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 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.
Case summary April 2026 | Justified
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.
Case summary April 2026 | Not Justified
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.
Case summary April 2026 | Partly Justified
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.
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.
