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 | 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 April 2026 | Justified
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.
Case summary April 2026 | Settled
A provider withdrew a student because of low attendance. The student appealed the decision to withdraw them, saying that their record of attendance had been affected by a faulty access card. The provider reinstated the student on the condition that, by a certain deadline, they would attend all sessions with all attendance swipes recorded and that the student would meet with the student support team.
Public interest case November 2025 | Justified
Applied Business Academy (ABA)
This case summary about ABA College illustrates the impact on individual students where there is a gap in student protection.
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 disclosure that they had been sexually assaulted by another student.
Case summary February 2025 | Partly Justified
This case summary describes a reported student’s complaint about the outcome of their provider’s disciplinary process, the provider decided the student had committed sexual misconduct. It contains a brief description of the sexual misconduct reported by members of staff at the provider.
Case summary February 2025 | Justified
This case summary describes a reported student’s complaint about the outcome of their provider’s disciplinary process, the provider decided the student had committed sexual misconduct. It contains a brief description of the sexual misconduct reported by other students at the provider.
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.
