Policies
Appeal decision
You will receive a formal notification of the outcome of your appeal in a letter attached to an email from appeals@leicester.ac.uk. The outcome letter will explain the reasons for the decision.
If your appeal is considered by a panel, you will normally receive the outcome letter within seven days after the panel has met.
The outcome letter will also highlight the opportunity to request a review of the outcome of your appeal if:
- there is evidence of a procedural irregularity in the initial consideration of the appeal, and / or
- there is evidence of eligibility of the appeal provided within your original appeal submission which it would appear has not been fully considered.
An additional ground for requesting a review is now available (applicable only to Boards of Examiners from 1 November 2024). This means this ground is not applicable where the Board of Examiners’ decision was made prior to 1 November 2024, even if the appeal review is requested after this date.
Students may use this ground if:
- there is new material evidence now available, which could not reasonably have been made available at an earlier stage in the appeal process.
Appeals Panels
If your appeal progresses to an Appeals Panel you will be given advance notice of this and asked to comment on the report from your School/Department.
The composition of an Appeals Panel is detailed in Regulations.
- It will consist of three members of the academic staff of the University, nominated by their College to serve on panels
- No member of the panel will be from the School/Department in which you studied or will have had any other involvement with you previously
- Administrative support to the Panel is provided by Education Quality, Enhancement and Development.
Students or their departments do not attend appeal panel meetings. Cases are considered on the basis of the documentation they have provided. This will include your appeal form and supporting documentation, a report from your School/Department and any comments received from you in response to the departmental response.
Example outcomes (see also case studies below)
Appeal outcomes are dependent on a number of factors, including the nature of the appeal and your assessment profile (i.e. how many credits you have already passed and the number of reassessments you may have already taken) for that reason it isn’t possible to explicitly state the definite outcome you will receive by appealing until the end of the investigation. It should be noted however that depending on the nature of your appeal it is not always possible to offer the outcome requested.
If your appeal is successful (known as being ‘upheld’) the most common outcomes are:
For appeals against course termination:
- The offer of a re-attempt at failed module components
- A repeat period of study
For appeals against degree classifications:
- A repeat period of study
- Reconsideration of whether you are a borderline case
- The offer of uncapped reassessments of failed modules.
- Uncapping of marks if they have been capped in error.
For appeals against lower awards:
- The offer of a re-attempt at failed module components
- A repeat period of study
For appeals against a progression decision:
- The offer of a re-attempt at failed module components
Outcomes that are not permitted by regulation:
- Altering marks
- Uplifting a degree classification (except for where you can be reconsidered as a borderline case)
- Financial compensation
Case studies
The following scenarios have been written to provide an indicative explanation of common circumstances and outcomes. They should not be considered as the only possible scenarios.
Use the drop-down list below to help direct you to the correct procedure for your concern.
Maria – Implications of ‘without residence’
Maria, an undergraduate at the end of her second year, has failed 45 credits after the August assessment period. She has been given a progression decision of resit without residence. She appeals on the grounds of new evidence of significant mitigating circumstances during both assessment periods, and is successful. Her preferred outcome is to be allowed to continue on to her third year with the rest of her cohort. She has signed a contract for accommodation for her third year.
The appeal outcome is that she is given uncapped resits. But she has to remain on the without residence year because she has not achieved enough credits to be allowed to proceed.
She requests a review of the decision on the grounds that she believes there was evidence that was not fully considered- i.e. the fact that she had committed to paying rent for accommodation for the next year. The review request is rejected. Her personal financial circumstances cannot override the regulations.
Tobi – New mitigating circumstances accepted, but has failed too many credits to be allowed to proceed
Tobi is an undergraduate at the end of his first year. He has failed 75 credits after the August assessment period and has been terminated. He appeals on the grounds of new evidence of significant mitigating circumstances.
The appeal is successful. It is agreed that he has provided new evidence of significant mitigating circumstances and it is reasonable to assume that he was not in a position to tell his school at the time of his assessments. The outcome is that he must repeat Year 1. He has failed too many credits to be allowed to proceed and resit.
Decca – Procedural irregularity explained
Decca is a final year undergraduate student who has been awarded a 2.1. She has achieved a final credit weighted average of 68.50% and fulfilled all the criteria to be considered as a borderline student. She appeals on the grounds of procedural irregularity, arguing that she should have been promoted to a 1st. Decca’s school confirms that she was considered as a borderline student but because there were no compelling mitigating circumstances, she was not promoted.
The appeal outcome is that there is no procedural irregularity. The school has acted in accordance with the regulations, and the appeal is rejected.
Sandeep – Challenging academic judgement explained
Sandeep is taking a masters programme. He has been awarded a Postgraduate Diploma because he has failed one module with a mark below 40%. He appeals on the grounds of prejudice or bias because he believes he should have received a mark of at least 60% on this module. He does not provide any evidence of bias on the part of his examiners. The School is asked to confirm how marking and moderation was carried out on this module.
The outcome of the appeal is reject. The School has followed standard marking and moderation processes as mandated by the regulations, and the student has not provided any evidence to show otherwise. The student is therefore challenging the academic judgement of the markers.
Lina – Procedural Irregularity explained
Lina is a finalist who has been awarded a 2.2 after the August assessment period. She appeals her degree classification on the grounds of procedural irregularity. She states that she had accepted mitigating circumstances for her resits but that her resits had been capped at 40%. The School is approached for information. The School agrees that there has been an administrative error.
The appeal is successful. The assessment marks are uncapped and the revised credit weighted average means that her degree classification is uplifted to a 2.1.
Appeal review requests
Appeal Review Requests will only be considered if one, or both, of the following grounds are met:
- there is evidence of a procedural irregularity in the initial consideration of the appeal, and / or
- there is evidence of eligibility of the appeal provided within your original appeal submission which it would appear has not been fully considered.
If you feel that there are grounds for a review of a decision you must submit a request within 14 calendar days of the receipt of your outcome letter. Requests received after this time will not be considered.
Visit the Appeal Review page for further information and to download the request form.