Case Summaries

The student was suspected of uploading a question from the exam to a website asking for answers from other users, and then using the answers given. The provider decided that the student had cheated and excluded them from the programme. The student appealed, saying that someone else had admitted to posting the question and the student had taken the blame because they thought they would be treated leniently. The provider rejected the student’s appeal.

The student complained to us.

We partly upheld the student’s complaint (we found it "Partly Justified").

We had concerns about the evidence the provider’s disciplinary panel had been given and whether they had properly understood and probed it. The panel was given confusing and misleading evidence about the IP addresses used to post the question, access the answer, and upload the student’s exam answers. There was a lack of clarity over whether the student had paid for or accessed the answers and this undermined the provider’s conclusion that the student had commissioned the answer with intention to cheat. The student wasn’t given the opportunity to respond to some of the evidence.

We concluded that we couldn’t be sure that the panel’s decision was fair because it relied on conflicting and confusing evidence to decide that contract cheating had taken place. In our view, where a provider is taking a decision that has significant consequences for the student concerned - in this case expelling the student – it is especially important to probe the evidence thoroughly. Given our concerns about the evidence, we could not be sure that it was fair and proportionate to expel the student. Normally in these circumstances we would recommend that the provider should re-hear the disciplinary case. But in this case we had very serious concerns about the student’s health and wellbeing, and they had already been away from their studies for over a year and so had effectively served a suspension.

We therefore recommended that the provider should reinstate the student to allow them to complete the course. We also recommended that the provider should review its academic misconduct procedures and policies.