University of Glasgow Academic Appeals: Procedure, Grounds, Deadlines and Solicitor-Led Support

A University of Glasgow academic appeal asks the University to review a formal decision involving marks, assessment, progression, degree classification, a final award or a research degree outcome.

Students must normally submit a complete appeal, or first submit an Intimation of Intention to Appeal, within 10 working days of receiving the formal decision. Where a student submits an Intimation first, they will normally have a further 20 working days to provide the full grounds, requested remedy and supporting evidence.

Since 13 February 2026, the University has directed College-level Intimations and full appeals through the UofG Helpdesk online form. Students should therefore not rely on old College email addresses, previous Word forms or submission instructions used by earlier students.

A student cannot appeal simply because they disagree with a mark, degree classification, feedback or an examiner’s academic judgement. Instead, the appeal must rely on a ground recognised by the University and include relevant supporting evidence.

This guide reflects the University of Glasgow’s 2025–26 regulations and procedures available on 25 July 2026. The University may update its regulations, forms, generative AI guidance and submission routes. Students should therefore check the current documents that apply to their academic year, programme and decision before acting.

Solicitor-led academic appeals, complaints and misconduct defence

Ginkgo Advisory provides strategic advice, drafting and representation for students at the University of Glasgow and other UK universities.

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

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

For a University of Glasgow academic appeal, our solicitor-led support may include:

• Assessing the appeal grounds, deadline and prospects.
• Reviewing results, decision letters and University regulations.
• Analysing medical, academic, digital and procedural evidence.
• Drafting a College-level academic appeal.
• Preparing an Intimation of Intention to Appeal and the full appeal.
• Drafting a Senate-level appeal.
• Assessing whether a Board of Examiners followed the correct procedure.
• Addressing a failure to consider medical or adverse personal circumstances.
• Preparing an explanation for late disclosure of relevant circumstances.
• Advising undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral students.
• Preparing for a College or Senate Appeals Committee hearing.
• Attending and representing a student where the regulations permit it.
• Drafting Stage One and Stage Two student complaints.
• Responding to plagiarism, collusion and contract-cheating allegations.
• Defending allegations involving ChatGPT or other generative AI tools.
• Preparing students for Exploratory Interviews and academic misconduct hearings.
• Preparing fitness-to-practise appeals.
• Drafting complaints to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

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

University of Glasgow academic appeal deadlines

Different University procedures use different time limits. Students should follow the decision letter and regulations that apply to their own case.

Procedure	Normal deadline or timeframe
Complete College-level academic appeal	Within 10 working days of receiving the formal decision
College-level Intimation of Intention to Appeal	Within 10 working days of receiving the formal decision
Full appeal following an Intimation	Within 20 working days after submitting the Intimation
Review of a College Chair’s decision that a ground is ineligible	Within 10 working days of receiving that decision
College Appeals Committee hearing	Normally within 20 working days of receiving the complete appeal
Written College appeal outcome	Normally within 10 working days after the decision
Complete Senate appeal or Intimation	Within 10 working days of the College outcome
Full Senate appeal following an Intimation	Within 20 working days after submitting the Intimation
Senate Appeals Committee hearing	Normally within 20 working days of receiving the complete appeal
Request to correct a factual error or omission in a Senate outcome	Within 10 working days of the outcome letter
Extenuating Circumstances claim	Within 5 working days after the affected examination or submission deadline
Student complaint	Normally within 6 months of first becoming aware of the issue
Stage One complaint response	Normally within 5 working days
Maximum Stage One complaint timeframe after extension	10 working days
Stage Two complaint acknowledgment	Normally within 3 working days
Stage Two final response	Normally within 20 working days
Escalation from Stage One to Stage Two	Within 6 months of awareness, or 2 months after the Stage One response, whichever is later
Appeal against a College-level academic misconduct outcome	Within 10 working days of the written outcome
Appeal against a University academic misconduct decision	Within 10 working days of the written outcome
Fitness-to-practise appeal or Intimation	Within 10 working days of receiving the decision
Full fitness-to-practise appeal following an Intimation	Within 20 working days after the Intimation
SPSO complaint	Normally within 12 months of first becoming aware of the issue

What is a University of Glasgow academic appeal?

An academic appeal is a request for the University to reconsider a formal academic decision.

The decision must come from an academic body responsible for student progression, assessment or an award. The student’s College Appeals Committee normally handles the first internal stage.

An appeal may concern:

• An examination result.
• Coursework or another assessment result.
• A course or module result.
• Progression to the next stage.
• Entry to an honours programme.
• A resit or reassessment arrangement.
• A late-submission penalty.
• A degree classification.
• A final degree or award.
• Doctoral research progress.
• A doctoral thesis outcome.
• A viva voce examination outcome.
• A research degree award.

The College Appeals Committee can review academic decisions involving progression, assessment and qualifications. Separate procedures apply to student conduct, student complaints and fitness-to-practise decisions.

Can a student appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

A student may normally appeal only a formally published decision of a Board of Examiners. A provisional mark, unconfirmed result or tutor’s view about a likely outcome will not ordinarily qualify.

Where a student suspects a mark-entry or calculation mistake, they can first raise a written enquiry with the School or College.

However, an informal enquiry does not automatically pause the 10-working-day appeal deadline. Students should protect the formal deadline while waiting for a reply.

Can a student graduate while appealing a final award?

A student who intends to appeal a final award or degree classification should not graduate before the appeal concludes.

The University states that graduation normally amounts to acceptance of the award. A student who plans to challenge the final outcome should withdraw from the graduation arrangements and wait for the appeal process to finish.

That decision may prevent the student from attending the planned ceremony with their cohort.

Before withdrawing, the student should assess:

• Whether the appeal identifies a valid ground.
• Whether the available evidence supports it.
• How long the process may take.
• How delayed graduation could affect employment, immigration status or further study.

What is academic judgement?

Academic judgement means a professional academic evaluation made by an examiner, marker or Board of Examiners.

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

• “My work deserved a higher mark.”
• “The examiner did not understand my argument.”
• “The feedback was too harsh.”
• “Another student received a better result.”
• “My mark was close to the next degree classification.”
• “Another marker might have awarded more marks.”
• “My supervisor expected a better outcome.”
• “My doctoral thesis should have passed.”

Neither a College Appeals Committee nor the Senate Appeals Committee can directly substitute its own academic judgement for that of the examiners.

Where the appeal establishes that a Board of Examiners lacked important information, the University may require the Board to reconvene and reconsider the decision. However, the Appeals Committee cannot simply add marks.

A student may still challenge the procedure surrounding the academic judgement.

For example, an appeal may arise where:

• The University applied the wrong assessment regulation.
• Required marking or moderation did not take place.
• The mark calculation was incorrect.
• Relevant information did not reach the Board.
• Approved reasonable adjustments were not implemented.

The issue is whether the University followed a fair and correct process, not whether another academic might have preferred a different mark.

What are the University of Glasgow academic appeal grounds?

The College Appeals Committee will consider an appeal only on three formal grounds:

1. The procedure was unfair or defective.
2. The academic body failed to take account of medical or other adverse personal circumstances that the student had already submitted.
3. Relevant medical or adverse personal circumstances were not submitted earlier, and the student has a good reason for the late disclosure.

The student must identify clearly which ground or grounds apply.

Ground One: unfair or defective procedure

A student may appeal where the University did not follow the correct procedure when making the academic decision.

Possible examples include:

• The University entered the wrong mark.
• The mark calculation omitted an assessment component.
• The Board of Examiners applied the wrong regulation.
• Required second marking did not take place.
• Required moderation did not occur.
• Important evidence did not reach the Board.
• The School failed to implement approved reasonable adjustments.
• The student received incorrect examination instructions.
• Examination arrangements differed from the formal notice.
• A first attempt was incorrectly recorded as a resit.
• A late-submission penalty was applied incorrectly.
• The academic body relied on incomplete information.
• The University failed to manage a conflict of interest.
• Comparable students received materially different procedural treatment.

Identifying an error is not enough by itself.

A strong appeal should also explain:

1. Which regulation or procedure applied.
2. What the University should have done.
3. What happened instead.
4. Why the error may have changed the outcome.

A student alleging procedural unfairness should provide written statements or formal documents. Board minutes, programme handbooks, assessment instructions and University emails may all become relevant evidence.

Ground Two: failure to consider previously submitted medical or personal circumstances

A student may have submitted medical evidence, Extenuating Circumstances or other adverse personal circumstances in line with the University’s procedures.

However, the Board of Examiners may have:

• Failed to receive the information.
• Failed to consider it correctly.
• Misunderstood the relevant dates.
• Overlooked an important document.
• Applied the wrong test.
• Failed to apply an accepted EC outcome to the relevant assessment.
• Failed to explain how it treated the circumstances.

An appeal should not merely state:

“The University rejected my Extenuating Circumstances, so the result was unfair.”

Instead, the student should identify:

• What information they submitted.
• When they submitted it.
• Which department or body had responsibility for it.
• Whether the Board received it.
• How the outcome letter dealt with it.
• Which material point was overlooked or misunderstood.
• How that failure may have affected the formal outcome.

The appeal regulations allow a student to challenge an academic body’s failure to consider medical or adverse personal circumstances submitted under the University’s assessment rules.

Ground Three: previously undisclosed medical or adverse personal circumstances

A student may also rely on medical or adverse personal circumstances that were not submitted earlier.

However, the student must provide a good reason for not disclosing the circumstances through the ordinary process.

Relevant circumstances may include:

• Serious physical illness.
• An acute mental health crisis.
• Hospital admission or emergency treatment.
• Bereavement.
• A family crisis.
• Trauma.
• Being a victim of crime.
• Serious legal difficulties.
• A sudden deterioration in a long-term health condition.
• Another major event outside the student’s control.

The student must address two separate matters.

First, did the circumstances affect a specific assessment?

Second, why did the student not notify the University at the correct time?

Evidence of illness does not automatically show that the student could not use the University process.

The written appeal should therefore explain:

• When the circumstances began.
• When the symptoms or event became severe.
• Which assessments were affected.
• Whether the student could communicate.
• Whether the student understood that action was required.
• Whether they could access the University’s systems.
• Whether they could contact the School or supervisor.
• How long the inability to act continued.
• When the student became able to manage the matter.

The University’s appeal form requires the student to explain which exceptional circumstances prevented timely notification.

What counts as a good reason for late disclosure?

Whether a reason is sufficient depends on the facts.

Potentially relevant circumstances may include:

• Emergency medical treatment or hospital admission.
• Severe mental health symptoms affecting judgement or communication.
• Loss of capacity to manage ordinary affairs.
• Acute trauma preventing the student from understanding or using the process.
• Reasonable reliance on incorrect guidance from University staff.
• A disability or cognitive difficulty that directly prevented timely action.
• Another exceptional circumstance supported by independent evidence.

The following explanations may be weak when used alone:

• The student did not know about the procedure.
• The student did not believe the issue would affect the result.
• The student did not want to disclose private information.
• The student felt embarrassed.
• The student wanted to wait for the result.
• The student was busy with other matters.

A persuasive case should connect the explanation for delay to medical or other independent evidence.

Can a chronic condition support an appeal?

The University’s medical and personal circumstances process principally addresses sudden illness or adverse events.

A long-term, chronic or continuing condition should normally be managed through disability support, reasonable adjustments and ongoing study support. The University will not speculate about the result a student might have achieved without a chronic condition.

However, a sudden and serious acute episode of a long-term condition may still amount to Extenuating Circumstances.

The student should explain:

• Their usual condition.
• The date of the acute episode.
• How the symptoms materially worsened.
• The effect on a particular assessment.
• Why existing adjustments did not address the sudden episode.

What is the difference between Extenuating Circumstances and an academic appeal?

The Extenuating Circumstances procedure allows students to report a sudden illness or serious event during the assessment period.

A student must normally submit the EC claim within five working days after the affected examination or coursework deadline. A late claim may receive consideration only where the circumstances themselves prevented timely submission.

For 2025–26, the EC process has two stages:

• Stage One: Student and Academic Services assesses the seriousness and duration of the circumstances.
• Stage Two: The student’s College decides the academic outcome for the affected assessment.

A student must use the reconsideration process issued by Student and Academic Services to challenge a Stage One decision. A student may challenge a Stage Two decision through the academic appeal process.

Extenuating Circumstances do not lead directly to a higher mark or degree classification.

Where the University accepts the circumstances, possible outcomes may include:

• Allowing the student to complete the assessment later.
• Treating a later attempt as a first attempt.
• Arranging a special examination.
• Adjusting the completion timetable.
• Excluding a materially affected assessment result from consideration.

The University will not speculate about the mark the student might have achieved without the circumstances.

What evidence should accompany a University of Glasgow academic appeal?

The student must provide all material required for the appeal within the relevant deadline.

The appeal form should identify:

• The decision under appeal.
• Every appeal ground.
• The remedy sought.
• All relevant supporting evidence.

The University will not normally accept additional grounds or documents later unless the Chair exercises discretion to allow them.

Relevant evidence may include:

• The formal result or decision letter.
• GP records.
• Hospital or specialist reports.
• Mental health service records.
• Statements from a counsellor or therapist.
• Hospital admission and discharge documents.
• Police or court records.
• Bereavement documents.
• Emails to a supervisor or School.
• An Extenuating Circumstances claim and outcome.
• Disability support records.
• A Study Support Plan.
• Reasonable adjustment documents.
• Assessment submission receipts.
• Examination notices.
• Mark calculations.
• Programme and course handbooks.
• University assessment regulations.
• Board of Examiners minutes.
• Supervision meeting records.
• Research progress reports.
• Document version histories.
• System screenshots.
• Independent witness statements.
• A dated chronology.

What should medical evidence include?

Where the student relies on medical circumstances, the University expects a medical report from a GP or hospital consultant.

The report should address:

• The nature of the health problem.
• Its severity.
• Its duration.
• The dates affected.
• Its likely effect on academic performance.

Where late disclosure is also in issue, the report should ideally explain whether the symptoms affected the student’s:

• Ability to communicate.
• Judgement.
• Concentration.
• Ability to manage administrative tasks.
• Ability to seek help.
• Ability to use the University reporting process.

A short letter that names a diagnosis but does not address timing or functional impact may not provide enough support.

What evidence supports non-medical personal circumstances?

Where a student relies on another adverse personal circumstance, they should provide an independent written statement where possible.

The statement should explain:

• What happened.
• The relevant dates.
• How long the circumstances continued.
• Their seriousness.
• How the witness knows the facts.
• The likely effect on study or assessment.

A statement from a friend or family member may help. However, where evidence is available from a doctor, counsellor, police service, court or another independent organisation, the student should normally prioritise the more independent document.

Evidence not written in English

Where medical records, police documents or other evidence are not in English, the student should provide a reliable English translation.

Ideally, the translation should:

• Come from an independent professional.
• Identify the translator and their qualifications.
• Confirm that the translation is complete and accurate.
• Accompany the original document.
• Preserve the original dates and document references.

Students should not submit only their own English summary while omitting the original document and professional translation.

How should appeal evidence be organised?

A clear evidence schedule helps the Appeals Committee understand the case.

Students may use labels such as:

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

The written submission should refer to each exhibit at the relevant point.

For example:

The medical report confirms that I developed severe symptoms two weeks before the examination and that those symptoms affected my communication and decision-making abilities. Please see Exhibit A2.

This method is more effective than uploading a large collection of unexplained documents.

How should a University of Glasgow academic appeal be drafted?

An effective appeal should remain clear, precise and evidence-based.

1. Identify the decision under appeal

State:

• The programme.
• The course or assessment.
• The decision.
• The publication date.
• The body that made the decision.
• When the student received notification.

2. Identify the formal appeal ground

State clearly whether the appeal relies on:

• An unfair or defective procedure.
• Failure to consider previously submitted medical or adverse personal circumstances.
• Previously undisclosed relevant circumstances and a good reason for the delay.
• More than one ground.

Avoid writing only:

“The University’s decision was unfair.”

A clearer formulation might be:

This appeal relies on a procedural defect because the Board of Examiners did not receive my approved reasonable adjustments and Extenuating Circumstances information before deciding my progression outcome.

3. Set out the key facts in date order

Use short paragraphs to explain:

• What happened.
• When it happened.
• What action the student took.
• How the University responded.
• Which assessment or decision was affected.

A separate chronology may help in a complex case.

4. Explain the material impact

The procedural error or personal circumstances must connect to the formal decision.

The student should explain how the issue may have affected:

• An examination.
• Coursework.
• An overall course result.
• Progression.
• A degree classification.
• A doctoral thesis.
• A viva.
• A research degree outcome.

5. Address late disclosure separately

Where the student did not submit Extenuating Circumstances on time, the appeal should include a separate heading.

That section should explain:

• Why the student could not act in time.
• How long the inability to act lasted.
• When the student became able to manage the matter.
• Why the delay was not a personal choice.
• Which independent evidence supports the explanation.

6. Cite the relevant regulations

A procedural appeal may refer to:

• The University’s Code of Assessment.
• The programme handbook.
• Course or module instructions.
• Marking and moderation rules.
• Reasonable adjustment documents.
• The Extenuating Circumstances procedure.
• Research degree regulations.
• Formal University correspondence.

7. Request a remedy that the University can provide

Possible remedies may include:

• Reconvening the Board of Examiners.
• Requiring the Board to reconsider the case with the complete information.
• Correcting a mark-entry or calculation error.
• Providing a fresh assessment opportunity.
• Treating a further attempt as a first attempt.
• Reconsidering progression.
• Reconsidering the degree classification.
• Repeating a doctoral progression process.
• Referring the case to a newly constituted committee.
• Requiring a decision-maker without a conflict of interest to reconsider the case.

The College Appeals Committee can provide a fair remedy or refer the matter back to the relevant academic body. It cannot directly overturn academic judgement.

How does the University of Glasgow academic appeal procedure work?

The internal process normally has two levels:

1. The College Appeals Committee.
2. The Senate Appeals Committee.

A student cannot normally bypass the College level and submit an ordinary academic appeal directly to Senate.

Step One: consider informal resolution

Before submitting a formal appeal, the University encourages students to contact:

• Their Adviser of Studies.
• A tutor.
• A supervisor.
• A course coordinator.
• College administrative staff.

Students may also seek support from the Students’ Representative Council Advice Centre.

Informal resolution may help with:

• A mark-entry error.
• A calculation issue.
• A misunderstanding of the regulations.
• Missing information.
• An administrative problem that the School can correct immediately.

However, informal discussions do not pause the formal deadline.

Step Two: submit an Intimation through UofG Helpdesk

The student must take action within 10 working days of receiving the formal decision.

They may:

• Submit the complete appeal within 10 working days; or
• Submit an Intimation of Intention to Appeal within 10 working days.

Where the student submits an Intimation first, they must submit the complete appeal within a further 20 working days. The full appeal should contain every ground, requested remedy and supporting document.

Since 13 February 2026, students have submitted College-level Intimations and complete appeals through the UofG Helpdesk form.

Can a student request an extension?

A student may request one, but the University will not grant it automatically.

The request should explain:

• Why the student cannot submit in time.
• When the relevant circumstances began.
• How the circumstances prevented action.
• Which steps the student has already taken.
• How much extra time they seek.
• Which formal decision they intend to appeal.

The University will normally grant an extension only where serious illness or another exceptional and relevant circumstance genuinely prevented timely submission.

It may also consider whether the student acted promptly by booking a medical appointment, obtaining representation, requesting records or beginning to prepare the case.

Step Three: eligibility review by the College Chair

The Chair of the College Appeals Committee will first decide whether the student has identified one or more eligible grounds.

Where the case relies on previously undisclosed medical or personal circumstances, the Chair will also decide whether the student has shown a good reason for not disclosing them earlier.

Where the Chair decides that a ground is ineligible, the University should notify the student and explain why.

The student will normally have 10 working days to request a Senate review of that eligibility decision through the Appeal Review Form.

Step Four: written determination or a full hearing

Where the documents are sufficient, the College Appeals Committee may determine the case without a hearing.

The Committee may:

• Reject the case.
• Decide that the appeal is late.
• Decide that no valid ground has been identified.
• Decide that the evidence could have been submitted earlier.
• Refer the matter back to the Board of Examiners.
• Arrange a full hearing.

The University makes clear that arranging a hearing does not mean the student has already proved the appeal.

College Appeals Committee hearing

Where a hearing is required, the College Appeals Committee will normally meet within 20 working days of receiving the complete appeal.

The student will normally:

• Receive the case papers around 10 working days before the hearing.
• Receive formal notice at least 5 working days before the meeting.
• Receive the names of Committee members and other attendees.
• Have an opportunity to present the case and respond.

The hearing will take place in private and remain confidential.

The University will not accept an unauthorised electronic recording as evidence. Students must not record the hearing without permission.

Can a solicitor attend a University of Glasgow academic appeal hearing?

The University’s academic appeal regulations are relatively clear.

A student may be accompanied, assisted or represented by:

• A parent or guardian.
• Another student.
• A friend.
• An SRC Advice Centre adviser.
• A University member of staff.
• Any other person.

A solicitor may therefore act as an “other person” and assist or represent the student at a College or Senate academic appeal hearing.

The student must normally provide the representative’s name to the Committee Clerk at least 10 working days before the hearing.

At a College hearing, the student and representative may:

• Make an opening statement.
• Ask questions through the Chair.
• Respond to questions from the Committee.
• Make a closing statement.
• Allow the representative to make the final statement where appropriate.

Questions will normally be directed through the Chair.

What can the College Appeals Committee decide?

The College Appeals Committee may:

• Reject the appeal.
• Find that no procedural unfairness occurred.
• Find that the University properly considered the personal circumstances.
• Find that the new information could have been submitted earlier.
• Find that the information was not materially relevant to the decision.
• Refer the matter back to the Board of Examiners.
• Refer it to another appropriate academic body.
• Uphold the appeal and provide another fair remedy that does not overturn academic judgement.

The University should normally issue the written outcome to the student and representative within 10 working days of the decision.

How can a student appeal to Senate?

A student who disagrees with the College Appeals Committee outcome may be able to submit a further appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee.

Within 10 working days of the College outcome, the student must:

• Submit the complete Senate appeal; or
• Submit an Intimation of Intention to Appeal.

The student should send the Senate Intimation or complete appeal to the Senate appeals team.

Where the student submits an Intimation first, they must provide the full appeal, all grounds, requested remedy and evidence within a further 20 working days.

What are the Senate appeal grounds?

A student may challenge the College outcome only on one or more of these grounds:

1. Important new evidence exists and could not reasonably have been provided at the College stage.
2. A procedural defect occurred in the College appeal process.
3. The College outcome was manifestly unreasonable.

The student must analyse the College outcome directly.

Repeating the original College appeal will not, by itself, establish a Senate ground.

New evidence

The student should explain:

• What the new evidence is.
• When they obtained it.
• Why it matters.
• Why they could not obtain or submit it at College level.
• How it may have affected the outcome.

Defect in the College procedure

Possible examples include:

• Incorrect Committee composition.
• Participation by a person with a conflict of interest.
• Failure to provide the documents in time.
• Failure to give the student a reasonable opportunity to respond.
• Refusal to hear a relevant witness.
• Failure to address a formal appeal ground.
• Failure to follow the College Appeals Committee procedure.

Manifestly unreasonable College outcome

The student must explain how the College Committee went wrong.

For example, it may have:

• Ignored a central document.
• Misinterpreted the evidence in an obvious way.
• Considered an irrelevant matter.
• Failed to consider a relevant matter.
• Reached an outcome that no reasonable committee could have reached.

Disagreement with the decision does not make it manifestly unreasonable.

Senate hearing and representation

Where Senate decides to hold a full hearing, the Committee will normally meet within 20 working days of receiving the complete appeal.

The student may be accompanied, assisted or represented by a parent, friend, SRC adviser, University member of staff or any other person.

The student must normally provide the representative’s name at least 10 working days before the hearing.

The Senate Appeals Committee may:

• Reject the appeal.
• Find that the new evidence could have been submitted at College level.
• Find that the College procedure was not defective.
• Find that the College decision was not manifestly unreasonable.
• Refer the case back to the Board of Examiners.
• Refer the matter back to the College Appeals Committee.
• Require a newly constituted College Committee to consider the case.
• Provide another fair remedy that does not overturn academic judgement.

Where the student believes the Senate outcome contains a factual error or omission, they should normally contact the University within 10 working days of the outcome letter.

Does the original decision pause during the appeal?

Submitting an appeal does not automatically suspend the original decision.

Students should not assume that the appeal automatically:

• Restores registration.
• Permits progression.
• Cancels a resit.
• Reverses withdrawal.
• Changes a degree classification.
• Delays all academic consequences.
• Protects Student visa sponsorship.

The student should ask the School or College whether they must continue preparing for a resit, submitting work or completing another requirement during the appeal.

Where the decision may affect immigration status, the student should obtain independent immigration advice promptly.

Postgraduate research and doctoral appeals

The College and Senate academic appeal procedures also apply to postgraduate researchers.

A doctoral student may appeal a formal decision involving:

• Research progress.
• Registration status.
• An MPhil-to-PhD upgrade.
• Termination of research.
• The doctoral thesis outcome.
• The viva procedure.
• The research degree award.
• Another formal progression, assessment or award decision.

A PGR appeal may require:

• Research progress reports.
• Supervision meeting records.
• Research plans.
• Upgrade documents.
• The doctoral thesis.
• Thesis amendment records.
• Examiner reports.
• Viva notices and records.
• Medical evidence.
• Reasonable adjustment documents.
• The PGR Code of Practice.
• A complete chronology.

The University’s PGR Code of Practice sets out the framework for postgraduate researcher support, supervision, progression and research-degree administration.

Can an appeal secure another thesis submission opportunity?

A student should not assume so.

Where examiners follow the correct procedure and recommend rejecting a doctoral thesis, or permitting resubmission only for a lower degree, neither the College Appeals Committee nor Senate can simply overturn that academic judgement and grant another PhD submission opportunity.

Where the concern is that the School or supervisor failed to provide the supervision and support required by the PGR Code of Practice, the student should normally use the complaints procedure.

That does not mean a doctoral student can never appeal.

A valid academic appeal may still arise where:

• A procedural defect affected the thesis or viva process.
• The academic body failed to consider properly submitted medical circumstances.
• Previously undisclosed circumstances affected the examination and the student has a good reason for the late disclosure.

Should inadequate supervision be appealed or complained about?

Inadequate supervision will normally fall under the student complaints procedure.

Relevant concerns may include:

• Prolonged periods without supervision meetings.
• Failure to provide feedback.
• Long delays in feedback.
• Conflicting guidance.
• Failure to arrange a replacement after a supervisor left.
• Failure to follow the PGR supervision framework.
• Failure to provide promised research support.

The University distinguishes between:

• A challenge to marks, progression or an award, which belongs under the academic appeals procedure.
• A concern about the quality of teaching or supervision, which belongs under the complaints procedure.

Where the two matters can be separated, the University may handle them under the two different procedures.

Academic appeal or student complaint?

A University of Glasgow academic appeal principally challenges:

• Academic results.
• Assessment.
• Progression.
• Degree classification.
• An award.
• Doctoral progress.
• A thesis or viva outcome.

A student complaint concerns:

• Teaching quality.
• Supervision.
• Administrative services.
• Communication delays.
• Facilities or resources.
• Failure by the University to act.
• An inadequate standard of service.
• Unfair administrative treatment.
• Failure to provide promised support.

The same matter should not normally be reconsidered simultaneously through both an appeal and a complaint.

However, where a case contains a distinct academic decision and a separate service issue, the University may handle those elements under their respective procedures.

University of Glasgow student complaints procedure

The University uses a two-stage complaints process:

1. Stage One: frontline resolution.
2. Stage Two: investigation.

A student should normally complain within six months of first becoming aware of the issue.

Where the student wishes to escalate a Stage One complaint to Stage Two, they should normally do so within:

• Six months of first becoming aware of the issue; or
• Two months after the Stage One response,

whichever is later.

Stage One complaint

Stage One suits straightforward matters that the University may resolve quickly.

The University should normally respond within five working days.

In exceptional circumstances, it may extend Stage One by up to a further five working days. The total Stage One process should therefore not normally exceed ten working days.

Where a complaint clearly requires detailed investigation, the University should move it directly to Stage Two.

Possible Stage One outcomes include:

• An explanation.
• An apology.
• Correction of an error.
• Provision of a service that should have been delivered.
• Action to prevent recurrence.
• Rejection of the complaint with reasons.

Stage Two complaint

Stage Two applies to:

• Complaints unresolved at Stage One.
• Complex complaints.
• Complaints involving several departments.
• Serious or high-risk matters.
• Cases requiring formal investigation.

The University should normally acknowledge a Stage Two complaint within three working days and provide a full response within 20 working days.

A complex case may take longer. The University should explain the delay, provide a revised timetable and keep the student updated.

Can a solicitor represent a student in a complaint?

The University accepts complaints submitted through third-party representatives.

A representative may be:

• A relative.
• A friend.
• An advocate.
• An adviser.
• A solicitor.

The student must give clear written authority. The University accepts an authorisation email sent from the student’s University email account.

A solicitor may therefore:

• Draft the complaint.
• Submit it as the authorised representative.
• Organise the evidence.
• Communicate with the complaint investigator.
• Analyse the final response.
• Prepare an SPSO complaint.

The student or representative should confirm the exact communication arrangements with the Complaints Resolution Office.

Which external body handles University of Glasgow complaints?

The University of Glasgow is in Scotland.

The usual external review body is therefore the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, or SPSO, rather than the OIA route used for many universities in England and Wales.

Students will normally need to complete the University’s academic appeal or complaints process first. The final outcome letter should explain how to approach the SPSO.

The SPSO may consider whether the University:

• Had a reasonable procedure.
• Followed the procedure correctly.
• Treated the evidence fairly.
• Gave adequate reasons.
• Made an administrative error.
• Delayed unreasonably.
• Failed to implement reasonable adjustments.
• Failed to provide an appropriate remedy.

However, the SPSO cannot remark academic work or challenge pure academic judgement.

What is the SPSO deadline?

The SPSO will not normally investigate a matter where the student has known about it for more than 12 months.

The SPSO may extend the period in exceptional circumstances. The student must provide a clear explanation, and the SPSO will decide whether to accept it.

Completion of the University’s internal procedure does not necessarily create a fresh 12-month period.

Students should therefore monitor the SPSO time limit while the internal process continues and avoid unnecessary delay.

University of Glasgow academic misconduct procedure

Academic misconduct cases do not follow the ordinary academic appeals procedure.

The principal rules include:

• The Code of Plagiarism and Academic Integrity.
• The Code of Student Conduct.

The University requires assessed work to represent the student’s own effort.

Unless the assessment expressly permits it, the work should not include:

• Plagiarised material.
• Material created by another person.
• Material created by a website, software or AI tool.
• Unauthorised collaborative work.
• Material the student previously submitted.

Possible allegations include:

• Plagiarism.
• Self-plagiarism.
• Collusion.
• Copying another student’s work.
• Unauthorised collaboration.
• Contract cheating.
• Purchasing assessed work.
• Impersonation.
• Fabrication or falsification of research results.
• Examination cheating.
• Submission of work not completed by the student.
• Unauthorised use of generative AI.
• Use of AI to create false references or information.

Plagiarism allegations

A student responding to a plagiarism allegation should review:

• The specific passages in dispute.
• The original sources.
• Citations and footnotes.
• The reference list.
• Note-taking practices.
• Drafts.
• Document version histories.
• Turnitin material.
• The University’s interpretation of the similarities.
• Whether the programme gave clear referencing guidance.

A general statement such as “I did not intend to plagiarise” will not normally answer specific evidence.

The response should explain:

• Where the similar material came from.
• Why the citation was absent or incorrect.
• Whether a note-taking mistake occurred.
• Whether the issue resulted from an unintended oversight.
• Which parts the student produced independently.
• Whether the University has overstated the extent of the issue.

Collusion allegations

Collusion normally involves unauthorised cooperation in an assessment that students should complete independently.

It may include:

• Sharing answers.
• Sharing a complete draft.
• Writing for another student.
• Editing another student’s work.
• Providing content that can be inserted directly into an assessment.
• Allowing another student to copy work.
• Jointly completing an individual assessment.

However, not every discussion between students amounts to collusion.

The response should compare:

• The cooperation permitted by the assessment.
• The communications that actually occurred.
• Whether students shared drafts or discussed only general concepts.
• Where the similar content originated.
• Which parts each student completed independently.

Messages, drafts, document histories and cloud timestamps may become important evidence.

Contract cheating and authorship disputes

A contract-cheating or authorship allegation may involve:

• Buying an essay.
• Using an essay-writing service.
• Asking a friend to complete work.
• A private tutor rewriting substantial content.
• Third-party completion of data analysis.
• Another person writing code.
• Using online answers that can be submitted directly.
• Using AI to generate substantial content and submitting it as the student’s own.

Students should preserve:

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

These records may help show how the work developed.

AI and ChatGPT allegations

The University’s basic 2025–26 position is that:

• AI-generated assessment answers and references are generally prohibited.
• A School or assessment may expressly permit specific AI uses.
• Students must follow the individual assessment instructions.
• Students must cite or disclose AI use where required.
• A student cannot submit AI-generated content as their own work.

The University has also published updated guidance for 2026–27.

That guidance uses two broad scenarios:

• AI will normally be prohibited in supervised assessment unless expressly permitted.
• Unsupervised assessment may allow transparent and limited AI assistance, but the work must remain substantially the student’s own.

However, assessments set under the 2025–26 framework continue to use the existing guidance until marking is complete. The instructions for the individual assessment remain critical.

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 edits to AI output.
• AI instructions issued by the course lead.
• Assessment documents.
• Earlier work showing a consistent writing style.

After receiving an allegation, the student should not:

• Delete records.
• Alter original files.
• Create false drafts.
• Fabricate version histories.
• Invent prompts.
• Submit false medical evidence.

Fabricating evidence may lead to a separate academic misconduct or conduct allegation.

What is an Exploratory Interview?

Where the University questions the originality of work but cannot identify a direct copied source, or suspects misuse of generative AI, the School may arrange an Exploratory Interview.

The interview may ask:

• How the student selected the topic.
• Which sources they used.
• How the argument developed.
• Why they used a particular structure.
• How a particular passage was written.
• How the data was generated.
• How the code works.
• Whether the student used AI.
• What purpose the AI served.
• Whether drafts exist.
• How the student understands the final conclusions.

The student may bring a companion. However, the companion cannot help answer questions about the content of the work.

Where the student satisfies the School that the work is their own and contains no unauthorised third-party or AI material, the assessment will proceed to normal marking.

Where concerns remain, the case may proceed under the formal academic misconduct process.

What levels of academic misconduct procedure exist?

The University may handle matters according to their seriousness.

Local or agreed resolution

This may apply to a relatively minor concern.

Level One: summary decision

It may cover:

• Plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
• Copying another student’s work.
• Improper collaboration.
• Possession of material that could be used to cheat in an examination.
• Submission of work not completed by the student.
• Breach of in-person or online examination instructions.

Level Two: committee decision

It may cover:

• Extensive or repeated plagiarism.
• Purchasing assessed work.
• Serious or repeated examination cheating.
• Attempted bribery of a marker.
• Falsification of research results.
• Serious breaches of research ethics.
• Serious postgraduate research misconduct.

A Level Two matter may lead to suspension or permanent expulsion.

Can a solicitor attend an academic misconduct meeting?

The Code of Student Conduct normally allows the student to bring:

• A family member.
• Another student.
• A friend.
• An SRC Advice Centre adviser.
• A University member of staff.

The student will usually need to present the case and answer questions personally.

There is no automatic right to legal representation. A student who wishes to bring a solicitor or another person outside the usual categories must submit a written request at least five working days before the meeting or hearing.

The University may consider:

• The seriousness of the allegation.
• The possible penalty.
• Any effect on professional registration.
• The complexity of the evidence.
• The student’s ability to understand and manage the case.
• Whether attendance would create unreasonable delay.

Where the case proceeds to a Conduct Committee or an appeal committee, the student should normally receive the meeting notice and documents at least 10 working days in advance. A written statement will generally be due five working days before the meeting.

How can a student appeal an academic misconduct outcome?

The route depends on who made the original decision.

Where a College officer imposes a penalty under the Code of Plagiarism and Academic Integrity, the student must normally appeal within 10 working days of the written decision.

Relevant grounds include:

• New evidence that could not reasonably have been submitted earlier.
• A defect in the College procedure.
• A clearly unreasonable penalty.

Where Senate Assessors or the Academic Conduct Committee made the decision, the student will also normally have 10 working days to appeal.

The grounds generally include:

• Important new evidence that could not have been provided earlier for a good reason.
• A failure to follow the procedure that materially disadvantaged the student.
• A manifestly unreasonable misconduct finding or penalty.

An academic misconduct appeal is not an ordinary academic appeal.

The student should use the Student Conduct Appeal Form and follow the submission instructions in the outcome letter.

Fitness-to-practise appeals

Students on medicine, dentistry, nursing, veterinary medicine and other regulated professional programmes may face a fitness-to-practise procedure.

A student who wishes to challenge a School Fitness to Practise Committee decision must normally, within 10 working days:

• Submit the complete appeal; or
• Submit an Intimation of Intention to Appeal.

Where the student submits an Intimation first, they will normally have a further 20 working days to provide the complete appeal.

The grounds include:

1. Important new evidence that could not reasonably have been submitted earlier.
2. A defect in the School-level procedure.
3. A manifestly unreasonable School decision.

The complete appeal should identify:

• The decision under appeal.
• Every appeal ground.
• The remedy sought.
• All supporting evidence.
• The representative or companion.

The Senate Fitness to Practise Appeals Committee will consider the appeal. The usual external review route remains the SPSO.

How Ginkgo Advisory can assist

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 procedure.
• The outcome sought.

We then identify whether the matter is more suitable for:

• A College-level academic appeal.
• A Senate appeal.
• An Extenuating Circumstances claim.
• A student complaint.
• An academic misconduct response.
• An academic misconduct appeal.
• A fitness-to-practise appeal.
• An SPSO complaint.

Appeal-ground analysis

We assess whether the evidence supports:

• An unfair or defective procedure.
• Failure to consider submitted medical circumstances.
• Failure to consider adverse personal circumstances.
• Previously undisclosed relevant circumstances.
• A good reason for late disclosure.
• A procedural defect at College level.
• A manifestly unreasonable College outcome.
• Important new evidence that was previously unavailable.

Evidence review

We can analyse:

• Whether the medical evidence covers the correct dates.
• Whether the medical report addresses severity and duration.
• Whether the evidence explains the academic impact.
• Whether independent evidence supports late disclosure.
• Whether the University followed the applicable 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.
• Whether a professional translation is required.

Drafting

We can prepare or review:

• A College-level Intimation of Intention to Appeal.
• A complete College academic appeal.
• A late-appeal explanation.
• An extension request.
• A procedural-error appeal.
• A medical-circumstances appeal.
• An appeal involving late disclosure.
• A Senate appeal.
• An Appeal Review Form.
• A doctoral progress appeal.
• A thesis or viva appeal.
• A formal student complaint.
• A Stage Two complaint.
• A plagiarism or collusion response.
• A contract-cheating response.
• An AI or ChatGPT allegation response.
• Exploratory Interview preparation documents.
• An academic misconduct appeal.
• A fitness-to-practise appeal.
• An SPSO complaint.
• An evidence schedule and chronology.

College and Senate hearing preparation

We can prepare students for:

• A College Appeals Committee hearing.
• A Senate Appeals Committee hearing.
• An Exploratory Interview.
• An academic misconduct meeting.
• An Academic Conduct Committee hearing.
• A fitness-to-practise hearing.
• Another University meeting.

Preparation may include:

• An opening statement.
• Likely questions.
• Difficult evidence.
• Clear oral answers.
• Questions to put through the Chair.
• A closing statement.
• Procedural objections.
• A realistic remedy.
• A strategy for adverse evidence.

Representation where permitted

The College and Senate academic appeal rules allow a student to receive assistance or representation from “any other person”.

Subject to the required notice, we can therefore consider providing hearing representation.

For academic misconduct or student conduct matters, solicitor attendance is not automatic. The student must make a separate request under the specific procedure.

Common mistakes in University of Glasgow academic appeals

Appealing only because the mark is too low

Academic judgement is not an appeal ground.

The student must identify a procedural defect or a failure involving medical or personal circumstances.

Missing the 10-working-day deadline

Contacting a tutor or School does not pause the deadline.

The student should submit an Intimation or prepare the complete appeal while seeking clarification.

Using an old email address or form

Since 13 February 2026, College-level appeals have gone through the UofG Helpdesk.

Using an old process may cause delay.

Appealing a provisional mark

A student may appeal only a formally published decision.

Failing to provide the complete evidence

The University will not normally allow a student to keep adding new grounds and documents.

The complete appeal should contain all available material wherever possible.

Providing only a diagnosis

A medical report should also address:

• Dates.
• Severity.
• Duration.
• Academic impact.
• The student’s ability to use the University process.

Failing to explain late disclosure

Evidence of illness does not automatically explain why the student did not submit Extenuating Circumstances on time.

Asking the University simply to add marks

An Appeals Committee cannot overturn academic judgement directly.

A more realistic remedy may involve reconsideration, reassessment or a fresh assessment opportunity.

Bypassing the College and appealing directly to Senate

The College Appeals Committee is normally the first internal level.

Repeating the College appeal at Senate

A Senate appeal must address:

• New evidence.
• A defect in the College procedure.
• A manifestly unreasonable College outcome.

Graduating before appealing the final award

Graduation will normally amount to acceptance of the award.

A student who intends to appeal should withdraw from graduation first.

Using a complaint to request a higher mark

The complaints procedure addresses service issues. It does not remark work or overturn academic judgement.

Recording a hearing without permission

The University will not accept an unauthorised recording of an appeal hearing.

Recording without permission may also create a conduct issue.

Deleting records after an AI allegation

Drafts, prompts and version histories may provide important evidence of authorship.

Deleting them may destroy useful evidence.

Attending an Exploratory Interview without preparation

The student’s first explanation may determine whether the matter proceeds to the formal academic misconduct process.

Assuming a solicitor can attend every procedure automatically

The academic appeals rules permit broad representation.

Academic misconduct and student conduct procedures require a separate attendance request.

Frequently asked questions

What is the University of Glasgow academic appeal deadline?

Within 10 working days of receiving the formal decision, a student must normally:

• Submit the complete appeal; or
• Submit an Intimation of Intention to Appeal.

Where the student submits an Intimation first, they normally have a further 20 working days to submit the complete appeal.

How do I submit a University of Glasgow academic appeal?

The student should submit the College-level appeal or Intimation through the UofG Helpdesk online form.

Can I appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

The student must normally wait for the formally published Board of Examiners decision.

Can I appeal because I think the mark is too low?

Not on that basis alone.

A student cannot appeal pure academic judgement.

What are the three College-level appeal grounds?

The grounds are:

• An unfair or defective procedure.
• Failure to consider medical or adverse personal circumstances already submitted.
• Previously undisclosed circumstances, together with a good reason for late disclosure.

What if I did not submit Extenuating Circumstances on time?

An academic appeal may still be possible.

However, the student must prove both:

• The effect of the circumstances on the assessment.
• A good reason for not using the EC process in time.

What is the Extenuating Circumstances deadline?

Normally five working days after the affected examination or coursework deadline.

Can Extenuating Circumstances increase my mark?

No.

The University will not add marks based on a hypothetical unaffected performance.

Can I submit an Intimation first?

Yes.

The Intimation must arrive within 10 working days. The student then normally has a further 20 working days to prepare the full appeal.

Can I request an extension?

A student may request one.

The University will normally approve it only where serious illness or another exceptional and relevant circumstance genuinely prevented timely submission.

How long does a College appeal take?

Where a full hearing is necessary, the Committee will normally meet within 20 working days of receiving the complete appeal.

The written outcome will normally follow within 10 working days after the decision.

Can a solicitor attend a College appeal hearing?

Yes, in principle.

The regulations allow a student to be accompanied, assisted or represented by “any other person”.

The student must normally notify the Committee at least 10 working days before the hearing.

Can I bypass the College and appeal directly to Senate?

Usually not.

The College Appeals Committee is the first internal stage for an ordinary academic appeal.

What is the Senate appeal deadline?

Within 10 working days of the College outcome, the student must normally submit the full Senate appeal or an Intimation.

Where the student submits an Intimation first, they will normally have a further 20 working days to submit the complete case.

What are the Senate appeal grounds?

The grounds are:

• Important new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided at College level.
• A defect in the College procedure.
• A manifestly unreasonable College outcome.

Does the original decision pause during the appeal?

No automatic suspension applies.

The student should ask the School about resits, registration, progression and graduation arrangements.

Can I graduate before appealing my final award?

The student should not graduate first.

Graduation will normally amount to acceptance of the award.

Can a doctoral student appeal a thesis or viva outcome?

Yes, where a formal appeal ground exists.

Disagreement with the examiners’ academic judgement will not normally be enough.

Can I complain about inadequate supervision?

Yes.

Supervision quality normally falls under the student complaints procedure.

What is the student complaint deadline?

Normally six months from when the student first became aware of the issue.

Can a solicitor represent a student in a complaint?

Yes.

The University accepts authorised complaints submitted by relatives, friends, advocates, advisers and solicitors.

Can I defend a ChatGPT or AI allegation?

Yes.

The response should address:

• The assessment instructions.
• The AI use permitted.
• Disclosure or citation requirements.
• The student’s genuine working process.
• Drafts and version histories.
• The evidence relied on by the University.

What is an Exploratory Interview?

It allows the School to investigate whether the student completed the work personally and whether unauthorised third-party or AI material was used.

What is the academic misconduct appeal deadline?

Normally 10 working days after the written outcome.

Can a solicitor attend an academic misconduct hearing?

There is no automatic right.

The student must normally make a written request at least five working days before the hearing, and the University will decide whether to approve it.

What is the fitness-to-practise appeal deadline?

The student must normally submit the complete appeal or an Intimation within 10 working days.

Can a University of Glasgow case go to the OIA?

Usually not.

The University is in Scotland, so the usual external review body is the SPSO.

What is the SPSO deadline?

Normally 12 months from when the student first became aware of the issue.

Request a confidential case assessment

A University of Glasgow academic appeal may affect progression, reassessment, graduation, degree classification, doctoral research, Student visa status, professional registration and future study.

Early professional advice can help a student identify the correct procedure, preserve 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 individual case.

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

Contact Ginkgo Advisory for a confidential assessment of your University of Glasgow academic appeal, student complaint, plagiarism allegation, AI misconduct case, doctoral thesis or viva dispute, or fitness-to-practise appeal.

Independent-service disclaimer

Ginkgo Advisory is independent from the University of Glasgow, the Glasgow University Students’ Representative Council and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

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.

The University may update its regulations, procedures, forms and assessment requirements. Students should check the latest University regulations, programme documents, assessment instructions and decision letter before acting.