Conflicting Information & Outdated ID Requirements – CIMA

I am extremely frustrated by the inconsistent and confusing communication I have received from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) regarding secondary identification for my exam.

From the beginning, I clearly explained that I do not have a driver’s licence. I requested accommodation for a secondary form of identification — not primary identification. Despite this, I have received conflicting guidance from different consultants.

At one stage, I was told that a bank card could be accepted. Now I am being told that the signature on the back of the card is required. This is concerning for several reasons: 1. Bank cards are not used as formal identity verification documents anywhere. 2. Modern bank cards no longer require signatures on the back — this has largely been phased out due to chip-and-PIN and contactless technology. 3. Bank cards are linked to official IDs within banking systems, and I clearly stated that I am willing to provide an official bank letter confirming my identity.

It is confusing why such strict emphasis is being placed on secondary identification when the primary identification requirements are being met. The purpose of secondary ID should be supplementary, not an additional barrier.

What is most concerning is that different consultants appear to provide different answers, suggesting there is no internal alignment or clear policy communication. As a global professional body, CIMA should ensure its representatives are properly informed and consistent.

Exam bookings are expensive. Students should not face the risk of being turned away due to unclear or outdated administrative requirements.