An Academic Appeal is a request for reconsideration of an academic decision made by the University related to your studies. This could include, but is not limited to, decisions made by Boards of Examiners, such as the classification of a degree or a notification for you to withdraw from the course.
If you are considering submitting an appeal, please consider the following key points:
Before submitting an academic appeal, we would always advise that you contact your department to seek clarification and/or resolve the issue informally if possible. If you are not able to resolve the issue informally, the formal appeals process is outlined below, with student guidance and FAQs available from the University’s Appeals webpages.
Submitting a Faculty Academic Appeal
1.1 A student must submit their Faculty Academic Appeal within 21 calendar days of the date of the notification of the decision to be appealed. For Boards of Examiners results this is the date that the pass list is published. For other decisions, it will be the date on the email or other document issued by the University to the student notifying the decision in question.
1.2 Where a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act is required to obtain information to support an appeal, the Subject Access Request must be made within 14 calendar days of the date of the notification of the decision to be appealed against and the appeal must then be submitted 21 days from the date that the resultant information is provided.
1.3 The student may appeal on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) that you were adversely affected by illness or other relevant factors, of which you were previously unaware or which for a good cause you were unable to disclose to the Examiners or other decision-making body or Officer;
(b) that you have evidence that parts of the relevant documented procedure were not applied correctly or your marks were not calculated correctly and this procedural defect was significant enough to have materially affected the decision, making it unsound;
(c) that the Board of Examiners or other decision making body or Officer took a decision which was not reasonable in all the circumstances.
1.4 The student must clearly state the grounds for appeal, giving detailed reasons and providing evidence, where applicable, to support their case. Any evidence submitted to support an appeal must be written in English, or, if in another language, accompanied by a certified translation.
1.5 The University reserves the right to carry our checks on the authenticity of documents provided as part of an appeal. Provision of fraudulent documentation is a disciplinary offence, and any student deemed to have submitted fraudulent documentation, or to have made fraudulent claims, may be subject to disciplinary measures under the General Regulations.
1.6 Details of the submission process for Faculty Academic Appeals and links to the appropriate online submission system / Word templates can be found at Faculty Academic Appeals - Durham University.
Reviewing a Faculty Academic Appeal
1.7 The appeal will be reviewed by a Head of Faculty, a Deputy to the Head of Faculty, or another senior member of academic staff nominated by the Head or Deputy (hereafter known as the Reviewer).The Reviewer will be from a department other than that of the student, and will not have been responsible for the decision being appealed.
1.8 Once the Faculty Appeal submission has been received the Reviewer shall be responsible for considering the appeal, and will normally do so within 42 calendar days of receipt.
1.9 The Reviewer will make an initial assessment about whether the appeal should be rejected, withdrawn (and dealt with via another process) or accepted.
1.10 Appeals can be rejected for the following reasons:
(a) if the appeal is considered to be clearly against an academic judgement alone, the Reviewer may reject the appeal as misconceived;
(b) if the appeal is submitted after the 21-day deadline without good justification, the Reviewer may reject the appeal as out of time;
(c) if the outcome requested by the student is not permissible under the Core or other Regulations of the University (and there is no suitable alternative outcome which could be considered) the Reviewer may reject the appeal as not permissible.
Rejected appeals will not be investigated further. The student (and other relevant parties, as outlined in 1.16, below) will be informed of the appeal outcome. If a student believes that the rejection was not appropriate, they may make a Senate Academic Appeal.
1.11 Appeals can be withdrawn for the following reasons:
(a) if it is considered appropriate, the Reviewer may treat an appeal as if it were an application for a concession. If the appeal is treated as a concession, the appeal will be deemed to be withdrawn;
(b) if it is considered appropriate, the Reviewer may offer the student the opportunity to submit a retrospective Serious Adverse Circumstances (SAC) submission. If the student accepts the offer and submits an SAC, the appeal will be deemed to be withdrawn.
Withdrawn appeals will not be investigated further. The student (and other relevant parties, as outlined in 1.16, below) will be informed of the appeal outcome. If a student is dissatisfied with the concession offered, or with the outcome of an SAC consideration, they may submit a new Faculty Appeal.
1.12 Appeals which are accepted will be investigated by the Reviewer. The Reviewer will consult the following, as appropriate, and receive written information from those consulted:
Faculty Academic Appeal Outcome
1.13 The Reviewer will produce a brief report on the case setting out their final decision in respect of each of the grounds on which a student has appealed. The outcome of the Faculty Appeal will either be Upheld or Dismissed for each ground that the student has used in their appeal, depending on whether the Reviewer is satisfied that the grounds have been met.
1.14 If the Reviewer has concluded that all or part of the appeal is upheld, it shall be referred back to the original decision-making body for reconsideration, with recommendations for specific consideration or further action where appropriate.
1.15 If the Reviewer concludes that the appeal is dismissed on all grounds the student will be advised accordingly.
1.16 The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the student, the Head of Department and Learning and Teaching Manager in the relevant Department(s), the student’s Supervisor(s) or Course Director (if the student is a postgraduate), the Academic Quality Service, and the Head of the student’s College.
1.17 Where an appeal is dismissed, the student will also be provided with a copy of the appeal file containing all evidence considered by the reviewer when making their decision. Where an appeal is upheld, the appeal file will be available on request.
1.18 If the student is dissatisfied with the decision to dismiss the appeal, or the decision reached by the original body on reconsidering the case, or the concession offered, they may appeal to Senate Academic Appeals Committee within 14 calendar days of notification of the decision in question provided that they are able to evidence sufficient grounds for appeal as outlined in the Senate Academic Appeal process below.
Submitting a Senate Academic Appeal
2.1 A student must submit their Senate Academic Appeal within 14 calendar days of the date of the notification of the Faculty Appeal decision (or, exceptionally, if there has been a delay in providing a copy of the students faculty appeal file, within 14 calendar days after receipt of that appeal file).
2.2 If a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act is required to obtain information to support an appeal, the Subject Access Request must be made within 14 calendar days of the date of the notification of the decision to be appealed against and the appeal must then be submitted 14 calendar days from the date that the resultant information is provided.
2.3 The student may appeal on one or both of the following grounds:
(a) that you (the appellant) have evidence that parts of the relevant documented procedure were not applied correctly at the Faculty Appeal stage and this procedural defect was significant enough to have materially affected the decision, making it unsound;
(b) that there is substantial and relevant new information that was previously unknown to you, or which for a valid reason you were unable to disclose at the Faculty appeals stage and that the information is significant enough to have materially affected the Faculty Appeal decision, making it unsound.
2.4 The student must clearly state the grounds for appeal, giving detailed reasons and providing evidence, where applicable, to support their case. Any evidence submitted to support an appeal must be written in English, or, if in another language, accompanied by a certified translation.
2.5 The University reserves the right to carry our checks on the authenticity of documents provided as part of an appeal. Provision of fraudulent documentation is a disciplinary offence, and any student deemed to have submitted fraudulent documentation, or to have made fraudulent claims, may be subject to disciplinary measures under the General Regulations.
2.6 Details of the submission process for Senate Academic Appeals and links to the appropriate online submission system / Word templates can be found at Academic Appeals - Durham University.
Reviewing the Senate Academic Appeal
2.7 The appeal will be reviewed initially by a member of the Academic Quality Service (AQS) Appeals Team. The appeal may be rejected without further investigation under any of the following circumstances:
2.8 The appeal may also be rejected without further investigation under any of the following further circumstances:
Rejected appeals will not be investigated further. The student (and other relevant parties, as outlined in 2.14, below) will be informed of the appeal outcome.
2.9 If the appeal is accepted, normally within 28 calendar days of receipt by the AQS Appeals team, it shall be considered by a Senate Appeal Review Panel (SARP). The membership of a SARP will be a Senate Academic Appeals Committee (SAAC) Chair or Deputy Chair (as Chair), and a Head or Deputy to the Head of a Faculty other than the Faculty to which the student belongs.[1] The SARP will be supported by an appropriate representative from AQS acting as Panel Secretary.
2.10 The SARP panellists will receive the full file of documents considered at the Faculty Appeal stage and may additionally consult as they deem appropriate.
Senate Academic Appeal Outcome
2.11 The Senate Appeal Review Panel will consider a student’s appeal, and produce a brief report on the case setting out their final decision in respect of each of the grounds on which a student has appealed. The outcome of the Senate Appeal will either be Upheld or Dismissed for each ground that the student has used in their appeal, depending on whether the SARP is satisfied that the grounds have been met.
2.12 If the SARP concludes that all or part of the appeal is upheld, it shall be referred back to the appropriate decision-making body for reconsideration (for example, the Boards of Examiners or the Faculty), with recommendations for specific consideration or further action where appropriate.
2.13 If the SARP concludes that the appeal is dismissed on all grounds the student will be advised accordingly.
2.14 Exceptionally, if it cannot determine an outcome, a SARP may refer the case to a full meeting of the SAAC.
2.15 Where the case is upheld or dismissed by the SARP, the Secretary to the Senate Appeals Committee shall inform the student of the outcome of the Senate Appeal Review Panel in writing, normally within 10 working days of the SARP meeting, and enclose a copy of the student’s Senate Appeal file and provide a Completion of Procedures letter. The outcome of the appeal will also be communicated to the Head of Department and Learning and Teaching Manager in the relevant Department(s), the student’s Supervisor or Course Director (if the student is a postgraduate), the Academic Quality Service, and the Head of the student’s College
2.16 The student shall also be told that they may take the matter to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIAHE) in accordance with their procedures. A guideline for complaints to the OIAHE (oiahe.org.uk) will be issued with the University’s Completion of Procedure letters.
2.17 Details of the submission process for Senate Academic Appeals and links to the downloadable appeal templates can be found at Senate Academic Appeals - Durham University
3.1 A full meeting of the SAAC is normally held within 28 calendar days of the decision by the SARP that the appeal be considered by the Committee, and the student shall receive at least two weeks' notice of the meeting.
3.2 With the exception of the Chair/Deputy Chair of the Committee, any member of the SAAC who has already been involved in the matter shall not sit on the Committee.
3.3 Where considered appropriate, the student may be invited to attend the meeting, and where this is the case they shall have the right to:
(a) present their case in person, accompanied either by a member of staff of their choice (if willing) or by another registered Durham student of their choice (if willing) or by a member of staff from the Durham Students' Union (if willing);
(b) nominate a proxy, who should be a member of the University community, to attend and present the case on the student’s behalf (if willing), if the student is unable for a valid reason to attend in person. The meeting may proceed in the absence of the student or proxy provided that the Chair/Deputy Chair of the Committee considers it reasonable to do so.
3.4 The Committee shall have the power to call and seek evidence from whomsoever it judges appropriate.
3.5 Normally, those attending the Committee would include, as appropriate, the Head of the student’s College and the Head of the student’s Department, the Chair of the relevant Board of Examiners, or, in the case of a postgraduate research student, the relevant internal examiner, independent chair or supervisor(s).
3.6 At the hearing, if present, the student or their proxy shall be the first to speak to the SAAC. Anyone who is present to accompany one of the participants in the appeal may speak to the Committee only with the permission of the Chair/Deputy Chair.
3.7 All members of the SAAC considering the appeal, the appellant, or their proxy and those having the right to attend, shall receive papers relevant to the case.
3.8 The Committee shall not itself reach an independent academic judgement on the quality of academic work in any cases of appeal against decisions of examiners, but may request the appointment of fresh or additional examiners if a further opinion on the quality of a particular piece of work or works is deemed necessary.
3.9 Having considered the evidence and taken such advice as may be appropriate, the SAAC shall issue a written judgement, normally within 10 working days.
3.10 If the SAAC decides to uphold an appeal, it shall refer the matter back to an appropriate body within the University for further consideration and action.
3.11 The University will issue a Completion of Procedure letter notifying the student of SAAC’s and hence the University’s final decision on their case and of the right to complain to the OIAHE in accordance with their procedures.
3.12 The SAAC shall submit a report to Senate if an important point of principle is to be determined, or in individual cases as the SAAC judges appropriate.
[[1] If the SAAC Chair/Deputy Chair or Head/Deputy Head of Faculty is ineligible or unavailable to act in respect of an individual case, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) or nominee may designate a senior member(s) of the University to serve as SARP panellist for a particular case.
[2] The University reserves the right to stay the academic appeals process pending completion of legal or other proceedings which may be relevant to the appeal.
/filters:quality(70)/prod01/prodbucket01/media/durham-university/professional-services/Academic-Appeals-Banner.png)