Ask The Library: AskUs

If it is not possible for your School Office/Programme Leader to assist you with your query, you may wish to submit an Academic Appeal.  You will need to clearly define which of the three “grounds” you wish to base your Academic Appeal on.

These are;

1. personal mitigating circumstances where, for good reason, the Board of Examiners was not made aware of a significant factor relating to the assessment of a student through the Personal Mitigating Circumstances Procedure when it made its original decision;

2. there has been a procedural irregularity in the assessment process;

3. the Board of Examiners/Postgraduate Research Award Board has acted in a way which is manifestly unreasonable. In this context, unreasonable shall be taken to mean perverse, i.e. the decision was not a possible conclusion that a similar meeting of the Board of Examiners/Postgraduate Research Award Board might have reached.

Example scenarios for each of these grounds are explained as below;

1. A student has suffered personal mitigating circumstances and there is a good reason why they did not advise their School about the circumstances at the time they occurred. An example of this may be:

   A student was involved in an accident, lay unconscious in hospital for 3 weeks and was only able to advise the School at the end of the 3 week period of what had happened.  In this case, good reason has been established as to why the student did not inform the School at the time of the accident.

    

2. A procedural error in the assessment process. An example of this may be:

   A student’s module mark was capped incorrectly.

1. The Board of Examiners acted in a way which was manifestly unreasonable. An example of this may be:

   Two students with exactly the same programme mark were awarded different degree classifications - this would appear to be unreasonable at first glance.