Some reasons why an appeal may be rejected
As explained under 'How the appeal will be considered', a decision on whether an appeal is admissible will be made by the Chair of the Appeals Board, on the basis of the evidence available and advice from relevant officers.
Common reasons why an appeal may be rejected as inadmissible include the following:
- Where a remedy has been requested that is not available via the appeal process (see 'What decisions can students appeal against').
- Where the appeal does not fit within the definition of any of the relevant grounds for appeal (see 'What are the grounds for making an appeal' and the specific grounds as worded within the relevant appeal form);
- Where a matter of academic judgment is involved (see below);
- Where the remedy sought is not consistent with the University's rules and regulations on assessment (see the relevant handbooks and associated guidance published for students and for examiners);
- Where an appeal is made on the basis of circumstances affecting the student's performance of which the examiners were not aware, but on investigation, it is evident that those circumstances had been considered by the examination board (for example, most usually via an impairment categorisation by the Mitigating Evidence Committee having already been taken into account);
- Where an appeal is made on the basis of circumstances affecting the student's performance of which the examiners were not aware, but no valid reason is provided as to why the circumstances could not have been presented at the relevant time (the relevant time would normally be via an application to the mitigating evidence committee as detailed in the assessment handbooks);
- Where an appeal is made on the basis of mitigating circumstances and no or insufficient evidence is provided to substantiate the circumstances;
- Where an appeal is made on the basis of mitigating circumstances but the nature of the circumstances are not recognised by the University as a valid basis for a claim of impairment;
- Where an appeal is made on the basis of procedural error, but there is no evidence that any error has taken place;
- Where an appeal is made on the basis that there exists evidence of prejudice or of bias on the part of an examiner, but no evidence is provided.
Some further specific situations where an appeal will be rejected as inadmissible are as follows:
- Where the student wishes to progress to the next stage, but where a mandatory-for-progression module has not been passed;
- Where the student wishes to progress to the next stage, but has not met the progression requirement, an appeal on the basis of personal mitigating circumstances will not be accepted as this does not demonstrate that the required academic standard has been met;
- Where an appeal is made on the basis of a long-term condition or circumstances that are ongoing (for example anxiety, depression or related to a disability) this will not be accepted as valid grounds for appeal since, in cases such as these, the student is expected to register with, and seek support, via the Student Support Unit (or other relevant support agencies). The Student Support Unit will evaluate the student's support needs and any reasonable adjustments that can be put in place. Further allowance is not therefore made via the appeals or mitigating evidence processes. The difficulty of corroborating the impact of circumstances that are ongoing on specific elements of assessment is a further reason why these are not taken into account via the appeals process;
- In cases where a student believes that measures and/or reasonable adjustments agreed by the Student Support Unit have not been put in place, they will be expected to report this to the SSU so that the matter can be addressed at the time and/or submit a MEC claim (if the item/s of assessment in question have already been completed). Failure to do so will invalidate any appeal.
- In cases where a student believes their performance has been impaired by academic factors they will be expected to be proactive in raising these at the time so that the issue/s can be resolved at the time if at all possible and/or so that they can be fully taken into account by the examination board. First of all, the student must raise the points of concern informally and then, if still dissatisfied, more formally via the formal complaints process. Failure to do so will invalidate any appeal.
- Where a special learning difficulty is diagnosed only after the publication of the results to which the appeal relates, this will not be accepted as a valid basis for appeal (since students are expected to get an assessment made by the Student Support Unit in good time in order to ensure supporting provision can be put in place as detailed in the assessment handbooks and associated guidance);
- Where an appeal is made on the basis of financial, employment, housing, visa or domestic family responsibilities this will not normally be accepted as a valid basis for a claim of impairment (either by MEC Committees or at appeal stage) since students are expected to take responsibility for managing these aspects alongside and in conjunction with their academic studies.
The University regards academic judgment to include:
- The appropriateness of a mark awarded for an individual item of assessment, or a judgment about whether the student has met the requisite learning outcomes;
- The appropriateness of feedback in relation to the basis for a specific mark awarded;
- A decision regarding a student's award or degree classification;
- A decision on whether a student should be permitted to progress, or be offered a repeat year (or other retrieval opportunity);
- A decision on whether the academic performance of a student within a borderline zone is sufficient to warrant their classification being raised;
- A decision on whether the academic performance of a student, in the light of an impairment categorisation, is sufficient to warrant their classification being raised (or any other change to the existing academic outcome);
- A decision on whether the academic performance of a student, in the light of an identified procedural error, is sufficient to warrant their classification being raised (or any other change to the existing academic outcome);
- A judgment relating to whether the relevant professional standards have been met, including that by a suitablity for professional practice panel regarding a student's suitability for professional practice;
- A judgment by a misconduct panel, school investigating officer or other academic regarding whether an item submitted for assessment contains plagiarised material, and the extent of the plagiarism;
- A judgment by a student progress committee on whether a student should be required to withdraw from the University;
- Identification or agreement of a suitable topic for a student essay, project or dissertation;
- Identification of a supervisor/s with relevant subject knowledge for a student project or dissertation;
- Identification of assessors or examiners with the requisite academic expertise.