccurate or out of date, we provide a published correction route at the foot of every listing. We commit to reviewing and updating listings within five working days of receiving evidenced corrections.
Below, we set out each of the criteria we apply, the reason the criterion is included, and the good practice we look for.
The criteria reflect our own published standards. Some are directly referenced to statutory frameworks; others are standards we apply on our own authority as an independent Certification Body. Where a criterion reflects a statutory framework, we say so; where it reflects our own standard, we say that too.
When a CPD Training Provider or consumer contracts with an accreditation organisation, they are entering into a commercial relationship. If a dispute arises, a service failure, a refund claim, a withdrawal of accreditation, or a concern about misuse of course materials, the ability to identify and serve legal correspondence on the other party is fundamental to any remedy.
Several UK statutory frameworks are relevant to business transparency, and we set out the ones most applicable to the CPD accreditation sector below:
We report findings against each organisation's current position as recorded on Companies House and as disclosed on the organisation's own website. Where an organisation is within the statutory transition period for ECCTA identity verification, we record that position neutrally and do not characterise it as non-compliance.
Where an organisation's legal form places it outside ECCTA (for example, sole traders or overseas entities), we assess transparency under the applicable framework, typically the Companies Act trading disclosures, rather than ECCTA.
In our view, transparency in the CPD accreditation sector should go beyond minimum statutory compliance. A CPD accreditation organisation asks training providers and consumers to rely on its independent judgement. This reliance is supported when:
We apply this standard on our listings as The CPD Register's own published criterion. It is not a statutory requirement.
Before engaging an accreditation organisation:
Whether the organisation publishes the criteria and assessment framework against which it accredits training providers, courses, or activities.
A published assessment framework is the foundation of meaningful accreditation. It enables:
Accreditation without a published framework is essentially an assertion without criteria, the organisation says a course is accredited but the basis on which it reached that view is not publicly knowable.
Whether the organisation publishes the cost of its accreditation services on its website.
Published pricing allows training providers to determine whether an accreditation service is affordable for their business before they begin an application. It also allows market comparison between accreditation organisations, which in turn supports competitive pressure for quality and value.
Where pricing is not published, training providers often face a consultative sales process in which pricing is only revealed after details of their business and course portfolio have been shared. This can lead to variable pricing based on perceived ability to pay, which is less transparent than a published pricing structure.
Whether the organisation publishes, on its own website, terms and conditions governing its accreditation services, membership, or commercial relationship with training providers and consumers.
Terms and conditions form the legal framework that governs the rights and obligations of parties to a commercial agreement. For an accreditation service, clearly published terms allow training providers to understand in advance:
Transparent publication of these terms is a recognised indicator of good commercial practice. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 set out specific information requirements for consumer transactions, and the Competition and Markets Authority has published guidance on unfair contract terms.
Before engaging with any accreditation organisation, request a copy of the terms and conditions that will apply to your specific engagement if these are not published on the website. Review the terms for:
Whether the organisation assesses each course, activity, or programme individually, as opposed to granting blanket accreditation to all courses offered by a training provider on the basis of the provider's general standing.
The value of accreditation to a consumer rests on the assurance that the specific course they are undertaking has been assessed. A blanket accreditation model, in which a training provider's general standing is accredited, and all courses offered by that provider are then treated as accredited, does not provide the same consumer assurance.
Blanket accreditation also creates the risk that courses change, are added, or are materially revised without the accreditation body knowing, meaning the accreditation status attached to a course may not reflect its current content.
We maintain a separate published guidance page on blanket accreditation, which can be found at thecpdregister.com/blanket-accreditation.
Whether the organisation carries out a review or renewal process to ensure accredited courses continue to meet the accreditation standard over time, and whether that process operates on a defined cycle.
Course content, professional standards and regulatory requirements change over time. An accreditation granted at a point in time may not remain meaningful indefinitely without a review process. A defined review cycle, for example, annual or multi-year, provides assurance that accreditations reflect current standards rather than historic assessments.
Review cycles may legitimately differ between organisations and between types of accreditation. What we record is whether a cycle exists, what it is, and whether review is proactive (initiated by the accreditation organisation on a cycle) or reactive (initiated only when the training provider submits a change).
Whether the organisation sells its own training courses or training materials, in addition to providing accreditation services to third-party training providers.
An accreditation organisation's core function is the independent assessment of training provided by others. Where an accreditation organisation also sells training courses or materials of its own, a structural question arises about the independence of that assessment function, particularly where the organisation's own courses may occupy the same subject area or market as those of the providers it accredits.
There are circumstances in which this arrangement may be complementary rather than competitive, for example, where the organisation's own course is a teaching qualification intended to support the training providers it accredits and is clearly distinguished from the providers' own course offerings.
We record the factual position: whether the organisation sells its own training, and, where relevant, how the organisation describes the relationship between its own training activity and its accreditation activity.
Before engaging with an accreditation organisation that also sells training:
Consider whether an accreditation that comes from an organisation also selling training in the same space carries the same weight for you as one from a wholly independent accreditation body.
We assess two separate criteria concerning the commercial relationships of an accreditation organisation:
These are distinct concerns and we assess them separately.
An accreditation organisation's value to training providers and consumers rests on the integrity and independence of its accreditation decisions. Commercial relationships do not automatically compromise that independence, many legitimate accreditation bodies operate alongside referral arrangements with insurers, software providers, and professional service partners. However, the structure and transparency of those relationships is material to consumers and providers seeking to understand the context in which accreditation decisions are made.
Many professional membership and accreditation bodies operate affiliate or referral arrangements with insurers, training platforms, or complementary service providers. These arrangements are lawful. The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code and the Competition and Markets Authority's guidance on online reviews and endorsements both recognise affiliate relationships as legitimate commercial practice, provided they are transparently disclosed.
We record whether such relationships exist and whether they are disclosed on the organisation's own website. The existence of a disclosed affiliate relationship is not, by itself, a concern. The absence of disclosure where such relationships exist is the concern we record.
Where an accreditation organisation shares ownership, directorship, or control with a training provider it accredits, or with another entity whose commercial interests are materially aligned, a structural question of independence arises that is different in kind from a referral relationship. In these cases, the same individuals or entities stand to benefit commercially from both sides of an accreditation decision.
We identify such relationships through Companies House cross-referencing of directors and Persons with Significant Control and by examining publicly disclosed corporate structures. Where we identify such a relationship, we record it factually with a link to the supporting Companies House records.
When considering an accreditation organisation's commercial relationships:
A well-governed accreditation organisation may have many commercial relationships, all properly disclosed and managed. The absence of transparency, or the presence of undisclosed structural conflicts, is the more material concern.
For UK registered companies, whether the organisation's most recent Companies House filings are consistent with the commercial activity advertised on its website.
We specifically record where:
Consistency between a company's statutory filings and its advertised commercial activity is a basic indicator of transparent operation. Where a company has formally declared itself dormant to Companies House but continues to advertise services, the legal standing of those services — and the legal entity to which payment would be made — becomes unclear.
We record only verifiable, primary-source findings. For each observation we cite:
We do not record findings based on third-party complaints, anonymous reports, or non-public information. Where complaints exist, we recommend they are formalised through Trading Standards, the ASA, or the courts, at which point any public ruling becomes traceable under our Regulatory Rulings criterion.
Before engaging with any accreditation organisation:
The current status of the organisation at Companies House, including whether the registered entity is active, dormant, in liquidation, or dissolved.
A UK limited company that has been dissolved no longer exists as a legal entity. Under the Companies Act 2006, a dissolved company:
For training providers who have paid for accreditation from an organisation that is subsequently dissolved, the legal position of that accreditation becomes uncertain. For consumers relying on an accredited course, the assurance the accreditation was meant to provide may no longer be meaningful.
In some cases, a website or brand previously operated by a now-dissolved company continues to offer services. Where we observe this, we record both the dissolution of the legal entity and the continued trading activity. Training providers and consumers should exercise particular caution in these cases, because:
Before engaging with any UK-registered accreditation organisation, check the company's current status on the free Companies House register at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/. A simple search by company name or company number will return the current status and filing history.
Where an organisation's website does not clearly identify the legal entity behind the trading name, this itself is a matter for caution, the Companies Act requires business names to be disclosed on websites and commercial documents.
Whether the organisation's stated website is reachable, and what content it currently serves. We record the status of the website at the time of our most recent review cycle.
Training providers and consumers who hold certificates, accreditations, or trustmarks issued by a CPD accreditation organisation may need to verify the issuing organisation at a later date — sometimes years after the original accreditation was granted. Where an accreditation organisation has ceased to operate, the website being offline is often the first public signal.
We retain listings for organisations whose websites are no longer reachable, rather than removing them, so that:
A listing with a "Not reachable" status is not a finding of wrongdoing. It is a factual observation that the organisation's public-facing infrastructure is not currently accessible, and it is information that may be material to anyone relying on the organisation's accreditation.
We test the organisation's stated website URL on a quarterly cycle and record the date of the most recent check on each listing. Where a website becomes reachable again after a period of being offline, we update the status accordingly.
If you hold an accreditation from an organisation whose website is shown as "Not reachable", "Redirecting", or "Placeholder only":
Whether a regulatory body or enforcement agency has published a formal ruling, decision, or enforcement action against the organisation. We record rulings from bodies including:
Where a recognised regulatory body has investigated an organisation and published a formal ruling against it, this is material information for anyone considering engaging with that organisation. Regulatory rulings are published precisely because the regulator considers them to be in the public interest and transparent signposting of such rulings on our listings allows CPD Training Providers and consumers to access information that is already in the public domain.
For each ruling or public enforcement record, we record:
We do not characterise, summarise, or interpret the content of the ruling. The regulator's own published decision is the authoritative source, and readers are directed to it directly.
We do not record complaints that have been withdrawn, not upheld, informally resolved without finding of wrongdoing, or that are still under active investigation, unless the regulator has itself published an interim finding.
Before engaging with any accreditation organisation:
This section addresses a point of common confusion in the CPD accreditation sector. It is included in our methodology because the distinction between CPD and regulated qualifications is fundamental to understanding what a CPD accreditation does and does not represent.
Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is the ongoing learning that professionals undertake to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge. CPD activities — courses, workshops, webinars, reading — enhance existing capability but are not themselves formally assessed qualifications.
A regulated qualification is one delivered through an awarding organisation recognised by a qualifications regulator, in England, Ofqual; in Wales, Qualifications Wales; in Scotland, SQA Accreditation; in Northern Ireland, CCEA Regulation. Regulated qualifications have a qualification number, a defined learning level, and formal assessment requirements.
CPD accreditation and regulated qualifications serve different purposes and give consumers different kinds of assurance. Where CPD marketing uses terms associated with regulated qualifications — particularly "Level 2", "Level 3", "Qualified", or "Diploma" — without clearly distinguishing CPD accreditation from regulated qualification status, there is a risk that consumers may believe they are obtaining a qualification that will be recognised by employers, professional bodies, or regulators when in fact they are not.
If a course is described as leading to a "Qualification" or uses "Level" terminology, verify:
If these cannot be verified, the course is most likely CPD-accredited rather than a regulated qualification. CPD accreditation is a different, and valid, form of professional development, but it should not be mistaken for a regulated qualification.
If you represent an organisation listed on our Certified and Recognised CPD Accreditation Organisations page and believe any finding on your listing is inaccurate or out of date, we provide a correction route on every listing.
Please contact us with:
We review correction requests and update listings within five working days of receiving evidenced corrections. Where a correction request is received but not accepted, we explain the reasons.
This methodology page is itself reviewed and updated periodically. Where we make material changes to the methodology, we note the date of the change at the foot of this page.
