Summary
Miss C complained that the university did not offer her a further opportunity to submit her final assignment, and that their handling of her academic appeal was inadequate.
During our investigation, we looked at university policies and regulations, and at the records of Miss C's appeal. We found that regulations allowed academic staff flexibility in setting work for re-assessment, both in terms of the form the assessment would take, and the number of attempts allowed. The evidence showed that, in dealing with Miss C's attempts at the assignment, academic staff acted in line with policy and regulations.
Miss C told us that the handling of her first stage appeal was biased, because a particular member of academic staff was involved and that her second stage appeal was not even considered. We found that the member of staff was not involved in considering the first appeal or making a decision on it, and we found no evidence of bias in consideration of that appeal. We also found that the second stage appeal was considered in line with the academic appeals procedure. In addition, Miss C told us that the university did not take account of her medical and personal circumstances, and she was not given enough time to submit her appeal. We found that, where relevant, the university did consider Miss C's circumstances during the appeal, and that she was given sufficient time to submit it in terms of the timescales set out in the academic appeals procedure.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201302805 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018