Case Summaries

The student said that the provider ought to have applied its “no detriment” policy, under which the provider took into account students’ previous academic performance to prevent disadvantage as a result of the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The provider rejected the student’s appeal. It said that the student could have asked for additional consideration of their personal circumstances at the time of the assessment but did not, and it was too late to do so once results were published. It said that the no detriment policy didn’t apply to the module because it was professionally accredited, and the accrediting body did not permit it.

The student complained to us. We decided the complaint was Not Justified. The learning materials that students needed for the module were available online and the student didn’t have a special reason (such as a specific learning difference) for asking for printed materials. It was reasonable for the provider to conclude that the student didn’t have a good reason for not asking the provider to consider their personal circumstances at the time of the assessment. The provider had explained to students that the no detriment policy did not apply to the module because of the requirements of the professional body. So the provider’s decision not to uphold the student’s appeal was reasonable.