Sort

• 15 May 2025

Other

|

Complex

Too fact specific, I can't generalise.:

Thank you for your question.

Please note that on this site we are not in a position to provide legal advice. The information below is intended only as general guidance, presented in the form of a clear and accessible narrative. I would normally reference documents such as the Noddy Guide or the Disability Rights Guide, but neither is directly relevant to your particular query—hence the more detailed response.

That said, I would strongly encourage you to seek advice from a law firm specialising in this area of law. Public funding may—and I stress may—be available to support this. The student in question may explore this possibility by contacting 0345 345 4 345.

In addition, the following two excellent charities may be able to assist:

• LawWorks
• Advocate (formerly known as the Bar Pro Bono Unit)

Both organisations can sometimes help individuals access free legal advice or representation, subject to their respective eligibility criteria.

I am sorry that I cannot be more directly helpful in this instance, but I hope others may be able to contribute further. I look forward to reading any additional responses that fellow site colleagues may share.

 

Procedural Irregularity and Equality Act Duties in UK University Appeals - What is a Procedural Irregularity in Academic Appeals?

In UK universities, procedural irregularity generally means something went wrong in the process of making an academic decision. In simple terms, it is an error or failure to follow the university’s own rules or established procedures, which may have affected the outcome. For example, if an exam board or department does not follow the correct steps in marking, or overlooks required procedures, that is a procedural irregularity. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) – the higher education ombudsman – defines a procedural irregularity as a situation “where the procedures and regulations of a provider have not been complied with, giving rise to a complaint or appeal.” In other words, if the university didn’t stick to its own rules or fair process, a student might appeal on that basis.

Academic appeal regulations at universities typically list grounds for appeal such as: (1) procedural irregularity in the assessment process; (2) the discovery of new evidence or extenuating circumstances that could not be presented earlier; or (3) evidence of bias or prejudice in the grading or decision-making. For instance, the University of Leicester’s appeal regulations allow appeals if “there were procedural irregularities in the conduct of assessment procedures of such a nature as to create a reasonable possibility that the academic outcome may have been different if they had not occurred.” They also explicitly include a related ground where a previously undisclosed disability (as defined in the Equality Act 2010) is revealed too late for adjustments to be made. Not all universities have a separate disability-specific ground, but all are expected to consider appeals in line with equality obligations. In fact, some universities note in their policies that any academic appeal will be considered with regard to the university’s duties under the Equality Act 2010 (the UK law protecting disabled students and others from discrimination). This means even if “Equality Act breach” isn’t a listed appeal category, the principles of that law should still inform how the appeal is handled.

The Equality Act 2010 and Reasonable Adjustments in Higher Education

The Equality Act 2010 requires universities and colleges to support disabled students and avoid disability-based discrimination. A key part of this duty is the requirement to make “reasonable adjustments” for students with disabilities. In practical terms, a reasonable adjustment is a change or support put in place to remove or reduce any substantial disadvantage a disabled student would otherwise face in comparison to non-disabled students. The law says that if a disabled person is at a substantial disadvantage, the institution must take reasonable steps to address that – for example by “changing provisions, criteria or practices,” by “providing auxiliary aids,” or by altering how an assessment is conducted. The aim is to ensure a disabled student has, as far as possible, a level playing field to demonstrate their knowledge and skills.

Importantly, universities have an “anticipatory” duty under the Equality Act. This means they should not wait passively for a student to complain before considering adjustments – they are expected to anticipate the common needs of disabled students and build adjustments into their courses and assessments where reasonable. Recent high-profile cases have underscored this obligation. For example, in University of Bristol v Abrahart (2024), a student with severe social anxiety was required to do an oral presentation that she found debilitating. The High Court found the university had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her and thus breached the Equality Act. The court reiterated that universities must proactively consider adjustments to assessment methods rather than rigidly sticking to “one-size-fits-all” practices. In that case, the university had argued that an oral presentation was an essential competency and that no formal request for an adjustment had been made – but the court rejected those arguments. It noted the university knew the student’s mental health struggles and should have adjusted the assessment format (for instance, by offering an alternative to the live presentation). The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which intervened in the case, later issued guidance reinforcing that lack of a formal diagnosis or a student not using the exact procedure to request help is not an excuse for inaction in serious situations. Staff are expected to use common sense and compassion – if a student is clearly in crisis or has an obvious disability-related need, reasonable adjustments should be made “without a [formal] diagnosis or medical or expert evidence.”

In summary, under the Equality Act 2010 universities must take reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage experienced by disabled students. This could include things like giving extra time in exams, providing materials in accessible formats, adjusting deadlines, or even modifying how a student is assessed – as long as the core competence or learning outcome is still being evaluated. Failing to do so when it would have been reasonable is considered unlawful disability discrimination. Universities are expected to embed these principles into their policies. The EHRC’s recent advice note to the higher education sector emphasizes that all university procedures and “common practices” (academic or administrative) must comply with the Equality Act. In other words, considerations of disability equity should thread through everything from how lectures are delivered and assessments set, to how appeals and complaints are handled.

Can Equality Act Failures Be Grounds for Appeal via Procedural Irregularity?

Yes, it seems so. If a university fails to meet its obligations under the Equality Act – for example, by not providing agreed or reasonable adjustments to a disabled student – this can often be framed as a procedural irregularity in the context of an academic appeal. Even if the university’s appeal form doesn’t list “Equality Act breach” as a specific category, the substance of the issue is that the university did not follow the proper process or standards expected. Not following the law or the university’s own disability policies is arguably a failure in procedure.

Consider a scenario: a student with a documented learning disability is entitled to 25% extra time on exams (per the university’s disability support plan), but one of their exam invigilators or departments fails to implement this adjustment during the exam. The student performs poorly as a result. This is exactly the kind of situation that could constitute a procedural error in the assessment process – the university had a procedure or obligation (to give extra time) and it wasn’t carried out. The student could then file an academic appeal saying the exam outcome is unfair because of that procedural irregularity. In fact, many universities explicitly tie their appeal rules to these obligations. As mentioned, the University of Leicester’s regulations allow appeals if a disability was not responded to appropriately in time by taking reasonable steps. Even where such a ground isn’t spelled out, it fits under procedural unfairness. Failing to consider relevant factors (like a student’s disability needs) or failing to apply one’s own policies (like a reasonable adjustments policy) can render a decision unsound. One students’ union guide on writing appeals puts it this way: if an official policy says something should be done a certain way and it wasn’t, that’s a procedural irregularity. Neglecting Equality Act duties falls in that category.

It’s worth noting that some professional exam bodies do list discrimination as an explicit ground – for instance, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance (CIPFA) allows appeals where “there is evidence of bias, prejudice or discrimination as defined by the UK Equality Act 2010.” Most universities don’t word it so bluntly, but they do include bias/prejudice as a ground, and any proven disability discrimination would certainly qualify as bias or unfair treatment. In practice, universities also acknowledge their duty within appeal processes. For example, Edge Hill University states that all academic appeals are considered with regard to the Equality Act 2010 obligations, ensuring that students are not disadvantaged in the process due to disability or other protected characteristics. So while you might not see the words “Equality Act” on an appeal form, the spirit of those requirements is meant to be upheld through the procedural irregularity and unfairness grounds.

Case Examples: When Reasonable Adjustments Weren’t Provided

To understand how this works in real life, it helps to look at some case examples and how appeal or complaint bodies responded:

• Exam Adjustments Not Implemented: In one OIA case, a disabled student was supposed to have certain exam adjustments (these had been formally agreed to in advance). However, the university did not properly put those adjustments in place for the student’s second-semester exams. Recognizing this failure, the university allowed the student to re-sit the exams as a first attempt (essentially discounting the affected attempt). This was treated as a procedural mistake in the assessment process – the student hadn’t been assessed under the conditions they should have been. By offering a re-sit as a first attempt, the university effectively acknowledged the appeal on grounds of procedural irregularity (the irregularity being the missing reasonable adjustments). The OIA, upon reviewing the case, found that remedy appropriate.
• Missing Adjustments and Lost Opportunities: In another scenario, a student’s disability adjustments were overlooked, which not only impacted their performance but also caused them to miss a time-sensitive opportunity. Specifically, a student who didn’t get their agreed exam support ended up having to take resit exams later; because of this delay, they missed the window to transfer to another university for a subsequent course. The student filed a complaint. The university acknowledged the failing and partly upheld the complaint – they even offered some compensation (a partial fee refund and some money for inconvenience). However, the student felt this was not enough and went to the OIA. The OIA concluded the complaint was partly justified, agreeing that the university’s remedies were insufficient. It recommended a higher amount of compensation to properly reflect the distress and disadvantage the student suffered from “the student’s reasonable adjustments not being in place.” It also ensured the university issued a full apology. Additionally, the university was prompted to improve its procedures so that such an omission would not happen again. This example shows that external review bodies see the lack of reasonable adjustments as a serious failing – one warranting tangible remedies.
• Support Promised but Not Delivered: Sometimes the issue is not a single exam, but a broader failure of a department to follow through on support plans. In a performing arts course case (involving two partner institutions), a student with an autistic spectrum condition and physical disability repeatedly sought support and reasonable adjustments, but each institution assumed the other was responsible for providing them. This led to confusion and inaction. The student eventually had to suspend studies. The OIA found the complaint justified, noting that there was a clear “failure to explore what the student’s specific needs were... and to identify and put in place support or reasonable adjustments.” In that case, the university was required to apologize and pay significant compensation (£5,000) for the distress and educational disadvantage caused. The OIA also recommended that the institution review its policies and staff training, as the lack of coordination was a systemic problem. This case underscores that even if an adjustment is considered “common practice” or written in a policy, it means little if, on the ground, departments don’t actually implement it. A common theme in such cases is poor communication and a lack of accountability – and the resolution often involves the university acknowledging a procedural failure in how a student’s situation was handled.
• Appeal vs. Complaint Routes: It’s worth noting that sometimes universities might initially push a student to the complaints route rather than an academic appeal, especially if the issue sounds like “discrimination” rather than an exam/mark problem. However, the line can be blurry. For instance, one law firm’s case study (which I am sure you can look up) described a postgraduate student (“Emma”) with mental health difficulties who missed a deadline due to a mix of personal crises and confusing advice from the university. Her initial appeal was dismissed as out-of-time, and the university told her to file a complaint to the OIA instead. With legal help, she argued that the university’s handling of her extensions and guidance was procedurally unfair. Eventually, the university was persuaded to consider her case within the appeals process, and she won her academic appeal – allowing her to submit her dissertation and earn her degree. This highlights that if a problem affected an academic outcome, it often should be treated as an appeal (even if it involves equality issues), because the student is seeking an academic remedy (like a chance to redo work). In Emma’s case the “procedural irregularity” was that the university gave her incorrect information and changed policies without clear notice, which disproportionately affected a student who relied on extensions as a reasonable adjustment for her mental health. Once that was addressed through an appeal, she got the outcome she needed.

 

How Do Oversight Bodies View These Issues?

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) have been paying close attention to how universities handle reasonable adjustments. Their guidance and commentary make clear that neglecting disability adjustments is a significant matter:

• The OIA’s Annual Reports have noted a high proportion of complaints from disabled students about support and adjustments not being implemented “promptly or at all.” In 2024, over 40% of complaints to the OIA came from self-identified disabled students, and many centred on delayed or missing adjustments. The OIA acknowledges that some delays happen (for example, waiting for medical evidence or Disabled Students’ Allowance funding), but it warns that there is “no culture of accountability” in many institutions to ensure needed support actually gets delivered. In fact, the OIA observed that too often staff default to standard practices that do not meet disabled students’ needs, leaving those students at a significant disadvantage. As a result, the OIA has been urging universities to train their academic and administrative staff on Equality Act requirements. If a complaint reaches the OIA, they will look at whether the university followed its own procedures and the law. Where they find that a student was treated unfairly – for example, an appeal about a lack of reasonable adjustments was wrongly rejected or a student was not given a fair chance – the OIA can deem the case Justified or Partly Justified and recommend remedies (from re-taking assessments to financial compensation and policy changes). The case summaries we discussed illustrate that the OIA does not hesitate to call out universities for these failings and require them to make amends.
• The EHRC, as Britain’s equality regulator, has also sharpened its focus on higher education. After the Abrahart case, the EHRC issued guidance to all universities, effectively telling them to get their house in order. One key point was that university processes and “common practices” must themselves be compliant with the Equality Act – meaning universities should audit their practices to ensure, for example, that departmental policies or unwritten conventions aren’t inadvertently disadvantaging disabled students. Another point was the emphasis on training and empowering staff: Everyone from lecturers to admin staff handling appeals should understand the duty to make reasonable adjustments, “before a full assessment by the Disability Service has taken place, in urgent or serious situations.” This speaks to scenarios where, say, a student is clearly unwell or struggling but doesn’t yet have paperwork filed – staff shouldn’t hide behind bureaucracy and delay help that could be given. The EHRC explicitly states that “where a student has a severe or urgent condition, reasonable adjustments may be made without a diagnosis or medical or expert evidence.” In practice, that could mean granting an extension or modifying an assessment on the spot if it’s obvious that a student is in crisis, rather than saying “come back with a doctor’s note.” If a department were to deny an adjustment purely because it’s inconvenient or because the student didn’t follow an exact formality (for example, they didn’t submit a request three weeks in advance), the EHRC’s guidance suggests that would not be a defensible position. Cost or workload is rarely a valid excuse either – guidance from the sector indicates that while universities can consider their resources when deciding what’s “reasonable,” financial strain alone “rarely automatically precludes an adjustment from being reasonable.” In short, the law expects them to do everything they reasonably can, even if it requires some extra effort.

 

In appeals and complaints, all this means that if a student can point to a breach of the Equality Act, it adds significant weight to their case. The appeal panel (or later the OIA) will consider whether that failing made the assessment process unfair. In many of the examples, the resolution was to give the student another chance at the assessment (with proper adjustments in place) or to provide some other remedy to correct the injustice. The Equality Act breach essentially becomes evidence of a procedural irregularity or unfair outcome. As one legal commentator noted, university policies themselves must bow to the Equality Act – if a university’s rule or decision-making process can’t allow for a student’s disability, then that policy or decision is at risk of being deemed invalid or discriminatory. Appeal bodies will take that very seriously.

Key Takeaways

• Procedural Irregularity: This is a ground for appeal that covers any situation where the university didn’t follow the proper process. Not implementing an established adjustment or ignoring a student’s known disability needs can fall under this ground, since it means the assessment wasn’t conducted as it should have been.
• Equality Act Duties: Universities are legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments for disabled students. Even if “Equality Act breach” isn’t a listed appeal ground, universities must handle appeals with those obligations in mind. Some universities explicitly mention that appeals will be considered in light of Equality Act requirements, and appeal panels should ask: “Did we do what we were supposed to for this student, given their circumstances?”
• Failures to Provide Adjustments: If a student didn’t get an adjustment that is routinely offered or promised in policy (for example, a common practice like recording lectures for hearing-impaired students, or extra time in exams for dyslexic students), that failure can absolutely be raised in an appeal or complaint. It would generally be viewed as a procedural failure or service failure. Departments cannot justify denying an adjustment simply by saying it’s too difficult or time-consuming if it’s something reasonable and commonly done. Both the OIA and EHRC stress that “we’re too busy” or “it’s too complex” is not a defence for not meeting a disabled student’s needs. The standard is what’s reasonable, and reasonableness considers factors like efficacy, practicality, and resources – but it does not allow outright refusal of support that is practicable.
• Appeal vs. Complaint: In practice, a student might pursue an academic appeal for an unfair result or file a complaint about disability discrimination (or both). Many universities will try to route pure discrimination issues to a general complaints procedure. However, when the issue clearly affected an academic outcome (e.g. a lower grade or a withdrawal decision), it often intersects with the appeal process. The OIA’s guidance is that it doesn’t matter what a student labels it – if it’s essentially an appealable issue but was handled under complaints (or vice versa), what matters is whether the student ultimately got a fair review. The important thing is that the concern is heard and addressed. In several of the OIA cases, the university itself realized the mistake and partly upheld the student’s appeal or complaint, offering another chance or some compensation. The OIA will step in if the university’s response was insufficient or if the university improperly rejected a valid appeal.

In conclusion, a university’s failure to properly consider its Equality Act duties – such as not providing reasonable adjustments – can be a strong basis for challenging an academic decision. It will usually be argued under existing appeal grounds like procedural irregularity or unfairness. Both policy guidance and case outcomes show that such failures are taken seriously: appeal panels, the OIA, and the courts have all been willing to overturn decisions or require remedies when a student was put at a disadvantage because a university did not meet its legal or procedural responsibilities towards disabled students. Students are not asking for extra advantages; they are asking for the adjustments they need in order to be assessed fairly. Ensuring those needs are met is part of the university’s process – so if that process breaks down, an appeal on those grounds is not only possible but entirely legitimate. Always, the emphasis is on fairness and equity in the academic process, consistent with the university’s own rules and the law.

With sincere best wishes during what is clearly a difficult period,

 

Sean Kennedy. 

S

SenateUser 184

15 May 2025

This is helpful

|

Comment

Post