UCL

Academic Appeals

UCL’s Academic Appeals Procedure allows students to challenge a ratified Board of Examiners decision on one or more of three grounds:

• Extenuating circumstances: circumstances significantly affected performance but, for compelling reasons, were not raised through the EC procedure at the time, supported by independent evidence.
• Procedural irregularity: a procedural error occurred in the assessment process which could not be resolved through the appropriate procedure.
• Examiner bias: evidence that an examiner was biased or prejudiced against the student.

A Stage 1 appeal must normally be submitted within 10 working days of notification of the Board of Examiners’ decision. The appeal must clearly identify the ground(s), explain how they are met and provide supporting evidence. UCL normally conducts an eligibility review within 10 working days, followed by consideration of the appeal within a further 20 working days.

If dissatisfied with the Stage 1 outcome, students may request a Stage 2 review within 10 working days, but only on the grounds of:

• an administrative or procedural error at Stage 1;
• new evidence which could not reasonably have been provided earlier; or
• the Stage 1 outcome being unfair or unreasonable.

The Stage 2 review normally takes a further 30 working days.

Extenuating Circumstances

Extenuating Circumstances (ECs) aresudden, unexpected, significantly disruptive circumstances beyond the student’s controlwhich affect performance in a summative assessment.

Claims should normally be submitted within five working days of the first affected assessment. They should be supported by independent, appropriate evidence covering the relevant period. If evidence is unavailable, the claim should still be submitted on time and the evidence provided within four weeks.

Circumstances are broadly divided into:

• Category A - normally considered: e.g. serious illness, serious injury, bereavement of a close family member, domestic abuse, serious crime, jury service or major incidents directly affecting the student.
• Category B - may be considered depending on impact: e.g. moderate illness, serious problems affecting housing or finances, significant caring responsibilities, family difficulties or major work changes.
• Category C - not normally considered: e.g. minor illness, holidays, ordinary work commitments, poor time management, transport problems, missed deadlines, general assessment anxiety or circumstances that were foreseeable/preventable.

ECs are intended for short-term difficulties. Ongoing conditions should generally be addressed through Reasonable Academic Adjustments or other support mechanisms.

EC claims cannot normally be made once formal results have been published, although a student may subsequently be able to challenge the outcome through the Academic Appeals Procedure.

A student cannot challenge an EC decision merely because they disagree with the Panel’s judgement. However, they may request a review within two weeks where there has been a significant procedural error. The review may uphold, amend or replace the original decision.

Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct is broadly conduct which may give a student an unfair academic advantage. It includes:

• plagiarism and self-plagiarism;
• unauthorised collaboration/collusion;
• falsification;
• contract cheating;
• impersonation;
• examination and online assessment misconduct;
• unauthorised use of GenAI, including where its use exceeds what the assessment permits.

However, language/writing review, authorised file sharing and GenAI use permitted by the assessment brief are not misconduct.

The seriousness of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification and collusion determines the level at which the case is dealt with:

• Up to 10% of the component: normally Module Leader.
• More than 10% up to one-third: normally Exam Board Chair.
• More than one-third: normally Departmental Panel.
• Serious or repeat misconduct, including contract cheating, examination misconduct, impersonation and certain GenAI/collusion cases: may be referred to the UCL Academic Misconduct Panel.

Students are generally given an opportunity to respond and provide evidence. Departmental and UCL Academic Misconduct Panels allow the student to provide a statement and attend with a permitted “friend” or “representative”, such as a Students’ Union adviser or student representative.

Penalties range from requiring corrected work or an academic-integrity exercise, through mark reductions, capped marks or a mark of zero, to suspension or exclusionin serious cases. The decision-maker must consider relevant mitigating factors, such as a first offence, early admission, lack of intention to gain an unfair advantage and compelling personal circumstances.

Students may appeal an academic misconduct decision within 10 working days of formal notification, on the grounds that:

• the procedure was not followed;
• fresh evidence has become available;
• the finding of misconduct was unreasonable; or
• the penalty has a significant impact on the student in circumstances involving non-progression or suspension/termination.

An appeal may uphold, overturn or modify the decision or penalty. An Appeals Panel decision is final under UCL’s internal procedures.