Case Summaries
Back to Case SummariesDisabled students - CS042508
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.
The apprentice asked for the decision to be reviewed. The apprentice had undertaken initial screening earlier in their studies and had then been evaluated by a psychologist that was on a list of approved needs assessors supplied by the provider.
The provider decided to accept the psychological assessment, in the light of very long waiting times for further assessment to obtain more formal documentation. It reduced the level of maths functional skills qualification that the apprentice would need to achieve. It also offered the apprentice £1,000 in compensation, recognising that the delivery of maths support tuition had been disrupted.
The apprentice was dissatisfied and complained to us. The provider made a revised offer of £5,000 to settle the complaint. The apprentice rejected this offer. They argued that the issues had caused delays in completing their qualification, and that because of this they had lost out on an increased salary.
We did not uphold the complaint (we decided it was Not Justified) on the basis that the offer the provider had made was a reasonable remedy for the complaint. The apprentice’s claim for lost earnings was speculative; it was not possible to say that if the provider had acted differently, they would have successfully passed the end-point-assessment at an earlier date.