Case Summaries

The provider gave the student a revised deadline in early September, 10 weeks later than the original deadline. The student contacted the provider just after the new submission date, and said that they had not been able to complete the work but hoped to do so within a week. They were given a new deadline in mid-September and told that their mark would be capped. The student did not submit their work. The provider told the student that they had failed the module because they hadn’t submitted the work on two separate occasions. This meant the student had to leave the course. 

The student submitted an appeal on the basis of severe fatigue following the birth of their child. The provider rejected the appeal, saying that the birth of a child is not an unexpected circumstance.  

The student complained to us. 

During our review, we told the provider that we thought it had not followed its regulations when it counted the two submission dates in September as two separate attempts. The regulations did not allow it to do this without an Examination Board considering the student’s non-submission as an attempt, and without allowing significantly more time for the second attempt. The provider accepted that the student should be allowed to resume their studies and made an offer to arrange this.  

We decided the complaint was Partly Justified. In addition to the provider allowing the student to resume their studies, we recommended financial compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the student by the incorrect termination of their studies. 

Previous Next