Case Summaries

The student appealed the decision to cap the mark. They said that they were not made aware of the pre-sessional module until shortly before it began and only through finding information about it on the provider’s virtual learning environment (accessible to enrolled students). Other communications, including the letter offering the student a place, indicated that the course would start at a later date. The student said that their existing study and work commitments meant that they could not engage from the start and they had struggled to meet the deadline. They said if they had known about the pre-sessional module sooner, they would have amended their schedule so they could work towards it or apply for a course elsewhere. The student had also believed that the assessment would not receive an actual mark but would just be recorded as either a pass or a fail, and on that basis did not submit a request for additional consideration.

The provider rejected the appeal. Although it accepted there was a miscommunication with the start date of the module, it was satisfied that the student was still able to meet the learning outcomes. It also decided that there was insufficient evidence to show the student had been told the module was a pass/fail module, rather than numerically graded. The cap remained in place.

The student complained to us. We upheld the complaint (we decided it was Justified). The provider was unable to demonstrate that it had given clear, accurate and timely information about the requirement to attend the pre-sessional module, the start date or how the assessment would be marked. We thought it was reasonable for the student to think that the start date was later than it was. The lack of clarity around whether the assessment was a pass or fail affected the student’s ability to make informed decisions including whether to submit a request for an extension or additional consideration. This amounted to a procedural irregularity and contributed to the student’s late submission. We did not consider it was reasonable for the provider to apply the late penalty or reject the academic appeal in these circumstances.

We recommended that the provider remove the cap applied to the late submission, so the original mark would stand. We also recommended that the provider review the information it gives to prospective students on its website, within its offer letters and other preenrolment materials.