University College London Academic Appeals: Procedure, Grounds, Deadlines and Solicitor-Led Support

A University College London academic appeal asks UCL to review a formal decision made by a Board of Examiners or a body responsible for research degrees. The decision may concern marks, progression, degree classification, a final award, doctoral upgrade or a viva outcome.

Students must normally submit a Stage One appeal within 10 working days of receiving the formal decision. The appeal must also satisfy one or more grounds recognised by UCL and include all evidence that the student wants the University to consider.

A student cannot normally appeal simply because they disagree with a mark, feedback or an examiner’s academic judgement. (ucl.ac.uk)

This guide reflects the UCL Academic Manual 2025–26 and related procedures publicly available on 20 July 2026. The University may update its policies, forms and submission routes. Students should therefore check the current version that applies to their academic year, programme and decision before taking action. (ucl.ac.uk)

Solicitor-led academic appeals, complaints and misconduct defence

Ginkgo Advisory provides strategic advice, drafting and representation for students at University College London and other UK universities.

Our support is confidential, independent and tailored to the individual case.

Assistance can begin with an initial case assessment and continue through to the final written submission. Where the relevant UCL procedure permits it, we can also provide representation.

For a University College London academic appeal, our solicitor-led service may include:

• Assessing the appeal grounds, deadline and prospects.
• Reviewing formal results, decision letters and relevant UCL regulations.
• Analysing medical, academic, digital and procedural evidence.
• Drafting a Stage One academic appeal.
• Preparing a Stage Two appeal review.
• Addressing previously undisclosed extenuating circumstances.
• Analysing a material procedural irregularity.
• Preparing allegations of examiner bias or unfairness.
• Advising doctoral students on upgrade, progression, thesis and viva decisions.
• Drafting an appeal under the Academic Insufficiency Procedure.
• Preparing student complaints and complaint reviews.
• Responding to plagiarism, collusion and contract-cheating allegations.
• Defending allegations involving ChatGPT or other generative AI tools.
• Preparing students for investigatory vivas, academic misconduct panels and disciplinary hearings.
• Drafting an OIA complaint.
• Providing representation where the procedure allows it.

No adviser can guarantee an outcome. However, early professional advice can reduce mistakes involving grounds, deadlines, evidence and requested remedies.

University College London academic appeal deadlines

Procedure	Normal deadline or timeframe
Stage One academic appeal	Within 10 working days of formal notification of the decision
Stage One eligibility review	Normally within 10 working days of submission
Stage One substantive decision	Normally within 20 working days after the appeal is found eligible
Stage Two appeal review	Within 10 working days of the Stage One outcome
Stage Two eligibility review	Normally within 10 working days of the review request
Stage Two substantive decision	Normally within 20 working days after the review is found eligible
Extenuating circumstances claim	Normally no later than one week, or five working days, after the first affected assessment
Review of an extenuating circumstances decision	Within two weeks of the EC decision
Formal student complaint	No later than three months after the relevant event
Overall student complaint process	Normally completed within 60 working days
Stage Two complaint review	Within 10 working days of the Stage One complaint outcome
Appeal against suspension or termination for academic insufficiency	Within 10 working days of formal notification
Academic misconduct appeal	Within 10 working days of the formal outcome
Non-academic disciplinary appeal	Within 10 working days of the written decision
OIA complaint	Within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter

UCL states that Stage One and Stage Two academic appeals will each normally take around 30 working days. This generally includes an eligibility review of approximately 10 working days and substantive consideration of approximately 20 working days. Complex cases may take longer, and the University should explain any delay. (ucl.ac.uk)

What is a University College London academic appeal?

An academic appeal is a formal procedure.

A student may ask UCL to review a decision made by a Board of Examiners or another academic body responsible for postgraduate research matters.

The decision may concern:

• An examination or coursework mark.
• A module result.
• Progression to the next academic year.
• A resit or reassessment arrangement.
• A degree classification.
• A final degree or award.
• An MPhil-to-PhD upgrade decision.
• A postgraduate research progression outcome.
• A doctoral thesis examination result.
• A viva voce examination result.
• The award of a research degree.

The procedure applies to current students. Recent graduates may also appeal within 10 working days of receiving the formal decision. (ucl.ac.uk)

Can a student appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

UCL will not normally consider the following under the ordinary academic appeals procedure:

• A provisional mark that a Board of Examiners has not confirmed.
• An informal result.
• An outcome from an interim Board of Examiners.
• A tutor’s informal view about a likely result.
• A predicted classification shown by a degree calculator.
• A research-degree decision that has not yet been formally confirmed.

The student should first confirm that they have received a formal decision.

However, seeking clarification from the department does not automatically pause the 10-working-day appeal deadline. Students should protect the formal deadline while waiting for a reply. (ucl.ac.uk)

What is academic judgement?

Academic judgement means a professional academic evaluation made by an examiner, marker or academic body.

For example, the following arguments will not normally support an appeal on their own:

• “My work deserved a higher mark.”
• “The examiner misunderstood my argument.”
• “The feedback was too harsh.”
• “Another student achieved a better result.”
• “My mark was only slightly below the next classification.”
• “Another marker might have awarded more marks.”
• “My supervisor thought I would receive a higher result.”
• “My thesis should have passed.”

A difference between the student’s expectations and the academic outcome does not automatically show a procedural error or examiner bias.

However, a student may challenge the process through which the academic decision was reached.

For example, UCL may have applied the wrong regulation, omitted a mark or failed to carry out the required moderation. In that situation, the appeal should challenge the procedure rather than ask the University to replace the examiner’s academic opinion with another one. (ucl.ac.uk)

What are the valid University College London academic appeal grounds?

UCL currently recognises three principal appeal grounds:

1. Circumstances that seriously affected academic performance were not submitted to an Extenuating Circumstances Panel, and the student has compelling reasons for not disclosing them on time.
2. A procedural irregularity occurred in the assessment process, and the issue could not be resolved informally or through the Material Irregularities procedure.
3. Substantive evidence shows that one or more examiners were biased or unfair towards the student in a specific assessment. (ucl.ac.uk)

A student may rely on one or more grounds.

However, the written submission must explain clearly how each important fact satisfies the selected ground.

Ground One: previously undisclosed circumstances

A student may rely on the first ground where illness, mental health difficulties or other serious circumstances materially affected academic performance.

However, UCL normally expects students to use the Short-term Illness and Extenuating Circumstances procedure when the problem arises.

A retrospective appeal must therefore show that:

• The circumstances occurred.
• They materially affected a specific assessment or decision.
• The student had compelling reasons for not disclosing them on time.
• Independent evidence supports the reason for non-disclosure.

UCL states that medical or other circumstances that should have been reported when they occurred will not normally receive fresh consideration through an academic appeal. (ucl.ac.uk)

Relevant circumstances may include:

• Serious physical illness.
• An acute mental health crisis.
• Hospital admission or emergency treatment.
• Bereavement.
• A family crisis.
• Trauma.
• A serious change in personal circumstances.
• A sudden deterioration in a disability or long-term health condition.
• Another significant event outside the student’s control.

However, proving that the circumstances existed addresses only part of the case.

The student must also explain why those circumstances prevented them from using the Extenuating Circumstances procedure.

What counts as a compelling reason for non-disclosure?

Whether a reason is compelling depends on the individual facts.

Relevant questions may include:

• Could the student understand their condition at the time?
• Did the symptoms affect communication or decision-making?
• Was the student receiving crisis treatment?
• Did an emergency hospital admission occur?
• Could the student reasonably access Portico?
• Did anyone explain the relevant procedure to the student?
• Why could the student not contact a tutor or department?
• How long did the delay continue?
• Which independent documents support the timeline?

A medical certificate may confirm that the student had depression.

However, it may not explain why the student could not submit an Extenuating Circumstances claim within the required period.

More useful medical evidence will often address the affected dates, the severity of the symptoms and how those symptoms limited the student’s ability to take action.

Ground Two: irregularity in the assessment process

A student may appeal where a procedural irregularity occurred during assessment.

However, the problem should be one that could not be resolved through informal communication or UCL’s Material Irregularities procedure.

Depending on the facts, a procedural issue may include:

• UCL entered the wrong mark.
• A mark calculation omitted an assessment component.
• The Board of Examiners applied the wrong regulation.
• Important information did not reach the Board.
• Required second marking or moderation did not take place.
• The department failed to implement approved reasonable adjustments.
• The student completed the wrong form of assessment.
• Examination arrangements differed from the formal notice.
• A late-submission penalty was applied incorrectly.
• The Board relied on an incomplete student record.
• UCL failed to follow a published assessment procedure.

The student should not simply state that the University acted unfairly.

A strong appeal should identify:

1. The rule that applied.
2. What UCL should have done.
3. What happened instead.
4. How the error may have affected the result.

Where an error could not have had any practical impact on the formal decision, UCL may conclude that it does not justify an appeal outcome. (ucl.ac.uk)

Ground Three: examiner bias or unfairness

The third ground requires substantive evidence.

The student must show that one or more examiners were biased or unfair towards them in relation to a particular assessment.

Relevant evidence may include:

• Emails showing that an examiner had prejudged the case.
• Comments unrelated to the academic quality of the work.
• An unmanaged conflict of interest.
• Inappropriate remarks about the student’s personal background.
• Adverse assessment treatment after an earlier complaint.
• Materially different treatment without an academic justification.
• An examiner’s direct involvement in an earlier dispute with the student.

A difficult relationship between the student and examiner does not automatically prove bias.

Likewise, critical feedback does not by itself establish discrimination or unfairness.

The appeal must identify specific conduct and explain how it affected the relevant assessment. (ucl.ac.uk)

Can inadequate supervision support an academic appeal?

The UCL Academic Appeals Procedure does not list poor teaching, inadequate supervision or programme-management concerns as standalone appeal grounds.

Students should raise those concerns when they occur.

Where a student waits until results have been confirmed and published before first complaining about teaching or supervision, UCL may refuse to consider the matter. (ucl.ac.uk)

Depending on the case, the student may need to consider both:

• A student complaint about service quality or supervision.
• An academic appeal about a procedural error in a later formal academic decision.

The two procedures address different issues.

Students should therefore identify the outcome they seek before selecting the route.

What is the difference between extenuating circumstances and an academic appeal?

The Extenuating Circumstances procedure addresses short-term illness, unexpected events and other serious difficulties at the relevant time.

UCL requires students to submit an EC claim through Portico as soon as possible. The normal deadline is five working days after the first affected assessment.

Where evidence is not yet available, the student should still submit the claim on time and state that the evidence will follow.

After formal results are published, the student can no longer use the ordinary EC procedure and must consider whether an academic appeal is appropriate. (ucl.ac.uk)

How can a student review an EC decision?

A student cannot request a review merely because they disagree with the academic or professional judgement of the Extenuating Circumstances Panel.

However, where a material procedural error occurred in the handling of the claim, the student may request a review within two weeks of the EC decision.

A departmental decision will normally be reviewed by the Chair of the Faculty Extenuating Circumstances Panel.

A Faculty-level decision will normally be reviewed by another designated assessor.

The review outcome should generally be issued within one week of receiving the request. (ucl.ac.uk)

Which procedure is more appropriate?

Before formal results are published, a student should usually use the Extenuating Circumstances procedure.

After publication, an academic appeal may be appropriate where serious circumstances affected the result and the student has compelling reasons for not disclosing them on time.

Where the dispute concerns only a procedural error in the EC decision, an EC decision review may be more suitable.

What evidence should accompany a University College London academic appeal?

UCL requires a complete form and all evidence that the student wants the University to consider.

Where evidence appears only at a later stage, UCL will normally consider it only if the student can explain why it could not have been submitted earlier.

The Stage One appeal should also include every issue that the student wants UCL to address. A student cannot add entirely new appeal matters at a later stage. (ucl.ac.uk)

Relevant evidence may include:

• The formal result or decision letter.
• GP records.
• Hospital and specialist documents.
• Mental health service records.
• Counselling or therapy records.
• Crisis-team documents.
• Emails sent to a tutor or department.
• Portico records.
• An Extenuating Circumstances claim and outcome.
• Reasonable adjustment documents.
• Disability support records.
• Assessment submission receipts.
• Examination arrangements.
• Mark calculations.
• Programme and module handbooks.
• Academic regulations.
• Marking and moderation records.
• Meeting notes.
• Supervision records.
• Research progress reports.
• Document version histories.
• System screenshots.
• Witness statements.
• A dated chronology.

More evidence does not automatically create a stronger case.

Each document should support a specific factual point. The student should also explain how that point satisfies the formal appeal ground.

Evidence not written in English

The UCL Student Complaints Procedure expressly requires non-English material to include an English translation prepared by a recognised translator. Untranslated evidence will not be considered.

Where an academic appeal relies on medical or other documents that are not in English, students should also confirm the translation requirements promptly. Preparing a reliable English translation will usually reduce avoidable disputes. (ucl.ac.uk)

How should appeal evidence be organised?

A clear evidence bundle is easier to review.

Students may label the documents as follows:

• Exhibit A1: formal decision letter.
• Exhibit A2: medical evidence.
• Exhibit A3: email to the tutor.
• Exhibit A4: Extenuating Circumstances claim.
• Exhibit A5: relevant programme regulation.
• Exhibit A6: reasonable adjustment document.
• Exhibit A7: chronology.
• Exhibit A8: requested remedy.

The written statement should refer accurately to each exhibit.

For example:

The medical records show that I developed severe symptoms two weeks before the assessment and received emergency treatment three days after the examination. Please see Exhibit A2.

This approach is more persuasive than submitting a large volume of unexplained material.

How should a University College London academic appeal be drafted?

An effective appeal needs a clear structure.

1. Identify the decision under appeal

State:

• The programme.
• The relevant module or assessment.
• The formal decision.
• The date of notification.
• The Board of Examiners or academic body that made the decision.

2. Identify the formal appeal ground

State clearly whether the case concerns:

• Previously undisclosed circumstances.
• A procedural irregularity.
• Examiner bias.
• More than one ground.

Avoid writing only that the University acted unfairly.

A clearer formulation might be:

This appeal relies on an irregularity in the assessment process because the Board of Examiners did not receive information about my approved reasonable adjustments before deciding my progression outcome.

3. Explain the key facts

Present the important events in date order.

A complex case may include a separate chronology. However, the main statement should remain focused on the formal appeal ground.

4. Explain the practical impact

Do not write only that the student was seriously affected.

Instead, explain:

• Which examination was affected.
• Which assessment could not be completed.
• Which procedure was not followed.
• Which information was not considered.
• How the issue may have changed the formal outcome.

5. Address late disclosure separately

Where the case concerns previously undisclosed circumstances, include a separate heading.

This section should explain:

• Why the student could not disclose the circumstances earlier.
• How long the delay lasted.
• Why the reason is compelling.
• Which independent evidence supports the explanation.

6. Cite the relevant rule

A procedural-error appeal may refer to:

• The UCL Academic Manual.
• The programme handbook.
• The module specification.
• The assessment instructions.
• Reasonable adjustment documents.
• The Extenuating Circumstances procedure.
• Research degree regulations.
• Formal University emails.

7. Request an available remedy

A student may request:

• Reconsideration by the Board of Examiners.
• Correction of an administrative or mark-recording error.
• Reconsideration using the correct information.
• Reassessment.
• Another assessment opportunity.
• Treatment of a further attempt as a first attempt.
• Reconsideration of progression or degree classification.
• A fresh doctoral upgrade process.
• A new viva.
• Reconsideration by people without a conflict of interest.

The requested outcome must fall within the powers of the relevant UCL body.

A request for the University simply to add a specific number of marks will not normally fit the academic appeal process.

How does the University College London academic appeal procedure work?

The UCL academic appeal procedure normally has two stages:

1. Stage One appeal.
2. Stage Two appeal review.

The process is primarily a written review. UCL may arrange an in-person hearing only where it considers one necessary. (ucl.ac.uk)

Stage One: submitting the academic appeal

The student must submit the Stage One Academic Appeal Form within 10 working days of receiving the formal decision.

Merely notifying UCL that the student intends to appeal does not amount to a formal submission.

The process begins only when UCL receives the completed form and relevant evidence. (ucl.ac.uk)

The form should identify:

• The date of formal notification.
• The applicable appeal ground.
• The relevant facts.
• How each ground is satisfied.
• The supporting evidence.
• The outcome sought.

The student should include every relevant issue at Stage One.

UCL does not allow a student to introduce entirely new appeal matters later in the procedure.

Stage One eligibility review

The Casework Team will normally determine eligibility within 10 working days.

UCL may reject an appeal where:

• It is late and no evidence supports a reasonable explanation.
• It challenges only academic judgement.
• It concerns a provisional or interim result.
• It does not identify a formal ground.
• It lacks evidence.
• Another procedure should deal with the matter.
• The same result has already gone through the academic appeals procedure.
• A third party submitted it without the student’s written authority.
• The case is manifestly without merit.

Where the appeal is ineligible, UCL will not continue to substantive consideration and will issue a Completion of Procedures Letter. (ucl.ac.uk)

Stage One substantive review

Where the appeal is eligible, the Casework Team will send the form and evidence to an appeal assessor in the relevant Faculty.

In some cases, an assessor within the Casework Team may consider the matter.

The review may consider:

• The student’s written statement.
• Supporting evidence.
• Relevant regulations.
• Information from UCL staff.
• Relevant information from another student or external body.

UCL normally determines Stage One appeals in writing. (ucl.ac.uk)

What are the possible Stage One outcomes?

The Stage One outcome may:

• Uphold the appeal in full.
• Uphold it in part.
• Reject it.

The University will normally issue the outcome within 20 working days after confirming that the appeal is eligible.

Where the appeal succeeds in full or in part, the outcome letter should explain what action UCL recommends.

However, the recommendation of the appeal assessor must still receive approval from the relevant Board of Examiners or postgraduate research academic body before it can take formal effect. (ucl.ac.uk)

A successful appeal does not guarantee every outcome requested by the student.

For example, UCL may agree to reconsider the case without directly changing the mark or degree classification.

Stage Two: appeal review

A student who disagrees with the Stage One outcome may request a Stage Two review.

The normal deadline is 10 working days after notification of the Stage One decision.

Stage Two is not a complete rehearing and is not an opportunity to submit the same case again.

The student may request a review only on the following grounds:

1. An administrative or procedural error occurred during the Stage One process.
2. Relevant new evidence has become available and there is a good reason why it could not have been provided earlier.
3. The Stage One outcome was not fair or reasonable on the available evidence. (ucl.ac.uk)

A Stage Two request cannot introduce an entirely new dispute.

A student may submit new evidence supporting the original appeal only where they can show that it could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

Stage Two eligibility and substantive review

The Casework Team will normally assess eligibility within 10 working days of receiving the Stage Two request.

Where the request does not satisfy a review ground, or is late without an evidence-based explanation, UCL will close the process and issue a Completion of Procedures Letter.

An eligible review will normally be considered in writing by an appeal assessor within the Casework Team who had no involvement at Stage One.

The result will usually be issued within 20 working days after the review is found eligible. (ucl.ac.uk)

The Stage Two outcome may:

• Uphold the review in full.
• Uphold it in part.
• Reject it.

The Stage Two decision ends UCL’s internal academic appeal procedure and will be confirmed through a Completion of Procedures Letter.

Can a solicitor or third party represent the student?

UCL will consider a third party submitting an academic appeal for a student only in exceptional circumstances.

The student must provide:

• Written authority.
• A valid reason for the third party’s involvement.
• Relevant identity and contact information.

UCL may withdraw the arrangement where the third party acts inappropriately.

Third-party involvement must also not delay the process. (ucl.ac.uk)

The ordinary academic appeal procedure is mainly written.

A solicitor can therefore assist outside the formal process by providing:

• Case assessment.
• Appeal-ground analysis.
• Evidence review.
• Written drafting.
• Stage Two review preparation.
• Hearing preparation.
• OIA complaint drafting.

Whether a solicitor may attend an in-person hearing will depend on UCL’s arrangements and approval in the particular case.

Does the original decision pause during the appeal?

No automatic suspension applies.

The original decision remains in effect until the appeal produces a recommendation for change and the relevant Board of Examiners formally confirms that change.

Students should not assume that submitting an appeal automatically:

• Restores registration.
• Suspends a withdrawal decision.
• Allows progression.
• Cancels a reassessment.
• Delays graduation.
• Changes a degree classification.
• Protects Student visa sponsorship.

Where the case involves withdrawal, suspension, failed progression or immigration consequences, the student should ask UCL to confirm the practical arrangements and obtain appropriate immigration advice promptly. (ucl.ac.uk)

Postgraduate research and doctoral appeals

A UCL postgraduate researcher may use the ordinary Academic Appeals Procedure to challenge a formal decision involving:

• Research progress.
• MPhil-to-PhD upgrade.
• Failure to upgrade.
• Research degree assessment.
• A doctoral thesis result.
• A viva outcome.
• A research degree award.
• Another formally confirmed research-degree decision.

However, the student must establish one or more ordinary academic appeal grounds.

Disagreement with the academic judgement of an upgrade panel or examiners will not create a valid appeal ground. (ucl.ac.uk)

What evidence may support a doctoral appeal?

Research-degree cases often require detailed records, including:

• Research progress reports.
• The Research Student Log.
• Supervision meeting records.
• Upgrade reports.
• Upgrade-panel documents.
• Thesis drafts and amendments.
• Viva notices and outcomes.
• Examiner reports.
• Supervisor emails.
• Medical evidence.
• Reasonable adjustment records.
• A complete dated chronology.

AI use in doctoral research

UCL requires doctoral researchers to disclose transparently any third-party and generative AI support used in research and thesis preparation.

The student remains responsible for the accuracy of the research.

Where a doctoral candidate uses AI for brainstorming, planning, structuring or producing academic work, they should make an appropriate disclosure under the applicable guidance. The precise requirements may vary by discipline and type of use. (ucl.ac.uk)

What happens after suspension or termination for academic insufficiency?

Not every suspension or termination decision follows the ordinary Academic Appeals Procedure.

Where UCL suspends or terminates a student’s studies under the Academic Insufficiency Procedure, the student must use the appeal form specific to that procedure.

The normal deadline is 10 working days after receiving the formal decision. (ucl.ac.uk)

The student may appeal on either of these grounds:

1. A material irregularity occurred in the procedure and materially affected the fairness of the outcome.
2. The approach of the Faculty Tutor or Faculty Graduate Tutor was unreasonable, and the decision was not one that could reasonably have been made in a comparable process.

A senior officer who had no prior involvement will consider the appeal.

Where the appeal succeeds, the matter may return to the original decision-maker for reconsideration. Alternatively, another person with no involvement in the original decision may make a fresh decision. (ucl.ac.uk)

Academic appeal or student complaint?

They address different matters.

Academic appeal

An academic appeal principally challenges a formal academic decision concerning:

• Marks.
• Progression.
• Degree classification.
• A degree award.
• Doctoral upgrade.
• A thesis or viva outcome.

Student complaint

A student complaint concerns dissatisfaction with:

• An action taken by UCL.
• A failure to act.
• The standard of a service.
• Teaching arrangements.
• Supervision.
• Administration.
• Communication delays.
• Facilities or resources.
• Another aspect of the student experience.

UCL defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about an action, omission or standard of service provided by the University. (ucl.ac.uk)

Some matters may include academic and non-academic issues.

UCL may transfer different parts into the appropriate procedures.

Students should identify:

• What they are challenging.
• What outcome they want.
• Which procedure has the power to provide that outcome.

University College London student complaints procedure

UCL normally expects students to attempt informal or local resolution first.

The student may raise the concern with the most appropriate member of staff, programme lead, supervisor, Head of Department or service team.

Where early resolution fails, the student may proceed to a Stage One formal complaint. The UCL complaint process ends after the Stage Two review. (ucl.ac.uk)

Student complaint deadline

A formal complaint must normally be submitted no later than three months after the relevant event.

Where the complaint is late, the student must provide independent evidence showing compelling reasons for the delay.

Recent graduates or former students should also normally complain within three months of leaving UCL. (ucl.ac.uk)

UCL normally aims to complete the complaint process within 60 working days of receiving the complaint.

Complex cases may take longer, and the University should explain the reason for any delay. (ucl.ac.uk)

Stage One formal complaint

The student must submit a completed and signed complaint form.

Merely notifying UCL that they intend to complain does not amount to formal submission.

The complaint should include:

• The matters complained about.
• Why the student is dissatisfied.
• Relevant dates.
• Local-resolution steps already taken.
• Supporting evidence.
• The impact on the student.
• The outcome sought.

The student must include every matter they want UCL to address at Stage One.

They cannot add an entirely new complaint after the process begins. (ucl.ac.uk)

Stage One complaint review

The Casework Team will normally decide eligibility within 10 UCL working days.

Where the complaint proceeds, UCL will generally ask the relevant department to provide a written response within 10 working days.

The student will then normally have five working days to comment on the factual accuracy of the department’s response.

That stage is not an opportunity to introduce an entirely new complaint.

After receiving the student’s comments, the Casework Team will normally issue a written decision within 10 working days. (ucl.ac.uk)

The outcome may:

• Uphold the complaint in full.
• Uphold it in part.
• Reject it.

The decision letter should explain the reasons and any action UCL proposes to take.

Complaints Panel

Where UCL cannot reach a sufficient decision from the written evidence alone, the matter may proceed to a Complaints Panel.

The student and relevant staff may normally attend.

The parties should usually receive the case papers at least 10 UCL working days before the meeting.

The Panel will normally issue a written outcome within 10 UCL working days after the meeting. (ucl.ac.uk)

The student may bring a “friend”.

That person must be a member of the UCL community, such as:

• A current UCL student.
• A UCL member of staff.
• A member of Students’ Union UCL.

The companion’s role is to provide emotional and moral support.

They cannot represent the student or cross-examine another participant. (ucl.ac.uk)

UCL expressly states that legal representatives cannot attend meetings under the Student Complaints Procedure. (ucl.ac.uk)

A solicitor can still provide complaint drafting, evidence organisation, outcome analysis and review preparation before the meeting.

Stage Two complaint review

The student must normally request a review within 10 UCL working days of the Stage One complaint outcome.

Disagreement with the result alone does not create a review ground.

UCL accepts the following review grounds:

1. An irregularity occurred in the procedure through which the decision was made.
2. New evidence has become available that could not have been obtained or submitted earlier.
3. The original decision was unreasonable in the circumstances. (ucl.ac.uk)

The Complaints Review Panel may:

• Uphold the original decision.
• Vary it.
• Overturn it.
• Refer the matter back to the original panel for reconsideration.

The Stage Two decision ends UCL’s internal complaints process.

UCL will normally issue a Completion of Procedures Letter within five working days of the review decision. (ucl.ac.uk)

Why must teaching or supervision complaints be raised promptly?

UCL states that where a student first raises concerns about poor teaching, inadequate supervision or programme management only after marks have been confirmed and published through Portico, the University may refuse to consider them.

Students should therefore keep records and raise issues when they occur.

Relevant evidence may include:

• Supervision meeting records.
• Unanswered emails.
• Requests for feedback.
• Programme handbooks.
• Supervision agreements.
• Research progress documents.
• Evidence showing that the student tried to resolve the matter. (ucl.ac.uk)

University College London academic misconduct procedure

Academic misconduct follows a separate procedure.

The procedure applies to:

• Undergraduate students.
• Taught postgraduate students.
• Postgraduate research students.
• In certain circumstances, former students.

It principally applies to summative assessment.

UCL uses the balance-of-probabilities standard and must give the student an opportunity to respond before confirming a penalty. (ucl.ac.uk)

UCL defines academic misconduct as any action or attempted action that may give a student an unfair academic advantage.

Possible allegations include:

• Plagiarism.
• Self-plagiarism.
• Collusion.
• Obtaining another student’s work without permission.
• Fabrication or falsification.
• Falsifying extenuating circumstances evidence.
• Using AI to generate false data or references.
• Contract cheating.
• Impersonation.
• Examination misconduct.
• Online-assessment misconduct.
• Unauthorised use of generative AI. (ucl.ac.uk)

What is poor academic practice?

UCL defines Poor Academic Practice as a lower-level academic integrity concern.

It will often arise from a lack of understanding or insufficient academic training.

A student will not normally receive a formal academic misconduct penalty for poor academic practice.

However, UCL may require the student to:

• Complete academic integrity training.
• Meet a tutor or programme lead.
• Correct the affected work.
• Receive a warning about future conduct.

The original mark will normally remain in place. (ucl.ac.uk)

Plagiarism allegations

UCL defines plagiarism as presenting another person’s work or ideas without appropriate acknowledgement.

The definition may also include using generative AI beyond the limits allowed by the assessment instructions. (ucl.ac.uk)

A student responding to a plagiarism allegation should examine:

• The specific passages in dispute.
• The original sources.
• Citations and footnotes.
• Note-taking practices.
• Drafts.
• Version histories.
• Whether the Turnitin material has been interpreted correctly.
• Whether the issue is more appropriately categorised as poor academic practice.
• Whether the student received clear referencing guidance.

Merely stating that the student did not intend to plagiarise will rarely answer specific evidence.

Collusion allegations

UCL defines collusion as unauthorised cooperation between two or more students in an assessment.

However, not every discussion between students amounts to collusion.

Important questions include:

• What discussion did the assessment instructions permit?
• What communications took place?
• Did the students share drafts?
• Did they share material that could be submitted directly?
• Where did the similar sections come from?
• Did the students use a common source?
• Which parts did each student complete independently?

Messages, file versions and cloud timestamps may become important evidence. (ucl.ac.uk)

Contract cheating and authorship disputes

Contract cheating normally involves commissioning a third party to complete an assessment, or knowingly using work that a third party was commissioned to produce.

An allegation may concern:

• Purchasing an essay.
• Commissioning a writer.
• Using an essay-writing service.
• Asking a friend to complete an assignment.
• A private tutor rewriting substantial parts.
• Using paid answers that can be submitted directly.
• Another person completing data analysis or code.
• Unauthorised third-party assistance.

The student should preserve:

• Drafts.
• Research notes.
• Payment records.
• Communications.
• File metadata.
• Version histories.
• Raw data.
• Source materials.

These records may help explain how the work developed.

AI and ChatGPT allegations

UCL uses three categories of generative AI use in assessment:

• Category One: generative AI use is not permitted.
• Category Two: limited AI use is permitted as support.
• Category Three: AI is an integral part of the assessment.

The specific assessment instructions take priority.

Students should review the programme and assessment guidance on permitted use, disclosure and citation. (ucl.ac.uk)

The UCL academic misconduct procedure also states that where a programme lead did not provide clear instructions about AI use, a student should not receive a penalty solely because evidence of AI use exists.

UCL’s student guidance advises students to limit AI use to assistance where no clear instructions exist and to ensure that the submitted work remains substantially their own. (ucl.ac.uk)

Does UCL use AI-detection software?

UCL’s published guidance states that the University does not use generative AI detectors for marking.

Where a marker has concerns, they may first speak with the student or begin a formal investigation under the relevant procedure.

An invitation to a meeting does not automatically mean that UCL has already decided that misconduct occurred. (ucl.ac.uk)

What evidence should be preserved in an AI case?

Students should preserve:

• Early outlines.
• Handwritten or electronic research notes.
• Word version history.
• Google Docs version history.
• Cloud timestamps.
• Drafts.
• Raw data.
• Original code.
• Reading materials.
• Reference-management records.
• AI prompts.
• AI-generated output.
• The student’s changes to AI output.
• AI instructions issued by the programme lead.
• Assessment documents.
• Earlier work showing a consistent writing style.

After receiving an allegation, the student should not delete, rename or alter original records.

They should also not fabricate drafts, timestamps or extenuating circumstances evidence. Falsifying evidence may itself amount to further academic misconduct. (ucl.ac.uk)

What is an investigatory viva?

Where UCL suspects contract cheating, collusion or unauthorised or undisclosed generative AI use, the Chair of the Board of Examiners may arrange an investigatory viva.

Its main purpose is to decide whether there is prima facie evidence that the work, or part of it, was not completed by the student.

The University applies the balance-of-probabilities standard. (ucl.ac.uk)

Questions may cover:

• How the student chose the research question.
• Which sources they used.
• How the argument developed.
• Why they selected a particular structure.
• How a specific passage was written.
• How the data was produced.
• How the code operates.
• Why the student reached a particular analysis.
• Whether AI was used.
• Whether drafts are available.
• How the student understands the final conclusions.

UCL will normally notify the student of the outcome and next step within five working days of the investigatory viva. (ucl.ac.uk)

Students should prepare from their genuine working process.

Memorising invented answers or creating false records may cause further harm to the case.

Departmental Academic Misconduct Panel

A more serious allegation may proceed to a Departmental Panel.

Within 10 working days of referral, the student should normally receive:

• The specific allegation.
• All relevant evidence.
• The academic misconduct report.
• A link to the procedure.
• The panel date.
• Instructions for submitting a student statement.

The written statement will normally be due at least two working days before the panel.

The Departmental Panel should generally take place within four working weeks of the student receiving the allegation. (ucl.ac.uk)

The student may bring a “friend”.

That person must be:

• A UCL member of staff.
• A current UCL student.
• A Students’ Union UCL adviser or student representative.

The person may be legally qualified but cannot attend in the capacity of a solicitor. (ucl.ac.uk)

UCL Academic Misconduct Panel

The most serious or repeated allegations may proceed to a UCL Academic Misconduct Panel.

The student will normally receive the evidence and hearing invitation.

A written statement will usually be due at least two working days before the panel.

The University generally aims to hold the panel within four working weeks of the student receiving the allegation. (ucl.ac.uk)

The student may again bring an eligible “friend”.

Even where that person is legally qualified, they cannot participate as a formal legal representative.

The student must still answer factual questions personally. (ucl.ac.uk)

What penalties can academic misconduct attract?

The outcome will depend on the seriousness of the conduct, the proportion of the assessment affected, whether the matter is repeated and the authority of the decision-making body.

Possible outcomes include:

• Requiring the student to correct the work.
• Academic integrity training.
• A mark reduction.
• Capping the assessment at the pass mark.
• A mark of zero or Grade F.
• A capped module result.
• A module mark of zero.
• Suspension.
• Exclusion from further study.
• A bar on re-registering for a UCL programme.
• No award.
• Failure of a doctoral upgrade or final examination.
• Resubmission where the regulations permit it.
• Revocation of an award already granted.

Mitigating circumstances will not normally change whether the student committed academic misconduct.

However, factors such as a first offence, an early admission, lack of intention and serious personal circumstances may affect the level of penalty. (ucl.ac.uk)

How can a student appeal an academic misconduct decision?

The student must normally appeal within 10 working days of receiving the formal academic misconduct outcome.

UCL accepts the following appeal grounds:

1. The original decision or panel procedure did not follow the regulations.
2. New evidence has become available that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
3. The academic misconduct finding was unreasonable in the circumstances.
4. Where the outcome prevents progression, suspends the student or terminates their studies, the penalty would have a material impact because of the student’s particular circumstances. (ucl.ac.uk)

Further evidence submitted after the 10-working-day deadline will not normally receive consideration unless the delay resulted from serious health difficulties.

The Academic Misconduct Appeal Chair may determine the case on the papers.

Where further consideration is necessary, UCL may arrange an Academic Misconduct Appeal Panel. A hearing should normally take place within three months of receiving the appeal notification. (ucl.ac.uk)

The appeal outcome may:

• Uphold the original decision.
• Overturn it.
• Vary the penalty.
• Refer the case to a lower-level body for reconsideration.
• Arrange an appeal hearing.

At the end of the process, UCL will issue a Completion of Procedures Letter.

Non-academic disciplinary procedure

Non-academic conduct falls under UCL’s Disciplinary Code and Procedure.

A case may involve:

• Violence or threats.
• Harassment.
• Property damage.
• Serious misconduct.
• Breaches of safety requirements.
• Other conduct affecting the UCL community.

The normal deadline for a disciplinary appeal is 10 working days after the written decision.

A student may appeal because:

• Important new evidence could not reasonably have been provided earlier.
• A procedural irregularity occurred.
• The misconduct finding was not made fairly or reasonably.
• The penalty was disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct. (ucl.ac.uk)

The original decision and penalty will normally remain in effect during the appeal.

The outcome may confirm the decision, refer the matter back for reconsideration or impose a different outcome or penalty. (ucl.ac.uk)

Can a solicitor attend a disciplinary hearing?

UCL does not normally allow legal representation in ordinary misconduct proceedings.

However, where the case proceeds to a Discipline Committee Hearing, the student may apply for a solicitor to attend.

UCL will decide the request on the individual facts and may consult UCL Legal Services.

Even where the University approves solicitor attendance, the solicitor cannot answer questions for the student or cross-examine witnesses. (ucl.ac.uk)

What happens after UCL’s internal process ends?

After Stage One and Stage Two have concluded, UCL will issue a Completion of Procedures Letter.

An eligible student may then complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, commonly known as the OIA.

The OIA must normally receive the complaint within 12 months of the date of the Completion of Procedures Letter. (ucl.ac.uk)

An OIA complaint may consider whether UCL:

• Followed its published procedure.
• Considered the evidence properly.
• Gave the student a fair opportunity to respond.
• Provided adequate reasons.
• Reached a reasonable decision.
• Implemented reasonable adjustments.
• Provided an appropriate remedy.
• Applied a proportionate penalty.

The OIA does not act as another marking body.

It will not simply replace the academic judgement of UCL’s examiners because the student disagrees with a mark.

However, where a serious procedural problem occurred, the OIA may recommend that UCL reconsider the case, carry out a fresh assessment or repeat the process correctly.

How Ginkgo Advisory can assist with a University College London academic appeal

Initial case assessment

We review:

• The formal decision.
• The date of notification.
• The 10-working-day deadline.
• The available appeal grounds.
• The evidence.
• The relevant UCL procedure.
• The outcome sought.

We then identify whether the matter is more suitable for:

• A Stage One academic appeal.
• A Stage Two appeal review.
• An Extenuating Circumstances claim or decision review.
• An appeal under the Academic Insufficiency Procedure.
• A student complaint.
• An academic misconduct response.
• An academic misconduct appeal.
• A non-academic disciplinary appeal.
• An OIA complaint.

Appeal-ground analysis

We assess whether the evidence supports:

• Previously undisclosed circumstances.
• A compelling reason for late disclosure.
• An irregularity in the assessment process.
• Examiner bias or unfairness.
• An error in the Stage One process.
• An unfair or unreasonable Stage One outcome.
• Important new evidence that could not have been obtained earlier.

Weak or irrelevant arguments can be removed before submission.

Evidence review

We can analyse:

• Whether medical evidence covers the correct period.
• Whether documents explain the academic impact.
• Whether the reason for late disclosure has independent support.
• Whether UCL followed the relevant regulations.
• Whether reasonable adjustments were implemented.
• Whether there is a mark-calculation problem.
• Whether the chronology is consistent.
• Which documents should enter the evidence bundle.
• Which documents may weaken the case.

Drafting and written submissions

We can prepare or review:

• A Stage One academic appeal.
• A Stage Two appeal review.
• A late-appeal explanation.
• An appeal involving extenuating circumstances.
• A procedural-irregularity appeal.
• An examiner-bias appeal.
• A doctoral upgrade appeal.
• A thesis or viva appeal.
• An Academic Insufficiency appeal.
• A formal student complaint.
• A Stage Two complaint review.
• A plagiarism or collusion response.
• A contract-cheating response.
• An AI or ChatGPT allegation response.
• Investigatory viva preparation documents.
• An academic misconduct appeal.
• A non-academic disciplinary appeal.
• An OIA complaint.
• An evidence schedule and chronology.

Every submission is tailored to the individual facts.

Investigatory viva and panel preparation

We can prepare students for:

• An investigatory viva.
• A Departmental Academic Misconduct Panel.
• A UCL Academic Misconduct Panel.
• An Academic Misconduct Appeal Panel.
• A Complaints Panel.
• A disciplinary hearing.
• Doctoral upgrade or viva procedures.
• Other University meetings.

Preparation may include:

• Likely questions.
• Difficult evidence.
• Clear oral answers.
• The research and writing process.
• An opening statement.
• Procedural objections.
• A realistic remedy.
• A strategy for inconsistent or adverse evidence.

Representation where permitted

Whether an external representative may attend depends on the particular UCL procedure and the University’s approval.

An eligible companion in an academic misconduct case cannot attend in the capacity of a solicitor, even where legally qualified.

Legal representatives cannot attend Student Complaints meetings.

A non-academic Discipline Committee may approve solicitor attendance in an individual case.

Even where UCL does not allow external solicitor attendance, solicitor-led drafting and hearing preparation may still provide substantial assistance.

Common mistakes in University College London academic appeals

Arguing only that the mark is too low

Academic judgement does not create a valid appeal ground by itself.

The student must identify a formal ground recognised by UCL.

Missing the 10-working-day deadline

Contacting the tutor or department does not automatically stop the deadline.

Students should prepare the formal appeal while seeking clarification.

Merely notifying UCL of an intention to appeal

A notice of intention is not a formal appeal.

UCL must receive the completed form and evidence.

Appealing a provisional mark

An informal, provisional or interim result will not normally enter the formal procedure.

Failing to explain late disclosure

Proving illness does not automatically explain why the student could not use the Extenuating Circumstances procedure on time.

Providing only a diagnosis

Medical evidence should also address dates, severity, academic impact and the student’s ability to act.

Planning to add a new ground later

UCL requires the Stage One appeal to include all relevant matters.

A student cannot add an entirely new dispute later.

Submitting evidence without explaining it

The written statement should connect every document to a specific fact and formal ground.

Repeating Stage One at Stage Two

Stage Two reviews only procedural error, new evidence or whether the Stage One outcome was unfair or unreasonable.

Waiting until results are published to complain about supervision

UCL may refuse to consider teaching or supervision concerns raised for the first time only after results are published.

Using the complaints procedure to seek a higher mark

A student complaint cannot replace an academic appeal or challenge academic judgement directly.

Attending an investigatory viva without preparation

The student’s answers may determine whether the case proceeds to a formal academic misconduct panel.

Deleting drafts or AI records

Version histories, prompts, drafts and research notes may support authorship.

Assuming an AI-detector result determines the case

UCL states that it does not use generative AI detectors in marking.

The matter should be assessed by reference to actual evidence, the assessment rules and the student’s working process.

Assuming a solicitor can attend every procedure

UCL applies different restrictions to companions, representatives and solicitors under different procedures.

Students should confirm the arrangements early.

Frequently asked questions

What is the University College London academic appeal deadline?

The normal deadline is 10 working days after receiving the formal Board of Examiners decision or equivalent academic decision.

A late appeal requires an evidence-based explanation.

How do I submit a UCL academic appeal?

The student should complete the UCL Stage One Academic Appeal Form and submit it with a full written statement and all supporting evidence.

Simply telling UCL that the student intends to appeal is not enough.

Can I appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

The relevant Board of Examiners must normally confirm the result first.

Can I appeal because I disagree with my mark?

Not on that basis alone.

The student must establish previously undisclosed circumstances, an irregularity in the assessment process or examiner bias.

What are the three UCL academic appeal grounds?

The grounds are:

• Circumstances not submitted to an Extenuating Circumstances Panel, with compelling reasons for non-disclosure.
• An irregularity in the assessment process.
• Substantive evidence that an examiner was biased or unfair in a specific assessment.

What if I did not submit extenuating circumstances on time?

An academic appeal may still be possible.

However, the student must establish compelling reasons for not using the Extenuating Circumstances procedure at the relevant time.

What is the Extenuating Circumstances deadline?

The claim should be submitted as soon as possible and normally no later than five working days after the first affected assessment.

Can I review an Extenuating Circumstances decision?

Where a material procedural error occurred, the student may request a review within two weeks of the decision.

The student cannot challenge only the academic or professional judgement of the EC Panel.

How long does Stage One take?

The eligibility review normally takes 10 working days.

Where the appeal is eligible, the substantive outcome will normally follow within a further 20 working days.

What is the Stage Two deadline?

The student must normally request a review within 10 working days of the Stage One outcome.

Can I add a new ground at Stage Two?

No.

Stage Two cannot introduce an entirely new appeal matter.

New evidence supporting the original case may be accepted only where the relevant test is met.

Does the original decision pause during the appeal?

No automatic suspension applies.

The original decision remains in force until the relevant Board formally confirms a change.

Can a solicitor draft a UCL academic appeal?

Yes.

A solicitor can assess the grounds, review the evidence, organise the chronology and prepare the written appeal.

Can a solicitor attend a UCL academic appeal hearing?

Whether an external solicitor may attend depends on whether UCL arranges a hearing and the University’s decision in the particular case.

The ordinary procedure is mainly written.

Can I complain about inadequate supervision?

A student complaint may be appropriate.

However, UCL expects students to raise the issue when it occurs. A complaint made for the first time after results are published may not be considered.

What is the UCL student complaint deadline?

A formal complaint should normally be submitted within three months of the relevant event.

Can a solicitor attend a UCL Complaints Panel?

No.

The UCL Student Complaints Procedure states that legal representatives cannot attend the relevant meetings.

Can I defend a ChatGPT or AI allegation?

Yes.

The response should address the assessment instructions, permitted AI use, disclosure requirements, UCL’s evidence and the student’s genuine research and writing process.

Does UCL use AI-detection software?

UCL states that it does not use generative AI detectors in marking.

Where a marker has concerns, they may speak with the student or arrange an investigatory viva under the formal procedure.

What is an investigatory viva?

An investigatory viva examines whether there is initial evidence that the work, or part of it, was not completed by the student.

UCL may use it in contract-cheating, collusion and unauthorised AI cases.

What is the academic misconduct appeal deadline?

The normal deadline is 10 working days after the formal academic misconduct decision.

Can a doctoral student appeal an upgrade or viva result?

Yes, where the case satisfies one or more ordinary UCL academic appeal grounds.

Disagreement with the academic judgement of the upgrade panel or examiners will not normally be enough.

Which procedure applies to termination for academic insufficiency?

The separate Academic Insufficiency Procedure may apply rather than the ordinary Academic Appeals Procedure.

Its normal appeal deadline is also 10 working days.

What happens after UCL’s internal procedure ends?

UCL will issue a Completion of Procedures Letter.

An eligible student may then complain to the OIA.

What is the OIA deadline?

The OIA must normally receive the complaint within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter.

Request a confidential case assessment

A University College London academic appeal may affect progression, reassessment, graduation, degree classification, doctoral research, thesis results, Student visa status and future study.

Early professional advice can help the student identify the correct procedure, protect the deadline and organise the evidence.

Ginkgo Advisory provides solicitor-led academic appeals, student complaints and academic misconduct defence.

Our support is confidential, independent and tailored to the facts of each case.

Assistance can begin with an initial assessment and continue through to the final written submission. Where the relevant procedure permits it, we can also provide representation.

Contact Ginkgo Advisory for a confidential assessment of your University College London academic appeal, student complaint, plagiarism allegation, AI misconduct case, doctoral upgrade or viva dispute.

Independent-service disclaimer

Ginkgo Advisory is independent from University College London, Students’ Union UCL and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

This article provides general information only.

It does not guarantee any outcome and does not replace professional advice based on the facts of an individual case.

UCL may update its regulations, procedures, forms and assessment requirements. Students should check the current Academic Manual, programme documents, assessment instructions and decision letter before acting.