AI and academic misconduct - CS072501
Case summary July 2025 | Justified
A student with autism was invited to respond to allegations that they had included large sections of AI-generated content in an essay submission.
AI and academic misconduct - CS072502
Case summary July 2025 | Justified
An international student was invited to attend a viva because Turnitin had identified that their coursework contained substantial amounts of AI-generated content.
AI and academic misconduct - CS072503
Case summary July 2025 | Not Justified
A student was asked to attend a viva exam because there were concerns about their dissertation. During the viva, the student told the examiners that they had used AI to help them write their dissertation.
AI and academic misconduct - CS072504
Case summary July 2025 | Partly Justified
An international student was asked to attend a viva because Turnitin had indicated that their module assignment contained a high percentage of AI-generated content. The provider was not satisfied with the student’s explanations during the viva, and so it convened an academic misconduct panel.
AI and academic misconduct - CS072505
Case summary July 2025 | Settled
A postgraduate student was invited to respond to allegations of suspected academic misconduct after Turnitin indicated that an essay contained a high proportion of AI-generated content, including hallucinated references.
AI and academic misconduct - CS072506
Case summary July 2025 | Not Justified
An MBA student complained about the feedback they received for their dissertation, saying that it was too generic to be useful. They said that an AI detection tool showed that the feedback had been partly AI generated. They asked that their work be reconsidered, and more detailed feedback provided.
Academic Appeal - CS042501
Case summary April 2025 | Partly Justified
A student nurse had several periods of interruption to their studies because of ill-health, non-payment of their tuition fees, and delays in obtaining an up-to-date DBS certificate. When the student returned to their studies, they expected to complete approximately 400 placement hours. At a return-to-study meeting, the provider told the student that they needed to complete a further 1,300 placement hours. The student disagreed with this, and the provider considered their objections using its academic appeals procedure.
Academic Appeal - CS042502
Case summary April 2025 | Not Justified
A student studying for a Postgraduate Diploma via distance learning was withdrawn after they were unsuccessful in a module for the second time. The student appealed on the basis that they had been disadvantaged when the provider changed their virtual learning environment (VLE) platform. The student included screenshots of the new VLE system that showed failed login attempts, and screenshots from WhatsApp conversations with other students about problems with the new VLE.
Academic Appeal - CS042503
Case summary April 2025 | Not Justified
An international student was unsuccessful in three modules and was required to re-submit assessments. The student made an academic appeal asking to be allowed to re-submit work for a fourth module, in which they had received a low pass mark. The student supplied a letter describing mental health issues they had been experiencing. The letter appeared to be from a local NHS Trust.
Disabled students - CS042504
Case summary April 2025 | Partly Justified
A partially sighted student enrolled on a one-year taught Masters course. Students could access their core texts and additional reading using an online database. In October, the student told the provider that they were having some difficulty using the online database. In January, the student explained that their assistive software could not read the text at all. The provider contacted the database supplier to try to find a solution. The provider also supplied the student with digital copies that were accessible and printed versions of texts when the student asked for them.
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.