Themes in complaints
Last year, we highlighted three main themes: complaints from students at the end of an academic appeal process, complaints from disabled students, and complaints about bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.
These themes remained prominent in our casework across 2025. Academic appeals continue to make up most of the cases we review. A significant proportion of complaints across all complaint categories are brought to us by disabled students. We also continue to uphold a high proportion of the complaints we review involving harassment and sexual misconduct. We explore these areas in more depth in the rest of this section.
Complaints about academic appeals
Academic appeals continue to form a significant proportion of our complaints. As in previous years, these complaints are about decisions about assessment outcomes, final awards, or whether a student can continue on their course.
In more than two-thirds of the academic appeal complaints in 2025, students raised a personal circumstance which they said had impacted on their ability to engage with their learning or perform well in assessments.
It is also common for students to raise other concerns alongside their personal circumstances, for example, raising complaints about the quality of their teaching, supervision or feedback or broader concerns about pastoral support. Providers often exclude these matters from academic appeals processes and direct students to separate complaints processes. This is usually appropriate when the complaint is complex or wide ranging. Sometimes providers will consider a student’s concerns within an appeals process. This can be a pragmatic and proportionate way to respond.
Case Summary 2 - Academic appeals
A student appealed their final award outcome on the basis that the supervision they received when undertaking their dissertation was inadequate. The student said the supervision didn’t provide clear guidance and this meant they couldn’t work on the dissertation as quickly as they had wanted to, so the final work was rushed. They also said that the final dissertation project was unfairly marked, didn’t include enough feedback or recognition of strengths.
The provider noted that the student could have raised their concerns at the time they were being supervised. It still looked into the supervision and found no evidence that it was unsatisfactory. It decided that the student’s appeal was essentially a disagreement with the supervisor’s input and with the academic judgment of the examiners. It rejected the student’s appeal.
The student then complained to us. We did not uphold the student’s complaint (we decided it was Not Justified). We agreed that if the student had concerns about their supervision, they could have raised them at the time. The student said to us that they were worried about making a complaint given the power imbalance between themselves and their supervisor. We did not consider this to be a good reason to delay raising concerns in this case. By not raising their concerns before submitting their work, the student did not give the provider the chance to investigate and if necessary, put things right.
In our review we saw that the provider had clearly set out what supervisors were expected to do. It was not the role of the supervisor to comment on every aspect of the student’s work designed to assess individual learning and understanding. From what we saw, the feedback provided was consistent with the mechanisms in place. The supervisor’s emails were framed in a constructive way and had been timely. Some of the delays in the email exchanges had been caused by the student.
We also saw evidence to show that the dissertation was marked in accordance with the provider’s marking and moderation processes, with sufficient reasoning given by markers to explain why the dissertation achieved the mark it did.
This year’s casework shows continuing pressure on systems for considering personal circumstances. In the last five years we have seen many providers operate processes that are more flexible than previously. Typically, this includes a certain amount of latitude on deadlines for submitting assessed work and allowing a certain amount of absence or late submission without the need for independent supporting evidence. Providers tell us that this is intended to be more inclusive by design, and more reflective of practice in employment where an element of self-certification for minor illness is common.
Despite this, providers tell us they continue to see very high volumes of claims for additional consideration of personal circumstances and this feeds through into the complaints we see. Providers have frameworks that are designed to ensure fairness and consistency for all students, but these operate most effectively when issues are raised in advance rather than retrospectively. A consistent pattern is that students do not engage with processes to notify their provider that they are experiencing some difficulty at the point when they are intended to operate. When students do not engage with the relevant processes at the appropriate time, providers are limited in how they can take the student’s circumstances into account. The consequences for individual students can be significant particularly where late engagement results in missed opportunity for support or adjustment.
This creates a recurring tension. Providers need to apply their regulations consistently, particularly where decisions affect progression or award outcomes. Students, however, may experience these decisions as lacking compassion. Students who complain to us are often confused about why the provider has focused on their reasons for not seeking help at the relevant time, because they expected the provider to focus on the severity of the impact of their circumstances.
“I took my case to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. They listened. They asked [the University] to re-mark my dissertation. Today, I received a corrected transcript. The 57 has become a 72: First Class.”
A student on LinkedIn talks about what happened after we looked at their complaint, following the marking and assessment boycott
Case Summary 3 - Academic appeals
A final-year student was attempting a module for the second time. They were struggling to complete coursework for the module, so they applied for a one-week extension. The extension was given but the student’s work did not subsequently achieve a pass. The student had to complete an additional assessment before they received their final award. This meant that they would not be able to graduate immediately.
The student appealed on the basis that they had circumstances affecting their performance which they couldn’t have raised earlier. They said that at the time of the coursework they were in such a mentally stressed state that they couldn’t properly assess or understand their situation. As evidence, they submitted emails with the provider’s Disability Service which told them how to submit a request for additional consideration or request an extension. The student also shared the results of an ADHD self-evaluation test. It said the scores were consistent with ADHD in adults. The student explained that they had not shared this earlier because they didn’t think it was strong enough evidence. They were trying to get a formal assessment, which could take several months.
The provider rejected the appeal because the student had not given a good enough reason to explain why they had not asked for a longer extension or for additional consideration at the right time. The provider pointed out that it had issued specific guidance for students about what to do if they are awaiting a diagnosis. For example, they could submit a request for additional consideration claim with correspondence from their support services or submit a claim and explain they needed longer to provide the evidence.
The student complained to us. They said again that they didn’t think they could apply for a request for additional consideration or a longer extension because they didn’t have any official supporting documents. They did not realise until much later that they needed more time to complete their extension work and they wanted to graduate with their friends. The student also told us that they had since received a formal ADHD diagnosis.
We did not uphold the student’s complaint (we decided it was Not Justified). We could see that the student had circumstances that were affecting them at the time they were completing the coursework. But the student did not have evidence to support their claim that their mental health was such that they were unable to submit a request for additional consideration circumstances claim or longer extension at the time. The provider had given the student clear information about making a claim which explained what to do.
The complaint was brought to us one year after the provider’s final decision. Because of this delay, even if we upheld the complaint, we could not have recommended anything that would have enabled the student to graduate with their peers.
The complaints we receive reveal a system that is resource intensive for providers and not always well understood by students. While providers are making efforts to increase accessibility and flexibility, the volume of cases and the nature of the complaints suggest that the current approach is not working as effectively as intended. Overall, this points to a process under strain: one that is fair on paper, and appropriately publicised in provider’s student-facing materials, but does not consistently resolve issues at the point they arise, leading instead to challenges through the academic appeal stages.
We continue to encourage providers, working with their Student Representative Body where possible, to ensure that all students understand how and when to seek support if they do not feel able to perform at their best in an assessment. It is particularly important to ensure that international students understand this process, which may be different to processes that have operated in their previous study elsewhere.
International students are slightly over-represented in the academic appeal complaints we review. Almost two-thirds of the academic appeals that were about a student not meeting attendance or engagement requirements came from international students. We cannot comment on whether international students were less likely to attend teaching than home students. Our interpretation is that these cases demonstrate providers are quick to act to ensure compliance with their responsibilities as international visa sponsors.
Our casework often highlights the importance of providing clear, accurate and timely information to students.
“… I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire OIA team for taking up my complaint and resolving it so swiftly. After waiting for three years, I am overjoyed that my issue was resolved in just a few weeks with your involvement. Your dedication and efficiency are truly commendable.”
Student feedback following early resolution
Case Summary 4 - Academic appeals
A student enrolled to study on a Graduate Diploma in Law with a pre-sessional module attached. The student submitted their pre-sessional assessment after the standard deadline, but within the permitted late submission window. This resulted in the mark being capped at pass.
The student appealed the decision to cap the mark. They said that they were not made aware of the pre-sessional module until shortly before it began and only through finding information about it on the provider’s virtual learning environment (accessible to enrolled students). Other communications, including the letter offering the student a place, indicated that the course would start at a later date. The student said that their existing study and work commitments meant that they could not engage from the start and they had struggled to meet the deadline. They said if they had known about the pre-sessional module sooner, they would have amended their schedule so they could work towards it or apply for a course elsewhere. The student had also believed that the assessment would not receive an actual mark but would just be recorded as either a pass or a fail, and on that basis did not submit a request for additional consideration.
The provider rejected the appeal. Although it accepted there was a miscommunication with the start date of the module, it was satisfied that the student was still able to meet the learning outcomes. It also decided that there was insufficient evidence to show the student had been told the module was a pass/fail module, rather than numerically graded. The cap remained in place.
The student complained to us. We upheld the complaint (we decided it was Justified). The provider was unable to demonstrate that it had given clear, accurate and timely information about the requirement to attend the pre-sessional module, the start date or how the assessment would be marked. We thought it was reasonable for the student to think that the start date was later than it was. The lack of clarity around whether the assessment was a pass or fail affected the student’s ability to make informed decisions including whether to submit a request for an extension or additional consideration. This amounted to a procedural irregularity and contributed to the student’s late submission. We did not consider it was reasonable for the provider to apply the late penalty or reject the academic appeal in these circumstances.
We recommended that the provider remove the cap applied to the late submission, so the original mark would stand. We also recommended that the provider review the information it gives to prospective students on its website, within its offer letters and other pre-enrolment materials.
Complaints from disabled students
The proportion of complaints brought to us by disabled students continues to rise, although the rise between 2024 and 2025 was less significant than in the two previous years. In 2025, 42% of students disclosed a disability. It is possible that some of the students who identify themselves as disabled when complaining to us may not meet the strict legal definition that would be necessary to establish a claim for support via the Disabled Students Allowance (DSA). However, it is also possible that some students may choose not to identify themselves as disabled or share that information with us if they do not see its relevance to our processes.
Providers tell us that the proportion of students identifying themselves as disabled is rising, and this is reflected in our casework. Some describe a significant increase in students seeking support, particularly in relation to neurodivergence, anxiety and other mental health conditions as well as individual needs becoming more complex, placing pressure on provider processes and resources that were put in place when demand was lower. Greater numbers of students seeking support may reflect better awareness among students about the options that may be available, or increased confidence that sharing this information will not result in any form of discrimination. In some circumstances, it may also reflect the profile of particular courses, provider or recruitment practices. Even so, the figure of 42% still suggests that disabled students are overrepresented in the complaints we receive and that disabled students continue to face barriers that make complaints more likely.
The distribution of complaints from disabled students in 2025 denotes some areas of concern. In particular, 65% of the complaints we reviewed from students who had experienced a procedure to assess whether they would be fit to practise in a particular regulated profession upon completion of their course were from disabled students. Placements within a professional setting can be challenging for all students. Providers must be clear with disabled students in advance about the support and reasonable adjustments that can be put in place, and give accurate information about whether there are adjustments that will not be reasonable because they will interfere with the student demonstrating a specific professional competence. There should be clear processes setting out who will share information about the support a student may need, and when. Some of the complaints we have seen have shown the impact of poor communication. In other cases, a placement provider decided they were unable to provide the appropriate level of support and supervision.
From our data, we can say that higher education providers typically do not have effective mechanisms in place to ensure the provision of a level of support within a placement setting, that has been agreed upon in advance, meets the needs of all students needing it.
It is also important that providers consider making reasonable adjustments to the processes used to explore whether a student will be able to meet the competence standards of a particular profession.
Case Summary 5 - Disabled students
A student on a professionally regulated healthcare course needed to undergo a background check before beginning any placements. The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check revealed that the student had a criminal conviction. The student had not previously told the provider about it when they had been asked to share information about any convictions.
After an initial conversation with the student, the provider held a Fitness to Practise hearing. The student explained that they were affected by memory loss connected to an ongoing health condition. The panel decided that the student’s written statements and statements in person were not consistent and it terminated the student’s studies.
The student appealed and the provider rejected the appeal. The student complained to us.
We expressed concerns that the provider had not adequately taken account of the student’s known disabilities in making the decision to terminate. The student’s support plan set out that they had difficulties with concentration, retaining and processing information, anxiety, communication and social interactions. There was no record of how the panel had considered these factors when thinking about the consistency of the student’s statements and how they had behaved at the panel. We were also concerned that the panel had not documented its reasons for rejecting other options available to it under the Fitness to Practise procedures.
The provider acknowledged these concerns and offered to reconsider the matter at a new Fitness to Practise Panel and pay the student some compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The student rejected this offer because they wanted to return to the course without another panel hearing.
We decided that the provider’s offer was reasonable, and so recorded the outcome of this complaint as Not Justified (Reasonable offer made). Given the professional standards requirements that apply to the course, the provider could not ignore the information that was now known about the student’s previous conviction, but it needed to consider it in a way that was fair.
In 2025, there was a small but noticeable difference in outcomes for disabled students. Complaints from disabled students were slightly more likely to be upheld by us. We rarely come across a complete absence of appropriate policies or processes. Issues arise in the practical operation of the processes, whether staff understood what was required, and whether the provider could show that it had properly considered the student’s individual circumstances. We continue to see cases where support that has been agreed is not implemented properly, where communication is unclear, or where responsibility for putting support in place is not sufficiently well understood. Small failures in process can have a significant impact where a student is relying on agreed adjustments in order to participate on an equal footing. Although it is usually reasonable to expect students to raise concerns if something is not working, some proactive monitoring by the provider about whether adjustments and support mechanisms are being delivered can remove some of the additional burden placed on disabled students.
Case Summary 6 - Disabled students
Students had to submit two pieces of assessed work for a particular module. The first piece did not contribute to the overall grade students would achieve for the module. Students would receive feedback on it and the data within it could be used as the basis for the second piece of work.
A disabled student had a support plan in place that permitted extra time to submit all their coursework. But eight days before the extended deadline expired, the module tutor said to all students that the opportunity to submit the work was now closed. Although the student submitted their work within the extended deadline as planned, it was not marked and was recorded as a fail/non-submission.
The student complained about the change to the submission date. They also raised concerns about the module tutor’s communication with them more broadly.
The provider upheld the complaint about the change of submission date. It confirmed to the student that this had not affected their overall module mark. It rejected the other aspects of the student’s complaint. The student was dissatisfied and complained to us.
We upheld some parts of the complaint (we decided that it was Partly Justified). We criticised the provider’s response to the complaint. Its records of its investigations were limited, and the initial response to the student was limited to a few lines that did not explain how it had reached its conclusions. By changing the submission deadline at short notice the provider had placed the disabled student at a disadvantage. The student had been deprived of the opportunity for feedback. It was distressing for the student to have a “fail/non-submission” recorded when they had completed the work. The provider had not offered any remedy for this, nor apologised for other comments made by the module tutor about the student needing to better manage their time.
We decided that it was reasonable for the provider to reject other aspects of the student’s complaint. The evidence showed that usually the module leader’s interactions with the student had been timely, courteous and supportive.
We recommended that the provider offer the student an apology and £500 compensation for the distress they had experienced. We also recommended that the provider contact all staff who set submission deadlines to remind them of the importance of proactively mitigating the impact on disabled students if making changes at short notice is unavoidable.
Failure to provide reasonable adjustments remains a prominent issue within the cases we see, featuring in 20% of Justified cases and 23% of Partly Justified cases we reviewed from disabled students. Where reasonable adjustments were raised, complaints were almost three times as likely to be upheld or settled overall. Delays are also a common feature in complaints about reasonable adjustments, being referenced in around a third of these cases compared to around a fifth of all complaints. This suggests that the difficulty is not simply whether support is available in principle, but whether it is delivered clearly, consistently and at the right time.
Case Summary 7 - Disabled students
A student shared with the provider that they have autism, ADHD and generalised anxiety disorder. A support plan was put in place to ensure that the student was not placed at a disadvantage by the provider. This included a requirement for instructions to be clear and unambiguous.
After an assessment, the student received a copy of their work including the marker’s written comments. The student was concerned because the marker had said that their answer for question 2 drew on the same example as they had used in response to question 1. There were no marks recorded next to questions 2a and 2b, only against question 2c. The student believed that the marker had unfairly refused to mark questions 2a and 2b because they had used the same example when answering different questions. The student raised their concerns with the provider. The provider confirmed that the mark awarded was appropriate. It acknowledged that in future versions of the assessment it should explicitly state that students should use different examples in their answers to the questions.
The student complained to us. We upheld some parts of the complaint (we decided that it was Partly Justified). We were not able to comment on whether the mark awarded for question 2 was appropriate. We could infer that the mark awarded for question 2 did include sections 2a and 2b as well as 2c, because the mark written at the end of question 2 was higher than the marks available just for section 2c. But we did not think that the provider had given feedback to the student that was clear and unambiguous.
We recommended that the provider should apologise to the student for the lack of clarity in the assessment instructions and in the feedback it had given. We also recommended that the provider should offer the student additional feedback about how the mark for question 2 had been reached.
Our casework shows that disabled students raise concerns across the full range of complaint categories. Around 11% of the academic appeals we see refer to disability support. Disabled students raise more concerns relating to welfare and non-course service issues than non-disabled students do. Most of our casework relating to equality law and human rights comes from students who disclose a disability. Disabled students’ experiences of disadvantage are often shaped by the wider student experience and by how effectively different parts of a provider work together.
Providers have told us that resourcing pressures are affecting disability support in several ways including reduced capacity in specialist teams, difficulties securing note-takers and other support, and inconsistency in the quality and continuity of provision funded via the DSA. Some are responding by centralising elements of support planning or introducing more standardised approaches, which may improve consistency but can risk being less responsive to individual circumstances. Providers also tell us that some students arrive in higher education with expectations shaped by their experience in school or further education, where support may have been more intensive or more closely coordinated. This makes it all the more important that policies and processes are clear, accessible and easy to use. We continue to hear concerns that some policies are too complex, outdated or difficult to navigate, and that internal ownership of procedures is not always clear.
Alongside these concerns, many providers describe continuing to work towards more inclusive approaches, including recording lectures, using more flexible assessment formats and moving away from traditional examination modes in some areas. But our casework suggests that inclusive practice is not yet sufficiently embedded to prevent a higher volume of complaints from disabled students, particularly where staff are uncertain about more complex adjustments or unsure if flexibility is possible within academic or professional standards.
“I wanted to say how much I appreciate the time and care you’ve taken with my case. Your communication has been so clear and considerate throughout, and I’m really grateful for the way you’ve handled everything.”
A student during our review process
Harassment and Sexual Misconduct
Although the number of complaints about harassment and sexual misconduct we have reviewed has risen, as a proportion of our overall caseload the level is relatively consistent with recent years and remains just above 5%.
We review complaints from students who are dissatisfied with how a provider has responded when they have told the provider about experiencing harassment or sexual misconduct. Most commonly students have complained about the conduct of another student, but some complaints relate to staff behaviour. In 2025 the complaints we reviewed about staff behaviour rarely involved physical contact and were more likely to relate to how staff in academic and residential settings spoke to students or provided feedback on their work. We occasionally also hear from students who have been disappointed when seeking support from their provider because of the behaviour of individuals from outside the provider’s community.
The complaints we have reviewed from reporting students highlight the importance of prompt action by providers to ensure that students feel safe. It is important to provide students with accurate information about what is taking place – even when that may not be what the reporting student would prefer.
Case Summary 8 - Harassment and sexual misconduct
A student (student A) made an online report about bullying and sexual harassment by another student (student B). Student A and student B were living in the same student flat. At student A’s request, the provider arranged for student A to move to alternative accommodation.
Student A was supported by a designated liaison officer. A separate investigator was appointed under the provider’s disciplinary process and they met with both students. The provider told student A that it was using an informal process to resolve the complaint. It put in place an agreement with student B not to contact student A.
Student A contacted the liaison officer to express dissatisfaction with this outcome. Student A still felt unsafe and wanted the provider to take a more formal approach. The student liaison officer wrote to student A explaining why they believed the informal approach was appropriate. Student A requested a review of this decision. Student A also complained that the liaison officer had told them that student B would be away from the campus until after student A’s studies were complete, but this was not correct. In its response the provider explained that it thought student A had been content to proceed to an informal resolution and suggested that student A’s communications had not been clear. It concluded that it had followed its processes appropriately. It said that it had no knowledge of student B’s return to campus.
Student A complained to us and we upheld some parts of the complaint (we decided it was Partly Justified). The provider had acted quickly to manage contact between the students and it had been proactive in considering the impact on student A’s academic performance. But it was inconsistent in the information it made available to students about informal resolution. One document said that informal resolution would only be attempted with the agreement of the students involved, but another document said that the investigator would decide which route was appropriate. It was not necessary or helpful to suggest that student A had not been clear in expressing their preferred outcome; in fact there had been a failure of communication between the liaison officer and the investigator about student A’s perspectives. We also considered that the provider should have taken more care to confirm student B’s whereabouts before sharing information which turned out to be inaccurate.
Student A had waited 11 months before submitting their complaint to us. In the meantime, they had raised further complaints about student B, and had also successfully completed their studies. It was therefore not appropriate for us to recommend that the provider now take a more formal approach to their initial concerns. We recommended that the provider offer the student an apology and compensation of £2,000. And that it should review its policies to remove inconsistencies, provide additional clarity about the role of the liaison officer and train staff in providing suitably detailed reasons for the decisions made under its policies.
Case Summary 9 - Harassment and sexual misconduct
A student (student A) made an online report to the provider describing a sexual assault by another student (student B). Three months later student A saw a caseworker to discuss the report in more detail and confirmed that they wanted the provider to take action to investigate the report. The caseworker told student A it was likely that student B’s conduct would be considered by a disciplinary panel. After another four months student A asked about progress. The caseworker had taken a leave of absence and no action had been taken.
The provider began an investigation, and a second caseworker met with student A several times to gather information. Student A was informed that the casework team were finding it difficult to decide if there had been a breach of its disciplinary rules, and so the casework team had decided there was not enough evidence to put the case before a disciplinary panel. It informed student A of this decision by email.
Student A made a complaint about how the provider had responded to their report, drawing attention to the delays and the lack of care displayed in sending an important decision on a sensitive topic by email. Student A also complained that the caseworkers who had taken their statements lacked the skills to provide support as they recounted traumatic events. Student A was concerned that they had not been given any opportunity to understand what student B’s response had been, or to respond to any questions the caseworkers might have had for student A as a result of student B’s statement.
The provider upheld some elements of the complaint. It apologised for the delays and for the way it had communicated about what would happen. It also offered some financial compensation for the distress this had caused. But it concluded that the mistakes in its handling would not have affected its decision not to proceed with a disciplinary hearing.
Student A complained to us. The focus of our review was how the provider had treated student A after they had made the report. We explored whether the provider was willing to settle the complaint; it declined.
We upheld the complaint (we decided it was Justified). The provider had not given a coherent and consistent explanation to student A as to why the evidence they had provided, in the form of personal testimony, messages from student B and photographs of injuries, was not sufficient to continue with the processes under its disciplinary regulations. It had required the student to repeat their testimony and had made comments about the student’s memory and the consistency of their report. This was not an approach that was trauma-informed, nor centred on the welfare of the reporting student.
We recommended that the provider should apologise again to student A and pay compensation of £3,750 in recognition of the distress caused by the way it had responded to their report. We also recommended it should review its procedures. The provider had confirmed that it had already undertaken a significant programme of training and had created new posts with specific expertise in supporting people who have experienced sexual violence.
We also review complaints from students who have been subject to a disciplinary process intended to establish whether the student had breached the provider’s expected standards of behaviour. These students often feel that actions that have been taken to manage risks of further harm before the full disciplinary investigation process has taken place are disproportionate or unfair. Providers can find it challenging to balance the management of risk with being supportive to all parties involved. Students can be concerned about why a particular action was taken in response to one incident, but not in another. We think if providers consistently apply the principles that guide a fair process, it can still be reasonable for similar incidents to result in differing outcomes. This reflects the significant variety in the individual circumstances that might lead to a report of misconduct. Providers should consider a range of precautionary measures, beginning with those that are least disruptive to a reported student’s studies, and evaluate how effective the measure is likely to be in managing risk and protecting the wellbeing of all parties. It is essential to document the reasons for the decision and the factors that have been taken into account. It is also important to keep the measures under regular review.
Case Summary 10 - Harassment and sexual misconduct
A student reported receiving a number of hostile messages via social media and directly to their mobile phone, which they felt was bullying and harassment. It was clear from the content of the messages that they were written by someone with knowledge of the interactions between students and staff on a particular module. The messages expressed views supporting the physical harm of certain groups of people and caused the recipient significant distress.
The provider carried out a disciplinary investigation. It invited a number of students to attend individual investigation meetings on the basis that they might have knowledge of or be involved in sending the messages. The students were able to send additional information to the investigator after the meeting and they were provided with a copy of the note of the meeting and were able to make comments on this record.
The provider concluded that bullying and harassment had occurred, but it was not able to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that any specific student was responsible for sending the messages. It confirmed that no disciplinary findings had been made. It put in place non-contact arrangements between the reporting student and other students.
The students submitted individual and collective responses to this outcome, on the basis that the non-contact arrangement implied that the students were guilty of an offence; that it was not reasonable for the provider to conclude that bullying had occurred if it could not prove who was responsible; and that the process had been unfair and caused distress.
The provider considered these submissions as an appeal against a disciplinary outcome. It reiterated that it had not concluded that any individual student had breached its disciplinary rules. It said that the non-contact arrangement was not punitive and was protective and preventative, intended to minimise future distress for all parties.
Several of the students made individual complaints to us. We did not uphold the complaints (we decided they were Not Justified). The messages that were reported to the provider were such that it was appropriate for the provider to consider them under its disciplinary processes. We were satisfied that the provider carried out a fair process and offered support to the students it was investigating as well as to the recipient of the messages. It was reasonable for it to conclude that it could not establish the source of the messages. It was a reasonable and proportionate response to try to manage contact between the students moving forward. We were not persuaded that the arrangements were either punitive or had a negative impact on the students’ ongoing experience.
In our casework we have seen a number of examples of providers that have carried out careful investigations and reached sound decisions. Sometimes unfairness can happen when someone acting in the investigatory process goes beyond the role that they have been assigned, for example by appearing to give assurances about the outcome to one party, by offering an opinion as to what the outcome should be when this is prohibited by the provider’s own regulations, or applying sanctions that are not permitted without an additional layer of scrutiny.
When we identify procedural errors in the way any disciplinary investigation has been carried out, it is not usually appropriate for us to speculate about what the outcome might have been had those errors not occurred. Our usual approach is to recommend that the outcome be set aside and the process be repeated from the point at which the error or unfairness took place.
Case Summary 11 - Harassment and sexual misconduct
Student A made a report to the provider about the conduct of student B. The two students engaged in sexual activity which both agreed was initially consensual. Student A reported that they had withdrawn consent, but that student B had not stopped the activity. The provider conducted an investigation under its student disciplinary procedures and decided that student B was “culpable of the allegation of rape”. It decided to terminate student B’s studies. Student B submitted an appeal, which was rejected, and they then complained to us.
We expressed concerns to the provider about the conclusion it had reached, which inappropriately referred to the criminal offence of rape rather than referring explicitly to the provider’s own rules about student behaviour. We were also concerned that there had been no opportunity for student B to attend a panel hearing to present their version of events.
The provider offered to set aside the disciplinary findings and to repeat the disciplinary process afresh. The student accepted this offer.
When we recommend that a provider carries out a fresh investigation or hearing, this should not be understood as a direction that the new process must always result in a different outcome for the student.
In 2025 we saw that many providers are engaging proactively to improve how they can support all students affected by harassment and sexual misconduct. There is widespread agreement about the importance of providing accessible routes for students to make providers aware of what they have experienced, and of directing reporting and reported students to expert support. There is also agreement about the importance of explaining clearly what a provider can or cannot do when a student shares information about their experience, and the need to explore alternative options. The steps a provider will take to investigate a report are not wholly consistent across the sector. We hope that from 2026, the principles we describe in the Good Practice Framework will enable providers to design and operate fair processes that are appropriate to their specific communities.