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.
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.
Case summary April 2025 | Partly Justified
A disabled student complained to their provider that the reasonable adjustments they needed to support them in their studies had not been put in place for most of the academic year. They complained that this amounted to discrimination and was a form of bullying and victimisation. The student also complained about support in arranging a placement.
Case summary April 2025 | Justified
A student had a long-term health condition which caused pain and mobility issues, and which was subject to flare ups. Before enrolling on the course, the student was told that they could access teaching remotely during flare ups. Shortly after the student enrolled on the course, they had a flare up of their ongoing condition. After one month staff raised concerns with the student about their attendance. Staff said that remote attendance was not permitted because of the requirements of a professional regulatory body. The student withdrew from the course before the end of the first term.
Case summary April 2025 | Not Justified
A student on a one-year postgraduate taught course was living with depression which affected their ability to meet some coursework deadlines. The provider agreed several extensions to deadlines. 14 months after beginning the course, the student had one piece of coursework outstanding, which they were attempting for the second time. On the submission date the student asked for their circumstances to be considered because they were not able to submit the work in full. The provider responded by email on the same day saying that the request was refused. The student submitted their unfinished essay. Three weeks later, the provider told the student that they had not passed the module, and that their studies would be terminated.
Case summary April 2025 | Not Justified
An apprentice enrolled on a degree apprenticeship in a regulated profession needed to successfully complete a maths functional skills qualification before they could progress to the end point assessment. The apprentice complained that there had been a lack of support for them as a person with dyslexia and ADHD and asked that the level of the qualification be lowered as a reasonable adjustment. The provider initially rejected the complaint. Under the “Apprenticeship Funding Rules for main providers” set by the government, higher education providers are permitted to lower the maths functional skills requirements for apprentices who have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan, a statement of special educational need (SEN) or a Learning Difficulty Assessment (LDA). The apprentice did not have any of these documents.
Case summary April 2025 | Partly Justified
A student on a professional healthcare course complained about the behaviour of other students on the same course in connection with a piece of group work. They said that they had received inappropriate messages from one member of the group, had been excluded from meetings about group work, locked out of critical documents and there had been disagreements about how to approach the work. The student initially asked for an apology from the rest of the group but didn’t want the matter to be formally recorded on the other students’ records. But the student then said that this was because they were worried about reprisals. On reflection, the student felt that the behaviour was a form of harassment connected to their disability, and that the other student’s behaviour ought to be considered under the provider’s fitness to practice regulations.
Case summary April 2025 | Not Justified
A student beginning a healthcare course at an overseas campus was required to undertake an occupational health assessment. Shortly after the assessment, the student reported to the provider that they had been sexually assaulted by a medical professional employed by the occupational health firm. Around four months later, the student withdrew from the course and made a complaint about the way the provider responded to their disclosure.
Case summary February 2025 | Partly Justified
This case summary describes a student’s complaint about how their provider responded to their report of sexual misconduct by a member of staff. It contains a brief description of the sexual misconduct.
Case summary February 2025 | Justified
This case summary describes a student’s complaint about how their provider responded to their report of sexual misconduct by a member of staff. It contains a brief description of the sexual misconduct.
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.
