Case Summaries
Back to Case SummariesDisabled students - CS042606
Case summary April 2026 | Partly Justified
Students had to submit two pieces of assessed work for a particular module. The first piece did not contribute to the overall grade students would achieve for the module. Students would receive feedback on it and the data within it could be used as the basis for the second piece of work.
A disabled student had a support plan in place that permitted extra time to submit all their coursework. But eight days before the extended deadline expired, the module tutor said to all students that the opportunity to submit the work was now closed. Although the student submitted their work within the extended deadline as planned, it was not marked and was recorded as a fail/non-submission.
The student complained about the change to the submission date. They also raised concerns about the module tutor’s communication with them more broadly.
The provider upheld the complaint about the change of submission date. It confirmed to the student that this had not affected their overall module mark. It rejected the other aspects of the student’s complaint. The student was dissatisfied and complained to us.
We upheld some parts of the complaint (we decided that it was Partly Justified). We criticised the provider’s response to the complaint. Its records of its investigations were limited, and the initial response to the student was limited to a few lines that did not explain how it had reached its conclusions. By changing the submission deadline at short notice the provider had placed the disabled student at a disadvantage. The student had been deprived of the opportunity for feedback. It was distressing for the student to have a “fail/non-submission” recorded when they had completed the work. The provider had not offered any remedy for this, nor apologised for other comments made by the module tutor about the student needing to better manage their time.
We decided that it was reasonable for the provider to reject other aspects of the student’s complaint. The evidence showed that usually the module leader’s interactions with the student had been timely, courteous and supportive.
We recommended that the provider offer the student an apology and £500 compensation for the distress they had experienced. We also recommended that the provider contact all staff who set submission deadlines to remind them of the importance of proactively mitigating the impact on disabled students if making changes at short notice is unavoidable.