Case SummariesBack to Case Summaries
Late evidence - PI011614
Public interest case January 2016 | Not Justified
A student at London Business School complained to us after her appeal against being withdrawn from her programme was rejected.
The student provided a note from her doctor to the appeal stating that symptoms she had described to her GP suggested that she had experienced depression from a few weeks before the examinations she had failed until shortly before the issue of the medical note, which was dated three months after the last exam. The doctor’s note did not explain why the student had been unable to engage with the School’s extenuating circumstances process.
The School rejected the appeal. The student’s legal representative wrote to the School two months later asking it to reconsider and enclosing further medical evidence. The School considered the evidence but declined to reopen the appeal.
We were satisfied that the School had properly considered the appeal, and that it reasonably concluded that the student ought to have disclosed her extenuating circumstances at the time of the examinations. We were also satisfied that, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the School to refuse to reopen the appeal when new evidence was submitted.
The School stated that it rejected the new evidence because it was not an independent or objective medical report, but a response to a series of leading questions asked by the student’s solicitors. The School said the evidence was not genuinely compelling "new information" and there were no justifiable reasons for its lateness. We had concerns about the manner in which the information had been solicited and leading nature of the questions put to the medical professional. We concluded that the School had given thorough consideration to the new evidence and provided clear and persuasive reasons for its decision to reject it.
We decided the student’s complaint was Not Justified.