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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
