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

A University of Greenwich academic appeal asks the University to review a recently issued formal decision. The decision may have been made by the Extenuating Circumstances Team, a Progression and Award Board, or an Assessment Offences Panel.

Undergraduate and taught postgraduate students must normally submit an appeal within 14 calendar days of publication of the decision. Students should submit through the Digital Student Centre and provide all main facts, grounds and evidence at the outset. (gre.ac.uk)

Postgraduate researchers follow a separate procedure. The current official webpage still lists the research-degree academic appeals policy and form effective from 2021. Doctoral students should therefore check whether an updated version has been issued before submitting. (gre.ac.uk)

A student cannot appeal simply because they are dissatisfied with a mark, feedback, degree classification or an examiner’s opinion. A challenge to academic judgement alone will not normally amount to a valid ground. (gre.ac.uk)

Solicitor-led academic appeals, complaints and misconduct defence

Ginkgo Advisory provides strategic advice, drafting and procedural preparation for students at the University of Greenwich and other UK universities.

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

Assistance can begin with an initial case assessment and continue through to the final written submission or an OIA complaint.

For a University of Greenwich academic appeal, our solicitor-led service may include:

• Assessing the appeal grounds, deadline and prospects.
• Reviewing formal results, outcome letters and applicable policies.
• Analysing medical, academic, digital and procedural evidence.
• Drafting or revising the Digital Student Centre appeal submission.
• Preparing a late-appeal explanation.
• Analysing why Extenuating Circumstances were not submitted on time.
• Addressing a failure by the University to consider evidence properly.
• Assessing whether the assessment procedure was applied incorrectly.
• Preparing Stage One and Final Review submissions.
• Advising doctoral students on research progress, upgrade, thesis and viva appeals.
• Drafting student complaints and complaint reviews.
• Responding to plagiarism, collusion and contract-cheating allegations.
• Defending allegations involving ChatGPT and other generative AI tools.
• Preparing students for an Investigative Interview or Assessment Offences Panel.
• Supporting healthcare and other professional-programme students in fitness-to-practise proceedings.
• Drafting complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

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

University of Greenwich restrictions on solicitor attendance

Most University of Greenwich internal procedures do not permit an external solicitor to participate as a formal legal representative.

The taught academic appeals policy states that internal appeal meetings are not court proceedings. It therefore treats legal representation as normally unnecessary or inappropriate.

An Academic Appeals Committee allows the student to bring a friend, supporter or Students’ Union representative. That person may usually advise the student but cannot speak in place of them. Only in exceptional circumstances may the Chair permit the supporter to make representations. (gre.ac.uk)

The research-degree rules are more explicit. A student may bring a friend, supporter or Students’ Union representative, but the companion cannot be a practising solicitor or barrister. (gre.ac.uk)

Under the assessment misconduct procedure, a student may bring a friend, Students’ Union adviser or supporter. That person may make relevant observations, ask questions and offer advice, but cannot act as a legal representative or answer questions for the student. (gre.ac.uk)

The Fitness to Practise Procedure also states that a companion cannot represent the student in the capacity of a lawyer. The student will normally need to present the case and answer questions personally. (gre.ac.uk)

Ginkgo Advisory’s work in University of Greenwich cases therefore usually focuses on:

• Case strategy.
• Appeal and defence drafting.
• Evidence organisation.
• Procedural analysis.
• Mock questioning.
• Preparation of the student’s oral submissions.
• Final Review and OIA complaints.

On-site representation would be considered only where the University separately confirms that an external person may take a wider role.

University of Greenwich academic appeal deadlines

Procedure	Normal deadline or timeframe
Taught-programme academic appeal	Within 14 calendar days of publication of the formal decision
Additional appeal evidence	A further 5 calendar days will normally be allowed
Stage One academic appeal decision	Normally within 28 calendar days
Referral to the Academic Appeals Committee	Normally arranged within 28 calendar days of referral
Academic Appeals Committee outcome	Normally within 7 calendar days after the meeting
Reconsideration by the original decision-making body	Normally within 21 calendar days after the Appeals Committee
Final Review request	Within 14 calendar days of the formal appeal outcome
Written Final Review response	Normally within 28 calendar days of acknowledgment
Extenuating Circumstances claim	Within 7 calendar days after the original assessment deadline or examination date
Postgraduate research appeal	Within 14 calendar days of notification of the formal decision
Additional postgraduate research evidence	Normally no later than 14 calendar days after submission of the appeal
Formal student complaint	Within 3 months of the relevant event
Stage One formal complaint outcome	Normally within 28 calendar days of acknowledgment
Stage Two complaint review	Within 14 calendar days of the Stage One outcome
Appeal against a Category One or Investigative Interview outcome	Within 7 calendar days of notification
AOP academic misconduct appeal	Within 14 calendar days of notification
Fitness-to-practise Final Review	Within 14 calendar days of formal notification
OIA complaint	Currently within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter

These periods come from the academic appeals, Extenuating Circumstances, research-degree appeals, student complaints, assessment misconduct and Final Review procedures. (gre.ac.uk)

As of 27 July 2026, the current OIA rules still require a complaint within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter. The OIA is consulting on reducing the period to six months, but that proposal has not replaced the current 12-month rule. Students should nevertheless act promptly and check the current deadline before submitting. (oiahe.org.uk)

What is a University of Greenwich academic appeal?

The University’s taught academic appeals procedure can challenge three types of formal decision:

1. An Extenuating Circumstances outcome.
2. A Progression and Award Board decision.
3. An Assessment Offences Panel outcome.

These decisions may affect marks, progression, reassessment rights, continued registration, degree classification or the final award. (gre.ac.uk)

The student must identify the exact decision being challenged.

For example, an effective appeal should not simply state:

My University experience was extremely difficult, so I would like the University to reconsider.

A clearer submission should identify:

• The date of the decision.
• The module or assessment concerned.
• The formal outcome.
• The relevant appeal ground.
• How the issue affected the decision.
• The remedy sought.

Can a student appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

A University of Greenwich result becomes formal only after it has been approved by the Progression and Award Board and published in the Student Results section of the student portal.

A student cannot submit a formal academic appeal while the mark remains provisional. (gre.ac.uk)

Where the issue appears to be an obvious recording or calculation error, the student may first contact the module leader or School.

However, informal correspondence does not automatically extend the 14-calendar-day appeal deadline.

The student should therefore:

• Ask the School for clarification.
• Preserve all written communications.
• Calculate the formal deadline.
• Prepare the necessary appeal documents.

What is academic judgement?

Academic judgement means an evaluation made by an academic expert using professional knowledge.

It may concern:

• The academic quality of an essay.
• Whether the student met the learning outcomes.
• The mark awarded by the marker.
• The degree classification.
• Whether feedback was adequate.
• Whether a research method was appropriate.
• Whether the work reached the pass standard.

The following arguments will therefore not normally support an appeal on their own:

• “My work deserved a higher mark.”
• “The marker did not understand my argument.”
• “My tutor expected me to receive a higher result.”
• “I spent a great deal of time on the work.”
• “I attended every class.”
• “Another student received a higher mark.”
• “My average was only slightly below the next degree classification.”
• “A different marker might have awarded more marks.”

The University expressly prevents students from appealing only because they disagree with academic judgement. (gre.ac.uk)

However, a student may challenge the procedure through which the academic judgement was reached.

Examples may include:

• An omitted mark.
• Use of the wrong regulation.
• Failure to follow the assessment procedure.
• Failure to implement reasonable adjustments.
• Incorrect information before the assessment board.
• A serious error in the assessment misconduct procedure.

Grounds for appealing an Extenuating Circumstances outcome

A student may appeal an Extenuating Circumstances outcome.

The University recognises four grounds:

1. The Extenuating Circumstances claim was rejected as late.
2. The student could not provide the evidence within the required period.
3. Evidence or information already submitted was not considered properly.
4. The University did not give reasons for the decision. (gre.ac.uk)

Late Extenuating Circumstances claims

Where the University rejected an EC claim because it was late, the student must explain why they could not submit it in time.

The appeal should address two matters.

First, what circumstances affected the assessment?

Second, why did those circumstances also prevent the student from submitting an EC claim within seven calendar days?

Evidence of illness does not automatically establish that the student could not use the University’s process.

For example, a medical certificate may confirm that the student had anxiety.

However, it may not explain how the anxiety affected the student’s ability to:

• Understand that action was required.
• Use the Digital Student Centre.
• Communicate with the School.
• Make decisions.
• Seek medical or University support.

More useful evidence should cover the relevant dates and explain the practical functional impact of the symptoms.

Inability to provide EC evidence on time

A student may also appeal because they could not obtain evidence within the original deadline.

The appeal should explain:

• When the student requested the document from the doctor or other organisation.
• Why it was not completed in time.
• Which steps the student took.
• When the evidence became available.
• Why the delay was outside the student’s control.

Where the student could have provided the material on time but failed to act, the University will not normally accept this ground. (gre.ac.uk)

Failure to consider evidence properly

Where the student submitted Extenuating Circumstances evidence but believes the University failed to consider it properly, they may identify:

• A medical letter that the decision did not mention.
• Use of the wrong dates.
• A misunderstanding of an important fact.
• Failure to address central evidence.
• Failure to apply an accepted circumstance to the relevant assessment.
• Lack of adequate reasons in the outcome letter.

Disagreement with the weight given to the evidence will not necessarily be enough.

The student should identify a specific omission, mistake or procedural issue.

Grounds for appealing a Progression and Award Board decision

The Progression and Award Board is commonly referred to as the PAB.

A student may challenge a PAB decision on two grounds:

1. Serious circumstances clearly affected assessment performance or the ability to attend an assessment, but the student did not submit an Extenuating Circumstances claim.
2. The assessment procedure was not followed, or was applied incorrectly, and this had a materially adverse effect on the final decision. (gre.ac.uk)

Ground One: previously undisclosed serious circumstances

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.
• Domestic or sexual violence.
• A sudden deterioration in a disability or long-term health condition.
• Another major event outside the student’s control.

However, the student must give a sufficient reason for not submitting Extenuating Circumstances at the correct time.

The University will not normally accept the appeal solely because:

• The student did not know about the procedure.
• The student believed they could continue with the assessment.
• The student did not want to disclose private matters.
• The student felt embarrassed.
• The student wanted to wait for the result.
• The student realised only afterwards that the result had been affected.

A strong case needs independent evidence connecting the medical or personal circumstances to the student’s inability to act in time.

Ground Two: incorrect application of an assessment procedure

The procedural error must have had a materially adverse effect on the PAB decision.

Possible examples include:

• The University recorded the wrong mark.
• A mark calculation omitted an assessment component.
• The wrong programme regulation was applied.
• A first attempt was incorrectly recorded as a resit.
• Required second marking did not occur.
• Required moderation was not completed.
• Approved reasonable adjustments were not implemented.
• The actual examination differed from the formal notice.
• The student completed the wrong form of assessment.
• A late-submission penalty was applied incorrectly.
• A placement or professional assessment did not follow the required procedure.
• The PAB did not receive relevant approved information.

“The University treated me unfairly” is not an adequate explanation.

The student should identify:

1. Which rule applied.
2. What the University should have done.
3. What happened instead.
4. Why the error may have affected the final decision.

Grounds for appealing an AOP outcome

The Assessment Offences Panel is commonly called the AOP.

A student may appeal an AOP outcome on four grounds:

1. The assessment misconduct procedure was applied incorrectly and this materially affected the outcome.
2. Important new evidence has become available.
3. The decision was unreasonable on the evidence available at the time.
4. The penalty was disproportionate. (gre.ac.uk)

Where the student relies on new evidence, they must explain:

• What the new evidence is.
• When it became available.
• Why it matters.
• Why it could not have been submitted before the AOP decision.
• How it may have changed the finding or penalty.

The student should not simply repeat the original defence.

The appeal should analyse the AOP report, evidence and reasons for the penalty directly.

What evidence should accompany a University of Greenwich academic appeal?

Most academic appeals require supporting evidence.

The University currently limits taught academic appeals to a maximum of 15 supporting documents.

All evidence must be in English or accompanied by an English translation prepared by a recognised translator. (gre.ac.uk)

Relevant evidence may include:

• The formal result or outcome letter.
• GP records.
• Hospital or specialist reports.
• Mental health service records.
• Counselling or therapy records.
• Hospital admission and discharge documents.
• Police or court records.
• Bereavement evidence.
• Emails to a tutor or School.
• An Extenuating Circumstances claim and outcome.
• A Greenwich Inclusion Plan.
• Disability and dyslexia support documents.
• Reasonable adjustment records.
• Assessment submission receipts.
• Examination instructions.
• Mark calculations.
• Module and programme handbooks.
• Assessment regulations.
• Meeting notes.
• Document version histories.
• System screenshots.
• Witness statements.
• A dated chronology.

What should medical evidence explain?

Medical evidence should not simply name a diagnosis.

A stronger report will normally explain:

• When the symptoms began.
• How severe they were.
• How long they continued.
• Which assessments were affected.
• The student’s ability to concentrate.
• Whether the student could communicate.
• Whether the student could make decisions.
• Whether the student could manage administrative tasks.
• Why the student could not use the University’s procedure on time.

Where the doctor saw the student only several months after the events, the report should explain the basis for any retrospective opinion.

The student should not ask the doctor to decide whether the appeal should succeed. The healthcare professional’s role is to explain the medical condition and its functional impact.

Non-medical evidence

Where the case involves bereavement, crime, a family crisis or another personal circumstance, evidence may include:

• Police records.
• Court documents.
• A death certificate.
• Social-work records.
• A counsellor’s statement.
• Confirmation from an employer or professional.
• Contemporaneous emails.
• Other third-party records created at the time.

Statements from friends or relatives may provide background.

However, where more independent professional documents are available, the student should normally prioritise them.

Can evidence be submitted later?

Yes.

Where a student cannot obtain the evidence by the appeal submission date, they should still submit the appeal within 14 calendar days and select the option to provide evidence later.

The system will normally allow a further five calendar days.

Where the student needs longer, they should make a request through the Digital Student Centre. (gre.ac.uk)

The student should identify:

• Which document remains outstanding.
• When it was requested.
• When it is expected.
• Why it is relevant to the appeal.

Waiting until all evidence is available may make the entire appeal late.

Do not submit false or altered evidence

The University will not accept an appeal containing false allegations or false evidence.

Where it suspects that a document, statement or item of evidence is not genuine, it may suspend the academic appeal and refer the matter to disciplinary proceedings. (gre.ac.uk)

Students should not:

• Alter dates on medical documents.
• Create false chat records.
• Fabricate emails.
• Create false drafts.
• Alter file version histories.
• Submit statements from witnesses who do not exist.
• Exaggerate the conclusion actually reached by a doctor.

How should academic appeal evidence be organised?

A clear evidence schedule helps the investigator understand the case.

For example:

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

The statement should refer to each exhibit at the relevant point.

For example:

The medical report confirms that I developed severe symptoms ten days before the examination and that they affected my ability to communicate with the University and submit an Extenuating Circumstances claim. Please see Exhibit A2.

A large number of documents does not automatically make a stronger case.

Unexplained material may instead obscure the central appeal ground.

How to draft a University of Greenwich academic appeal

An effective University of Greenwich academic appeal should remain focused, clear and evidence-based.

1. Identify the decision under appeal

State:

• The programme.
• The module or assessment concerned.
• The formal decision.
• The date of publication.
• The decision-making body.
• When the student received notification.

2. Identify the formal appeal ground

Do not write only:

I disagree with the University’s decision.

A more precise formulation might be:

This appeal relies on procedural error by the PAB because the Board did not receive information about my approved reasonable adjustments before deciding my progression outcome.

Alternatively:

This appeal relies on previously undisclosed Extenuating Circumstances. I could not submit an EC claim at the time because acute mental health symptoms materially impaired my communication and decision-making abilities.

3. Set out the 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 was affected.

A separate chronology may assist in a complex case.

4. Explain the academic impact

Do not write only that the student’s performance was affected.

Explain:

• Which examination was affected.
• Which assessment could not be completed.
• Which procedure was not followed.
• Which information was not considered.
• How the issue affected progression, reassessment or the award.

5. Address late disclosure separately

Where the student did not submit Extenuating Circumstances on time, use a separate section.

It should explain:

• When the inability to act began.
• Why the student could not submit the claim.
• How long the problem continued.
• When the student recovered the ability to manage the matter.
• Why the delay was not a personal choice.
• Which evidence supports the explanation.

6. Cite the relevant regulations

A procedural-error case may refer to:

• The Academic Appeals Policy.
• The Extenuating Circumstances Policy.
• The programme handbook.
• The module specification.
• The assessment brief.
• Reasonable adjustment documents.
• The Assessment and Feedback Policy.
• Formal University correspondence.

7. Request a remedy that the University can provide

Possible remedies may include:

• Reconsideration by the PAB.
• Reconsideration using the complete information.
• Correction of a mark-entry or calculation error.
• A new assessment opportunity.
• Treatment of the reassessment as a first attempt.
• Removal of an inappropriate mark cap.
• A final additional assessment opportunity.
• Consideration by a newly constituted panel.
• Reconsideration of an academic misconduct penalty.

A request for the University simply to add a particular number of marks will normally amount to a challenge to academic judgement.

How to submit an appeal through the Digital Student Centre

A taught student should log in to the Digital Student Centre and select:

My Support → Academic Appeals

The student should complete:

• The eligibility questions.
• The decision details.
• The appeal ground.
• The factual statement.
• The requested remedy.
• The evidence uploads.

Once the appeal is formally submitted, the student will not normally be able to add new facts or grounds.

Before submitting, the student should check:

• The correct decision has been selected.
• The formal ground has been stated.
• The dates are consistent.
• The attachments are legible.
• The documents open correctly.
• No central fact has been omitted.
• The requested remedy is realistic. (gre.ac.uk)

Initial eligibility review

The University will first check whether the appeal satisfies a formal ground.

It may reject the case at the initial stage because:

• It challenges only academic judgement.
• It does not explain why EC could not be submitted on time.
• It does not explain why evidence was late.
• It does not establish that EC evidence was considered incorrectly.
• The original EC decision already gave adequate reasons.
• The appeal is late.
• The matter is a student complaint rather than an academic appeal.
• The student has already appealed the same decision.

Where the case is rejected initially, the University will normally give written reasons and explain whether the student may request a Final Review. (gre.ac.uk)

Stage One: appeal investigation

Where the case is eligible, an Appeals Investigation Officer will conduct the Stage One investigation.

The investigator may:

• Review the student’s statement.
• Contact the School.
• Obtain the student record.
• Check the applicable regulations.
• Seek information from another University team.
• Compare the evidence with the original decision.

The University normally aims to complete Stage One within 28 calendar days. (gre.ac.uk)

Stage One may:

• Uphold the appeal.
• Uphold it in part.
• Reject it.
• Refer it to the Academic Appeals Committee.

Stage Two: Academic Appeals Committee

Where the investigator cannot determine the case from the written material, it may proceed to an Academic Appeals Committee.

The University normally aims to arrange the meeting within 28 calendar days of referral. (gre.ac.uk)

The Committee will normally include:

• A Deputy Vice-Chancellor or nominee as Chair.
• Two members of the Academic Council or a related committee.
• A Students’ Union representative.

Committee members should not come from the student’s School or have been involved in the case previously. (gre.ac.uk)

The student will normally receive at least 14 calendar days’ notice of:

• The meeting date.
• The attendance arrangements.
• The case papers.
• Information about the Committee.

The meeting may take place on campus or through Microsoft Teams.

Who can accompany the student to the Appeals Committee?

The student may bring:

• A friend.
• A supporter.
• A Greenwich Students’ Union representative.

The supporter may:

• Remind the student about points to address.
• Help the student prepare answers.
• Give advice during the meeting.

However, the supporter cannot normally speak instead of the student.

Only in exceptional circumstances will the Chair permit the supporter to make representations on the student’s behalf. Formal legal representation will normally be treated as inappropriate for the internal procedure. (gre.ac.uk)

What can the Academic Appeals Committee decide?

The Committee may:

• Reject the appeal and uphold the original decision.
• Refer the matter back to the relevant decision-making body for reconsideration.

Where the case is referred back, the original body may:

• Maintain the original decision.
• Vary the decision.
• Provide a new remedy.

The student will normally receive the Committee’s decision within seven calendar days after the meeting.

The reconvened decision-making body should normally complete its reconsideration within 21 calendar days. (gre.ac.uk)

Can a successful appeal directly increase a mark?

No.

The University states that even where an academic appeal succeeds, the appeal outcome cannot directly increase or amend the student’s mark.

A successful appeal may lead to:

• Uncapped reassessment.
• Treatment of the reassessment as a first attempt.
• An additional assessment opportunity.
• Reconsideration of progression.
• Reconsideration of an outcome affected by procedural error. (gre.ac.uk)

The University will not normally add marks based on the result that the student might hypothetically have achieved without the circumstances.

Final Review

After receiving the formal academic appeal outcome, the student may normally request a Final Review within 14 calendar days.

A Final Review is not an opportunity to submit the original appeal again.

The student must rely on one or more of the following grounds:

1. The relevant procedure was not followed correctly and this affected the outcome.
2. Important new evidence has become available that could not previously have been provided.
3. The decision was unreasonable or the penalty was disproportionate. (gre.ac.uk)

The University will normally acknowledge the request within seven calendar days and aims to provide a written response within 28 calendar days of acknowledgment.

The reviewer may:

• Reject the review.
• Refer the matter back to the original body.
• Investigate further.
• Vary a penalty.
• Convene a Final Review Committee. (gre.ac.uk)

Where the matter proceeds to a Final Review Committee, the student will normally need to present the case personally.

The student may bring a supporter or Students’ Union representative, but the supporter may provide only moral support and cannot present the case or ask questions on the student’s behalf. (gre.ac.uk)

Where an original appeal was rejected as late and the University issued a Completion of Procedures Letter immediately, the student will not normally have access to Final Review and may need to consider the OIA route instead. (gre.ac.uk)

Does the original decision pause during the appeal?

No automatic suspension applies.

The student must continue to comply with the existing decision until the University formally changes it.

For example, where the outcome requires a reassessment, the student should continue preparing for it.

Students should not assume that submitting an appeal automatically:

• Permits progression.
• Restores registration.
• Cancels a reassessment.
• Reverses a withdrawal decision.
• Changes the degree classification.
• Suspends immigration consequences.

The University also warns students not to book accommodation or make other major arrangements based on an assumed successful appeal before the outcome is known. (gre.ac.uk)

Can a student attend graduation while an appeal is pending?

Where the formal result confirms that the student has completed the programme, they may attend the Awards Ceremony.

Attending the ceremony does not prevent the student from submitting an academic appeal within the deadline. (gre.ac.uk)

However, the student should consider:

• The appeal may change the award or classification.
• A revised outcome may require an updated certificate and transcript.
• Some remedies may involve reassessment.
• Employment or further-study plans may be affected by the timing.

University of Greenwich postgraduate research appeals

Postgraduate researchers use a separate Postgraduate Research Academic Appeal Form.

As of the review date, the University’s official research-degree appeal webpage still identifies the policy and form effective from 2021 as the current documents.

A student must normally appeal within 14 calendar days of receiving the formal decision. The completed form should currently be sent to:

academicappealsoffice@gre.ac.uk (gre.ac.uk)

Where evidence is not yet available, the student should identify it in the form and normally submit it no later than 14 calendar days after the appeal.

The University will not formally consider the case until it has received the listed evidence. (gre.ac.uk)

Which decisions can a postgraduate researcher appeal?

A postgraduate researcher may be able to challenge:

• Termination of registration after failure to complete an action plan.
• A research academic misconduct finding.
• The outcome of an MPhil-to-PhD transfer viva.
• A Professional Doctorate decision concerning transfer from the taught stage to the research stage.
• A final doctoral or research-degree viva outcome.
• Certain outcomes involving non-award or the grant of a lower research degree. (gre.ac.uk)

Different decisions attract different grounds.

Common grounds may include:

• Relevant circumstances not known to the examiners.
• A compelling reason for not disclosing those circumstances earlier.
• A material procedural irregularity.
• Unfair or improper assessment.
• Important new evidence that was not previously available.
• An error in the research-misconduct procedure.

Doctoral viva appeals

Not every doctoral viva outcome is appealable.

The current research appeals policy principally permits appeals against specified adverse outcomes, such as:

• The award of MPhil only.
• Non-award of the doctorate.
• No right to re-examination.
• A lower exit award from a Professional Doctorate.
• Non-award of MPhil with no re-examination opportunity.

The student may rely on:

• Previously undisclosed circumstances that affected viva performance.
• A material irregularity in the viva or examination procedure.
• Unfair or improper assessment by one or more examiners. (gre.ac.uk)

A statement that the thesis should have passed will normally amount to a challenge to academic judgement.

Is inadequate supervision an appeal or a complaint?

A research appeal cannot be used simply to complain about supervision, training, resources or the research environment.

Those matters should normally be raised promptly during the programme through the student complaints procedure.

Where the student did not raise a supervision concern at the time and later wishes to rely on it in an academic appeal, they will normally need a compelling explanation for the delay. (gre.ac.uk)

Possible supervision complaints include:

• Prolonged periods without supervision meetings.
• Continuing delays in feedback.
• Conflicting advice from supervisors.
• Failure to arrange a replacement supervisor.
• Failure to provide promised research support.
• Materially inadequate research resources.
• Failure to follow the research-degree supervision procedure.

Research-degree appeal procedure

The University will first screen the appeal.

It may reject the case initially because:

• The appeal is late.
• It challenges only academic judgement.
• It does not fall within a formal ground.
• It lacks sufficient evidence.

Where the investigator considers that a substantive case exists, the appeal may proceed to a Research Awards Appeal Board. (gre.ac.uk)

The student will normally receive at least 14 calendar days’ notice of the meeting and case papers.

The student may attend personally and bring a friend, supporter or Students’ Union representative.

However, the companion cannot be a practising solicitor or barrister. (gre.ac.uk)

The Board may:

• Reject the appeal.
• Refer the case back to the original decision-making body.
• Require the original examiners to reconsider.
• Recommend the appointment of new examiners.
• Require the relevant body to reconsider in light of findings made by the Board.

The Research Awards Appeal Board cannot itself award a degree or replace the academic judgement of the examiners. (gre.ac.uk)

Academic appeal or student complaint?

An academic appeal mainly challenges a formal academic outcome.

A student complaint concerns University services, actions, omissions or management.

A complaint may concern:

• Teaching quality.
• Supervision.
• Programme delivery.
• Administration.
• Communication delays.
• Facilities or learning resources.
• Failure to meet commitments in the programme handbook.
• Incorrect or misleading information.
• Staff conduct.
• Failure to provide reasonable support.

A challenge to marks, progression or an award must use the academic appeals procedure rather than the student complaints procedure. (gre.ac.uk)

University of Greenwich student complaints procedure

The complaints procedure has three stages:

1. Stage Zero: local resolution.
2. Stage One: formal investigation.
3. Stage Two: review.

The University normally aims to complete the process within 90 calendar days of receiving the formal complaint. (gre.ac.uk)

Stage Zero: local resolution

The student will normally need to try to resolve the matter first with the School, department or service team.

Local resolution should normally take no longer than one month.

Where the student proceeds to a formal complaint promptly after the local outcome, the University will not treat the complaint as late merely because of the time spent on local resolution. (gre.ac.uk)

Stage One: formal complaint

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

The student should submit the complaint form and evidence through the Digital Student Centre.

A former student who can no longer access the system may contact the Academic Registry Casework Team for an alternative format. (gre.ac.uk)

A Stage One complaint should include:

• The matters complained about.
• Key dates.
• The local-resolution steps already taken.
• Supporting evidence.
• The effect on the student.
• The remedy sought.

The University normally aims to provide the formal outcome within 28 calendar days of acknowledgment. (gre.ac.uk)

Stage Two: complaint review

The student must normally request a review within 14 calendar days of the Stage One outcome.

The available grounds include:

• Important new evidence.
• Failure at Stage One to consider all relevant information.
• An unreasonable decision on the facts.
• An inappropriate recommended remedy despite the complaint being upheld. (gre.ac.uk)

Where the matter proceeds to a Stage Two Review Panel, the student will normally receive 14 calendar days’ notice.

The student may attend personally and bring a friend, supporter or Students’ Union representative.

The student will normally still need to present the case personally. (gre.ac.uk)

Can a solicitor submit a complaint for the student?

Usually not.

The University does not generally accept complaints submitted by a third party on behalf of the student.

It may make an exception in evidence-based circumstances, such as where:

• The student lacks capacity for medical reasons.
• The student is in hospital.
• Serious mental health difficulties affect the ability to act.
• A registered disability prevents the student from managing the process personally. (gre.ac.uk)

A solicitor may therefore usually:

• Advise outside the process.
• Draft a complaint for the student to submit personally.
• Organise the evidence.
• Prepare the student for a meeting.
• Analyse the outcome.
• Draft the Stage Two review.

The University should confirm in an individual case whether a supporter may take a wider role.

University of Greenwich academic misconduct procedure

The Assessment Misconduct Procedure effective from September 2025 applies to taught students.

The University applies the balance-of-probabilities standard and carries the burden of proving the allegation. (gre.ac.uk)

Possible allegations include:

• Plagiarism.
• Self-plagiarism.
• Collusion.
• Contract cheating.
• Impersonation.
• Unauthorised third-party assistance.
• Fabrication or falsification.
• Examination misconduct.
• Use of another person’s work.
• Unauthorised use of generative AI.
• Failure to disclose AI use.
• Use of AI for analysis, evaluation or calculation.
• Use of AI to create false references.

Plagiarism allegations

A student responding to a plagiarism allegation should examine:

• The disputed passages.
• The original sources.
• Citations and footnotes.
• The reference list.
• Note-taking practices.
• Early drafts.
• File version histories.
• The similarity report.
• The assessment instructions.
• The academic-integrity guidance.

“I did not intend to plagiarise” will not normally answer specific evidence.

The student should explain:

• Where the similar wording came from.
• Why a citation was omitted.
• Whether a note-taking mistake occurred.
• Which parts the student completed independently.
• Whether the issue reflects limited poor academic practice.
• Whether the University has overstated the extent of the similarity.

Collusion allegations

Collusion normally involves unauthorised cooperation on an assessment that should be completed independently.

It may include:

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

However, ordinary discussion does not automatically amount to collusion.

The student should compare:

• What cooperation the assessment allowed.
• What communication actually took place.
• Whether only concepts were discussed.
• Whether directly usable material was shared.
• Where the similarities came from.
• Which work each student completed.

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

Contract cheating and authorship allegations

A contract-cheating allegation may involve:

• Buying an essay.
• Using an essay-writing service.
• Asking a friend to complete an assignment.
• 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 substantial AI-generated content and presenting it as the student’s own.

The student should preserve:

• Drafts.
• Research notes.
• Source materials.
• Data.
• Code.
• Payment records.
• Messages.
• File metadata.
• Version histories.
• Cloud records.

AI and ChatGPT allegations

The University encourages responsible use of AI for learning.

For example, Microsoft Editor and Grammarly may be used for spelling and grammar suggestions.

However, a student should not directly copy AI-generated English where written expression itself is part of the assessment. The final submission must remain the student’s own work. (gre.ac.uk)

Where AI is used to:

• Create an outline.
• Summarise an article.
• Support background research.
• Generate ideas that the student later develops and verifies,

the student should normally include an AI-use declaration at the end of the work where required. (gre.ac.uk)

The Assessment Misconduct Procedure states that, unless an assessment expressly allows the activity and requires disclosure, the following may amount to misconduct:

• Submitting all or part of AI-generated work.
• Using AI to carry out analysis.
• Using AI to make evaluations.
• Using AI to perform calculations.
• Copying or paraphrasing AI-generated text.
• Failing to disclose AI use that was otherwise permitted. (gre.ac.uk)

What evidence should be preserved in an AI case?

The student should retain:

• The assessment instructions.
• AI rules issued by the module leader.
• Early outlines.
• Handwritten or electronic notes.
• Reading records.
• Word version history.
• Google Docs version history.
• Cloud timestamps.
• Drafts.
• Raw data.
• Original code.
• Citation-management records.
• AI prompts.
• AI-generated output.
• The student’s changes to the AI output.
• The AI declaration submitted with the work.
• Earlier work showing a consistent writing style.

After receiving an allegation, the student should not:

• Delete prompts.
• Alter original files.
• Create false drafts.
• Fabricate version histories.
• Reconstruct research records that never existed.
• Submit false medical evidence.

How does the University classify taught assessment misconduct?

The University places taught assessment misconduct into three categories.

Category One

Category One will often involve:

• An early stage of study.
• Limited citation errors.
• Poor academic practice.
• Failure to understand that AI may generate false references.
• Undisclosed AI use where the concern is closer to deficient academic practice than intentional cheating.

Possible outcomes include:

• No formal penalty.
• Advice.
• Required completion of an Academic Integrity course.
• A deduction of 10 percentage points from the assessment. (gre.ac.uk)

Category Two

Category Two may involve:

• More extensive unattributed material.
• Collusion.
• AI use showing that the student did not meet the learning outcomes.
• Repeated Category One concerns.
• Some degree of planning.

Possible penalties include:

• A deduction of 20 percentage points.
• A mark of zero for the assessment.
• Failure of the module. (gre.ac.uk)

Category Three

Category Three may involve:

• Extensive or repeated plagiarism.
• Theft of another student’s work.
• Falsification of results.
• Use of false documents.
• Impersonation.
• Commissioning or purchasing work.
• Misconduct in a timed examination.
• Repeated lower-category misconduct.

Possible outcomes include:

• Failure of the stage of study.
• Required withdrawal with an exit award.
• Required withdrawal without an award.
• Rescission of an award already granted. (gre.ac.uk)

Investigative Interview

The School will normally arrange an Investigative Interview within 14 calendar days of receiving the initial case.

The student will generally receive at least seven calendar days’ notice of:

• The specific allegation.
• The CP1 document.
• The University’s evidence.
• The meeting date.
• Information about companions. (gre.ac.uk)

The student may bring a friend, Students’ Union adviser or supporter.

The supporter may:

• Make relevant observations.
• Ask questions.
• Advise the student.

However, the supporter cannot act as a legal representative or answer questions for the student. (gre.ac.uk)

The student should be prepared to explain:

• How the topic was chosen.
• Which sources were used.
• How the work developed.
• How a particular passage was written.
• How the data was produced.
• Whether AI was used.
• The specific purpose for which AI was used.
• Whether drafts were retained.
• How the student understands the final conclusions.

Assessment Offences Panel

A serious or unresolved matter may proceed to an AOP.

The AOP should normally take place within 28 calendar days of referral.

The student should generally receive at least seven calendar days’ notice and the relevant evidence. (gre.ac.uk)

The student may again bring a friend, Students’ Union adviser or supporter.

That person may make observations, ask questions and give advice, but cannot act as a legal representative or answer factual questions in place of the student.

The AOP will normally issue the outcome within seven calendar days after the meeting. (gre.ac.uk)

How can a student challenge a lower-level misconduct outcome?

Where a Category One meeting or Investigative Interview imposes a penalty, the student must normally submit an appeal statement within seven calendar days of notification.

The student may rely on:

• Incorrect application of the procedure with a material effect.
• An unreasonable decision or disproportionate penalty.
• Important new information that could not previously have been provided. (gre.ac.uk)

Where the appeal is allowed to proceed, an independent reviewer will normally decide it within 14 calendar days.

The student may then still have access to the Final Review procedure. (gre.ac.uk)

How can a student appeal an AOP outcome?

An AOP outcome must be challenged through the ordinary academic appeals procedure.

The normal deadline is 14 calendar days after notification of the AOP outcome.

The grounds include:

• Incorrect application of the assessment misconduct procedure.
• Important new evidence.
• An unreasonable decision.
• A disproportionate penalty. (gre.ac.uk)

Fitness-to-practise procedure

Healthcare, pharmacy, education and other professionally regulated programmes may fall under the Fitness to Practise Procedure.

The procedure addresses:

• Protection of the public.
• Professional standards.
• The student’s health, conduct and judgement.
• The effect on public confidence in the profession. (gre.ac.uk)

Where the case proceeds to a formal panel, the student will normally receive at least 14 calendar days’ notice.

The student’s written statement will generally be due seven calendar days before the meeting. (gre.ac.uk)

The student may bring a friend, supporter or Students’ Union adviser.

However, the companion cannot participate in the capacity of a lawyer.

The student will normally need to present the case personally. Only in exceptional circumstances may the Chair permit the supporter to speak on the student’s behalf. (gre.ac.uk)

A Fitness to Practise Panel may decide that:

• The student is fit to continue.
• The student may continue subject to conditions.
• The student requires supervision.
• The student must suspend study.
• The student must repeat part of the programme.
• The student is temporarily or permanently unfit to continue the professional programme.

The student must normally request a Final Review within 14 calendar days of the formal outcome. (gre.ac.uk)

What happens after the internal procedure ends?

When no further internal procedure remains, the University will issue a Completion of Procedures Letter.

An eligible student may then complain to the OIA.

As of 27 July 2026, the current deadline remains 12 months after the Completion of Procedures Letter. (oiahe.org.uk)

The OIA may examine whether the University:

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

The OIA does not act as another examination board.

It cannot replace the examiners’ academic judgement merely because the student disagrees with the mark.

However, where the procedure was defective, it may recommend:

• Repeating the process.
• Reconsideration by different staff.
• A new assessment opportunity.
• Remarking under the correct procedure.
• Another practical remedy. (oiahe.org.uk)

How Ginkgo Advisory can assist with a University of Greenwich academic appeal

Initial case assessment

We review:

• The formal decision.
• The publication date.
• The 14-calendar-day deadline.
• The available appeal grounds.
• The existing evidence.
• The relevant procedure.
• The outcome sought.

We then determine whether the matter is more suitable for:

• A taught academic appeal.
• A postgraduate research appeal.
• An Extenuating Circumstances claim.
• A student complaint.
• An assessment misconduct response.
• An AOP appeal.
• A fitness-to-practise procedure.
• A Final Review.
• An OIA complaint.

Appeal-ground analysis

We assess whether the facts support:

• An appeal against a late EC claim.
• Inability to obtain evidence on time.
• Failure to consider EC evidence properly.
• A procedural error by the PAB.
• Previously undisclosed serious circumstances.
• A procedural error by the AOP.
• Important new evidence.
• An unreasonable decision.
• A disproportionate penalty.

Weak, repetitive or irrelevant points can be removed before submission.

Evidence review

We can analyse:

• Whether the medical evidence covers the correct dates.
• Whether the evidence explains the actual academic impact.
• Whether independent material supports late disclosure.
• Whether the University followed the relevant procedure.
• Whether reasonable adjustments were implemented.
• Whether the mark calculation appears correct.
• Whether the chronology contains inconsistencies.
• Which documents should be selected within the 15-document limit.
• Which materials may weaken the case.
• Whether a recognised English translation is needed.

Drafting

We can prepare or review:

• Digital Student Centre academic appeals.
• Late-appeal explanations.
• Extenuating Circumstances outcome appeals.
• PAB decision appeals.
• Procedural-error appeals.
• AOP outcome appeals.
• Final Review requests.
• Doctoral progress appeals.
• Doctoral upgrade appeals.
• Thesis and viva appeals.
• Formal student complaints.
• Stage Two complaint reviews.
• Plagiarism and collusion responses.
• Contract-cheating responses.
• AI and ChatGPT allegation responses.
• Investigative Interview preparation documents.
• AOP written statements.
• Fitness-to-practise written submissions.
• OIA complaints.
• Evidence schedules and chronologies.

Meeting and interview preparation

We can prepare students for:

• An Academic Appeals Committee.
• A Research Awards Appeal Board.
• An Investigative Interview.
• An Assessment Offences Panel.
• A fitness-to-practise investigation meeting.
• A Fitness to Practise Panel.
• A student complaint meeting.
• A Final Review Committee.

Preparation may include:

• Likely questions.
• Difficult evidence.
• Clear oral answers.
• The development of the assessed work.
• An opening statement.
• Procedural objections.
• A realistic remedy.
• A strategy for adverse evidence.

Solicitor support outside the internal hearing

Because the University restricts the role of legal representatives in most internal meetings, we will not normally promise that a solicitor can speak for the student during the University hearing.

Even so, solicitor-led strategy, drafting and meeting preparation can materially improve the quality of the case.

Common mistakes in University of Greenwich academic appeals

Appealing only because the mark is too low

Dissatisfaction with a mark is a matter of academic judgement.

The student must identify a formal appeal ground.

Missing the 14-calendar-day deadline

Contacting a tutor or School does not automatically stop the deadline.

The student should prepare the appeal while seeking clarification.

Appealing a provisional mark

The result must first receive PAB approval and formal publication.

Failing to explain a late EC claim

A medical problem does not automatically explain why the student failed to act in time.

Providing only a diagnosis

Medical evidence should also address:

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

Submitting more than 15 documents

The University currently limits a taught appeal to 15 supporting documents.

The student should select the most relevant material.

Failing to translate evidence into English

A non-English document requires a recognised English translation.

Planning to add new grounds after submission

The student will not normally be able to add new facts or grounds once the appeal has been formally submitted.

Asking the University simply to increase the mark

A successful appeal will normally lead to reassessment or reconsideration rather than a direct mark increase.

Using a complaint to seek a change of mark

A student complaint cannot replace an academic appeal.

Repeating the original appeal at Final Review

Final Review must focus on procedure, new evidence, unreasonableness or proportionality.

Attending an Investigative Interview without preparation

The student’s initial explanation may affect whether the case proceeds to an AOP.

Deleting AI prompts or drafts

Those materials may provide important authorship evidence.

Fabricating a version history

False evidence may create a new misconduct or disciplinary matter.

Assuming a solicitor may attend every meeting

The University expressly limits legal representation in academic appeals, research appeals, assessment misconduct and fitness-to-practise proceedings.

Frequently asked questions

What is the University of Greenwich academic appeal deadline?

A taught student must normally submit the appeal within 14 calendar days of publication of the formal decision.

How do I submit a University of Greenwich academic appeal?

A taught student should log in to the Digital Student Centre and select:

My Support → Academic Appeals

Can I appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

The result must first receive PAB approval and formal publication.

Can I appeal because I disagree with my mark?

Not on that basis alone.

A student cannot challenge academic judgement by itself.

Which decisions can be appealed?

A taught student may appeal, where a valid ground exists:

• An Extenuating Circumstances outcome.
• A PAB decision.
• An AOP outcome.

What are the PAB appeal grounds?

The two main grounds are:

• Serious circumstances affected the assessment, but the student did not submit EC and had a sufficient reason.
• The assessment procedure was not followed or was applied incorrectly, causing a materially adverse effect.

Can an EC outcome be appealed?

Yes.

Possible grounds include:

• The EC claim was rejected as late.
• Evidence could not be provided on time.
• Evidence was not considered properly.
• The University did not give reasons.

What is the Extenuating Circumstances deadline?

Normally seven calendar days after the relevant assessment deadline or examination date.

Can academic appeal evidence be submitted later?

Yes.

The student should submit the appeal on time and select the option to provide evidence later. The system will normally allow a further five calendar days.

How many supporting documents may be submitted?

A taught academic appeal currently permits a maximum of 15 supporting documents.

How long does an academic appeal take?

The University normally aims to complete Stage One within 28 calendar days and the overall process, including review, within 90 calendar days.

Can a successful appeal directly increase my mark?

No.

A successful case may lead to reassessment, removal of a mark cap or an additional assessment opportunity.

Does the original decision pause during the appeal?

No.

The student should continue to comply with existing reassessment, progression and registration arrangements.

Can I attend graduation while my appeal is pending?

Where the formal result confirms completion of the programme, the student may normally attend the Awards Ceremony.

What is the Final Review deadline?

Normally 14 calendar days after the formal outcome.

Can a solicitor draft my University of Greenwich academic appeal?

Yes.

A solicitor can assess the grounds, organise the evidence and prepare the written submission.

Can a solicitor attend the Academic Appeals Committee?

The University’s policy treats formal legal representation as normally inappropriate for an internal academic appeal meeting.

The student may bring a friend, supporter or Students’ Union representative.

What is the postgraduate research appeal deadline?

A postgraduate researcher must normally appeal within 14 calendar days of notification of the formal decision.

Can a solicitor attend a postgraduate research appeal meeting?

Not as the student’s companion.

The current policy expressly states that the companion cannot be a practising solicitor or barrister.

Can I complain about inadequate doctoral supervision?

Yes.

Supervision, resources and the research environment should normally be addressed through the student complaints procedure and raised promptly.

What is the student complaint deadline?

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

Can a solicitor submit the complaint for me?

Usually not.

The University may accept a third-party complaint only in exceptional cases where hospitalisation, health, mental health difficulties or disability prevents the student from managing the process personally.

Can I defend a ChatGPT or AI allegation?

Yes.

The response should address:

• The assessment instructions.
• Whether AI use was permitted.
• Whether disclosure was required.
• How AI was actually used.
• Drafts and version histories.
• Prompts and AI output.
• The University’s evidence.

Can a solicitor attend an Investigative Interview or AOP?

Not in the capacity of a legal representative.

The student may bring a friend, Students’ Union adviser or supporter.

What is the AOP appeal deadline?

Normally 14 calendar days after notification of the AOP outcome.

What is the fitness-to-practise Final Review deadline?

Normally 14 calendar days after the formal fitness-to-practise outcome.

Where can I complain after the internal process ends?

An eligible student may complain to the OIA.

What is the OIA deadline?

As of 27 July 2026, the current deadline remains 12 months after the Completion of Procedures Letter.

The OIA is consulting on reducing the period to six months. Students should therefore check the latest rules and submit promptly.

Request a confidential case assessment

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

Early professional advice can help the 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 service is confidential, independent and tailored to the facts of each case.

Support can begin with an initial case assessment and continue through to the final written submission and OIA complaint.

Because the University restricts the solicitor’s formal role in most internal meetings, our work focuses on strategy, evidence review, drafting and meeting preparation.

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

Independent-service disclaimer

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

This article provides general information only.

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

The University may update its policies, procedures, forms, AI guidance and submission routes.

Students should check the current official documents, programme handbook, assessment instructions and outcome letter before acting.