Putting things right
Where we have identified something has gone wrong, we try to find a way to put it right for the student. Our starting point, as far as possible, is to put the student back in the position they would have been if the problem hadn’t occurred. This means considering practical steps in the first instance.
Settlements
When students complain to us, we ask them to let us know what outcome they are seeking. In many cases, the outcome the student is looking for and what the provider has offered is not far apart, or what went wrong and the appropriate remedy is clear. In these situations, we try to help the student and provider reach an agreed resolution. We record these as settlements. They bring the complaint to an end without the need for a formal decision. This can happen at any stage of our process, provided both the student and provider agree.
Settlements can be an effective way to resolve complaints, leading to quicker outcomes and enabling creative solutions which address the heart of the student’s concerns. In some cases, it means students can quickly return to studies without the need for further formal processes or delay.
“I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your help since day 1 with my complaint to the University. I really appreciate it. I didn’t ask and expect for this to happen and it has affected my studies. It has not been an easy journey for me but thanks to you and the OIA. I have made it through. I wish you well in the future.”
From a student following a settlement offer
Case Summary 12 - Settlement
A provider withdrew a student because of low attendance. The student appealed the decision to withdraw them, saying that their record of attendance had been affected by a faulty access card. The provider reinstated the student on the condition that, by a certain deadline, they would attend all sessions with all attendance swipes recorded and that the student would meet with the student support team.
Following reinstatement, the student’s tutor approved two absences due to a bereavement but the student was withdrawn a second time. The second withdrawal was actioned before the deadline had passed for the student to show improvement with engagement and meet with the student support team. The student was not offered a right of appeal against this decision.
The student complained to us and wanted to return to their studies immediately. They made it clear that the complaint was time sensitive as they were in danger of missing upcoming examinations, which would delay their progress into the next academic year. They also had concerns about their access to future student funding if the withdrawal decision remained.
We contacted the provider and asked it to consider settling the complaint. We explained our concerns that the student had not had the full opportunity to demonstrate improved attendance by the deadline given. It was not fair that the student did not have a right of appeal against the final withdrawal decision. The provider acknowledged that it would not be able to consider an appeal from the student before the exam period which was about to begin. Instead, it offered a pragmatic outcome. It agreed to take the student back on the course immediately. This allowed the student to sit the imminent examinations in the same academic session and progress to the next stage of the course.
The settlement was agreed within five working days of our initial assessment of the student’s complaint. The student said,
“Thank you for your support and assistance throughout the process relating to my complaint. I am pleased to confirm that I have accepted the University’s offer and will be reinstated to complete my studies. I am extremely grateful for the speed, clarity, and fairness with which the OIA handled my case during what has been a difficult and uncertain time for me. Your guidance and involvement have made a real difference, and I am now looking forward to re-engaging fully with my studies and completing my degree. Thank you once again for your time and support.”
In 2025, we resolved 506 cases through mutually agreed settlement. Just under three-quarters of settlements were initiated by us, but in the other cases the providers or students proactively suggested a way to reach an agreed outcome. When we have suggested that there is an opportunity to settle a complaint, we have been able to reach an agreed outcome about 60% of the time. When an offer of settlement has been made during our process but is not accepted by the student, we take this into account when we review the complaint. In 2025, around 30% of settlements which were not successful (because the provider had made an offer during our process which the student did not wish to accept) resulted in Not Justified (Reasonable Offer Made) decisions.
Some settlement outcomes were the result of a provider acknowledging that the information available to prospective and current students had not been clear and accurate. There is an onus on providers to supply information that is timely, unambiguous and not misleading. Some complaints we have received included reference to study abroad trips that didn’t materialise, course title changes, and limited information about particular modules which led to dissatisfaction for students when their experience did not meet their expectations. In complaints of this nature we usually consider what was promised by a provider and what could reasonably be expected by a student against what was then delivered.
Other settlement outcomes included:
- Removing a penalty for academic misconduct. A student had uploaded their own work against the wrong module and had immediately sought help to fix the mistake. The provider accepted that its response had not been clear. The student was able to continue their studies.
- Making a fresh offer to a student about resubmitting their dissertation. The student’s appeal had been upheld but the student was not sure about the outcome. The provider clarified the support that would be available, extended the deadline to account for some time when the provider was closed, and confirmed that the student could keep their original mark if their new submission received a lower mark.
- Funding a one-year personal subscription to Microsoft 365. There were good reasons why the provider could no longer give the student a standard IT account, but the student was finding it difficult to engage in their studies because of this limitation. The provider offered this solution while developing a longer-term solution for students with similar restrictions.
- Refunding costs incurred by a student when their course was cancelled at short notice. An international student had already incurred costs associated with travelling to the UK to study. In settlement the provider accepted the course was no longer available and refunded the student’s first-year tuition fee, and paid for their additional healthcare surcharges, visa and flight costs totalling £14,948.
Recommendations
It is not always possible to reach a settlement. In these cases, we will carry out a detailed review to understand what happened, what the issues were, and how to put things right. If we decide a complaint is Partly Justified or Justified, we will make Recommendations. Sometimes we make more than one Recommendation for a student. In 2025, we made 635 Recommendations.
In 2025 practical remedies included asking providers to re-mark work, provide clearer academic feedback, more information in the breakdown of marking, uncapped reassessment opportunities, and referral back to examination boards where there is an issue relating to an assessment.
We also recommended that providers give students more information about why decisions had been taken, to help them understand what had happened. In some cases, we recommended the provider reconsider its decisions or offer practical steps to allow a student to rejoin a course. We also recommended reviewing Fitness to Practise decisions, or quashing disciplinary findings. In these cases, our role is not to substitute our judgment for that of an expert panel. Rather, where the process used to reach a decision was not fair, we may recommend that it is undertaken afresh to ensure that the student’s circumstances are properly considered and that fair procedure is followed.
Financial outcomes
Where practical steps cannot fully address the impact on the student, we will usually consider financial remedies. Financial outcomes may be appropriate where a provider has failed to deliver the service the student could reasonably expect. For example, where there has been serious disruption to teaching, supervision or course delivery and the provider is unable to deliver it again in a way that meets students’ needs. Financial outcomes may also reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by problems such as poor communication, significant delay or failures in handling the complaint including repeated missed opportunities to put things right. We list other examples of where we consider financial outcomes and what we take into account when doing so in our putting things right guidance.
In 2025, the total amount of financial compensation offered to students following a Recommendation was £875,933. In addition, £962,979 was offered as part of a settlement. The highest single amount of financial compensation was £38,000 as part of a settlement and £15,600 in a Recommendation. 165 students received £5,000 or more, of whom 26 received £10,000 or more.
Many of these higher amounts included partial tuition fee refunds as well as some financial payments for disappointment and/or distress and inconvenience. When we recommend that tuition fees should be refunded, our position is that the refund should normally be paid to the original funding source, for example Student Finance England or the student’s sponsor. Legally, a refund is returned to a payer. Refunding the money to the funding source can also benefit the student in the longer term because it reduces the balance of their student loan and the interest that would otherwise accrue on it. This is why we make Recommendations this way, but we acknowledge in settlement negotiations it is ultimately up to a provider how it frames the offer.
Good Practice Recommendations
If our review identifies issues with the design or operation of a provider’s processes, we make good practice Recommendations. These Recommendations are intended to help improve practice and reduce the likelihood of similar problems affecting other students in the future. We made 107 good practice Recommendations in 2025. Over half referred providers to the guidance available in our Good Practice Framework and recommended changes to their procedures. Common themes included ensuring clarity for students about timeframes, about setting out the respective responsibilities of delivery and awarding partners and ensuring that processes clearly set out how decisions will be communicated to students.
In some cases relating to sexual harassment and misconduct, our Recommendations focused on ensuring that processes are well understood and fair to all parties. This included making clear to students who will investigate allegations, including when an external investigator may be appointed. We also recommended that providers ensure risk assessments are clearly documented and that it is clear how those assessments inform decisions about any precautionary measures.
We also recommended that providers build-in steps to ensure that the potential impact of a student’s disability on how they can engage with a process is actively considered, and to ensure that processes have sufficient flexibility to make adjustments where needed so that students are not disadvantaged.
Around a fifth of our good practice Recommendations referred to training staff who carry out processes and procedures. For example, we recommended that providers ensure staff receive training on principles of procedural fairness including how to gather and test evidence, apply standards of proof and provide clear reasons for decisions. Some Recommendations also focused on ensuring staff understand when different procedures should be used, when they need to consider specific duties under relevant legislation and how to communicate effectively and compassionately with students when concerns arise.
Other Recommendations included that providers should:
- Ensure that information provided to students during pre-enrolment and within handbooks is clear and accurate, for example about assessment requirements, pass rates, course start dates, and the respective responsibilities of delivery and awarding providers.
- Improve record-keeping during investigations and meetings with students (including, in some cases meetings to address supervisory relationships at risk of breaking down), to ensure that evidence considered and decisions reached are transparent and clearly documented. In some cases that has involved ensuring that transcripts of important meetings which have been auto-generated are checked for edits or corrections to ensure legibility.
- Amend regulations and procedures, so that students are clearly informed about the next steps available to them at the end of a process, including their right to bring a complaint to us.
- Ensuring staff consult appropriately with other services a student may be engaging with, for example disability support or other support services, before initiating support for study procedures.
- Review fitness to practise procedures to ensure temporary suspensions are reviewed regularly and that providers consider whether risks can be managed through alternative measures where appropriate.
- Review how unauthorised absence is recorded to ensure data is captured accurately.
Learning from complaints that are not upheld
In total, 1,992 of the complaints we completed in 2025 were Not Justified, but these still provide important learning for providers about how students experience their processes. In some cases, we made good practice suggestions based on observations from our review. For example, in one case the serious consequences of non-attendance on a student’s visa were not mentioned in direct warning emails until the final stages. Although it did not affect the outcome for the individual student, we suggested that the provider review its communications about attendance to ensure that international students understand from an early stage that non-attendance may result in the withdrawal of visa sponsorship. In our experience, clear and unequivocal communication can help students understand the consequences of their actions and help prevent future complaints arising.
Compliance
Providers were expected to comply with the 676 Recommendations made during 2025 (some Recommendations made in late 2025 will become due for compliance during 2026).
A single provider was responsible for non-compliance with 58 Recommendations which we made at the end of our reviews of complaints brought to us by 28 students.
All of our other Recommendations were completed by providers, although sometimes these were subject to delay. 500 of the remaining 618 Recommendations were student-centred and 90% of these were completed on time. 85% of the 118 good practice Recommendations were completed on time. This is down from 2024 where it was 94% and 82% respectively. Complying with our Recommendations in a timely way is important to enable students to move forward and to ensure that other students benefit from improved processes as soon as possible.
On average late compliance was completed within five working days of the deadline, suggesting short-term issues with capacity at providers rather than an overall unwillingness to carry out the Recommendations.
BRIT College
We upheld complaints from 28 students studying at Brit College for the Level 5 Diploma in Education and Training (DET) awarded by City & Guilds.
The College had told the students that they had successfully completed the award but did not issue their certificates. Several months later, City & Guilds confirmed that the work that students had submitted and the placements some students had undertaken were not of the required quality. The College had accepted in correspondence with the students that there had been systemic failings in quality assurance. These failings meant that the students could not gain the qualification that they had registered for without significant further investment of time and effort. In each case we made student-centred Recommendations that the College should refund the tuition fees the students had paid (£6,165 each). We also recommended that the College offer each individual student between £6,000 and £8,000 for the disappointment, distress, and inconvenience caused by the systemic failures in quality assurance, and delay in offering a meaningful resolution to the students. The College said it could not comply with our Recommendations due to financial constraints.
We followed our Compliance Protocol and explained to the College that, under our Rules, we report non-compliance with our Recommendations to our Board and in our Annual Report. The College did not respond to us at any stage of this process.
We reported the College’s non-compliance with our Recommendations to our Board in September 2025, and shared information about the complaints with the Office for Students’, Department for Education, and Ofqual.
In November 2025 we also published the College’s non-compliance in a public interest case summary. These cases highlight the impact on individual students where there is a gap in protections for students who study for HE qualifications awarded by organisations that are not OIA members.