Case summary August 2026 | Not Justified
A postgraduate student was conducting research on gender identity. The student did not pass their progress exam at the first attempt. The examiners had concerns about the student’s literature review and writing. They also raised an ethical concern about the research survey the student was using and said that the student should pause the survey and address their concerns.
Case summary August 2026 | Not Justified
A student was withdrawn from their provider after they failed their final attempt at a core module. They complained to the provider that the marking of their work had departed from the published assessment criteria and had been influenced by the political views expressed in their work. The student said this was a violation of their freedom of speech and a breach of the Equality Act because it amounted to discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.
Case summary August 2026 | Not Justified
A student complained to their provider about comments that had been made within a chat box by other students during an online teaching session. The session had explored historical arguments about the roles of women. The student said the comments were transphobic and discriminatory, and that the lecturer hadn’t taken proper steps to address them. The provider didn’t uphold the student’s complaint and the student complained to us.
Case summary August 2026 | Settled
A provider received reports about a student’s conduct while living in its halls of residence, which said that the student had made comments that were queerphobic, transphobic and antisemitic, and that the student had made upsetting comments during a conversation about pregnancy and abortion rights. The provider considered the reports using its disciplinary procedures.
Case summary August 2026 | Partly Justified
A student was involved in a pro-Palestinian rally on campus, at which signs using the words “we are all anti-Zionists" and other similar language were displayed.
Case summary August 2026 | Not Justified
A student complained to their provider about its decision to allow an international guest speaker to attend an event. They said that the speaker’s involvement in the event presented a substantial risk of radicalising attendees, and that the provider had failed to act in accordance with its Prevent duties. The provider did not uphold the student’s complaint. It said it had balanced Prevent with its duty to uphold freedom of speech.
Case summary August 2026 | Not Justified
A student submitted a policy proposal to their student representative body (SRB) that a "men’s officer” position should be created. The proposal was discussed at both an in-person event and online before being voted on. It did not pass. The student then complained to the SRB that during the discussions racist, sexist and inaccurate comments had been made which described white men as oppressors. They said they had been accused of being racist, homophobic and transphobic, which they felt was a libellous attack on their reputation. The SRB did not uphold the complaint and the student escalated it to the provider for a review. The provider also dismissed the student’s complaint.
Case summary April 2026 | Partly Justified
A group of 20 postgraduate students on a professional healthcare course complained that they had missed out on learning opportunities promised in the course prospectus.
Case summary April 2026 | Not Justified
A student appealed their final award outcome on the basis that the supervision they received when undertaking their dissertation was inadequate.
Case summary April 2026 | Not Justified
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.
We publish summaries of some of the complaints that we review. We always leave out of the summary any information that might identify the student who made the complaint. In some cases we decide that it is in the public interest to publish a summary of a complaint that includes the name of the provider.
