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

A University of Liverpool academic appeal allows a student to ask the University to reconsider a formal academic decision. The decision may relate to a mark, module result, degree classification, final award, Personal Extenuating Circumstances claim or academic integrity finding.

However, students must act quickly. Undergraduate, foundation and postgraduate taught students will usually need to submit a Stage One appeal within 10 UK working days after the University publishes the relevant result or decision.

Key Points at a Glance

Before preparing an appeal, students should understand the following points:

• The University normally uses a two-stage written appeal procedure.
• Stage One appeals usually have a deadline of 10 UK working days.
• Students may appeal formally published provisional Semester One marks.
• Students cannot appeal simply because they disagree with academic judgement.
• Valid appeals normally require a procedural error, material irregularity, new PEC evidence or evidence of bias.
• Submitting an appeal does not automatically suspend the original decision.
• Different procedures apply to progression, PhD outcomes, complaints and Fitness to Practise matters.

The University aims to complete Stage One and Stage Two within 90 calendar days. Nevertheless, individual cases may take longer, especially where the University needs further evidence or must refer the matter back to a Board of Examiners.

The University may update its forms, deadlines and policies. Therefore, students should check their outcome letter and the latest University guidance before submitting anything.

Solicitor-Led Academic Appeal Support

Ginkgo Advisory provides confidential and independent support to students at the University of Liverpool and other UK universities.

Our services may begin with an initial case assessment. Depending on the case, support may continue through a Stage One appeal, Stage Two review, academic misconduct response, progression appeal, PhD appeal, student complaint or OIA complaint.

Our solicitor-led service may include:

• assessing appeal grounds and deadlines;
• reviewing marks, decision letters and University regulations;
• analysing medical, academic and digital evidence;
• drafting or revising a Stage One appeal;
• preparing a Stage Two review;
• reviewing PEC decisions and late PEC claims;
• analysing marking and calculation errors;
• preparing bias or conflict-of-interest arguments;
• responding to academic integrity allegations;
• preparing students for meetings and hearings;
• drafting student complaints and complaint reviews;
• preparing PhD thesis or viva appeals;
• assisting with Fitness to Practise appeals; and
• drafting complaints to the OIA.

No adviser can guarantee that an appeal will succeed. However, early advice can reduce mistakes involving deadlines, evidence, procedure and the remedy requested.

Can a Solicitor Submit the Appeal?

The University mainly deals with taught assessment appeals in writing.

A student may usually authorise a third party to prepare and submit the appeal. Therefore, a solicitor may assist with Stage One and Stage Two documents after receiving written authority from the student.

However, stricter rules apply to some hearings.

For example:

• external lawyers cannot normally attend Faculty Progress Committee hearings;
• lawyers cannot normally attend postgraduate research progression hearings;
• representatives at a Research Degree Appeals Board must belong to the University or the Liverpool Guild of Students;
• an external solicitor has no automatic right to attend an academic integrity meeting; and
• legal representation at a Fitness to Practise panel requires approval from the University Secretary.

As a result, legal support often focuses on drafting, evidence review, hearing preparation and written submissions rather than attendance at the hearing itself.

University of Liverpool Appeal Deadlines

Stage One and Stage Two

Procedure	Normal deadline or target
Stage One academic appeal	Within 10 UK working days after publication of the result or decision
Stage One acknowledgement	Usually within 2 UK working days
Additional Stage One evidence	No later than 30 UK working days after submitting the appeal
Stage One outcome	Usually within 20 UK working days
Notification of further action	Usually within 10 UK working days after a successful Stage One outcome
Stage Two review	Within 10 UK working days after the Stage One outcome
Additional Stage Two evidence	No later than 30 UK working days after submitting the review
Stage Two outcome	Usually within 20 UK working days
Full appeal process	General target of 90 calendar days

PEC, Progression and Academic Integrity

Procedure	Normal deadline
PEC claim	Preferably before the assessment and normally within 14 calendar days after the examination or deadline
Additional PEC evidence	Usually within 3 weeks
Taught progression appeal	Within 10 working days after the formal decision
Postgraduate research progression appeal	Within 10 working days
PhD thesis or viva appeal	Within 14 calendar days
Academic integrity written response	Usually within 5 working days
Appeal against a Category 2, 3 or 4 decision	Usually within 10 working days

Complaints, Fitness to Practise and OIA

Procedure	Normal deadline or target
Early Resolution complaint	Normally within 1 month
Formal complaint	Normally within 1 month after the Early Resolution response
Formal complaint outcome	Usually within 25 working days
Complaint review	Within 10 working days
Fitness to Practise appeal	Within 10 working days
OIA complaint	Within 12 months after the Completion of Procedures Letter

A student should always follow the deadline stated in their formal outcome letter. If the letter gives a specific date and time, that deadline takes priority.

Published Appeal Dates for 2025/26

The University has published the following dates for the 2025/26 academic year:

Result category	Result date	Stage One deadline
Final postgraduate taught results	12 November 2025	5:00 pm on 26 November 2025
Semester One results	12 March 2026	5:00 pm on 26 March 2026
Semester Two and undergraduate finalist results	29 June 2026	5:00 pm on 13 July 2026
Reassessment results	7 September 2026	5:00 pm on 21 September 2026

Some clinical, online or collaborative programmes may follow different dates. Therefore, students should check the information issued by their school.

What Is a University of Liverpool Academic Appeal?

An academic appeal asks the University to reconsider a formal decision made by a Board of Examiners.

A taught student may appeal a decision involving:

• an assessment mark;
• a module result;
• a formally published provisional Semester One mark;
• progression or reassessment where linked to an assessment decision;
• a degree classification;
• a final award;
• an exit award;
• a PEC decision;
• a Category 2, 3 or 4 academic integrity finding; or
• a material error in the assessment or award process.

However, other procedures apply to:

• termination for inadequate academic progress;
• postgraduate research progression;
• transfer from PhD to MPhil;
• PhD thesis and viva outcomes;
• complaints about teaching or supervision;
• Fitness to Practise decisions; and
• admissions decisions.

Using the wrong procedure may delay the case and may cause the student to miss the correct deadline.

Can Students Appeal Semester One Marks?

Yes.

The University allows students to appeal formally published provisional Semester One marks.

However, the following will not normally qualify:

• an estimated mark given informally by a tutor;
• a draft mark;
• an unpublished result;
• a predicted degree classification;
• a result produced by a classification calculator; or
• informal feedback.

Students should keep a screenshot of the formal result page. They should also record the date on which the University published the result.

What Cannot Be Appealed?

A student cannot normally use an academic appeal to:

• challenge academic judgement alone;
• request remarking simply because they dislike the mark;
• complain about teaching quality;
• complain about supervision;
• challenge a PhD viva outcome under the taught appeal procedure;
• rely on personal circumstances where no PEC was submitted;
• repeat an issue that another procedure has already resolved; or
• challenge an award after accepting conferral.

Where a complaint and an appeal cover the same issue, the University may pause the appeal until it decides the complaint.

What Is Academic Judgement?

Academic judgement involves a decision based on academic expertise.

It may include:

• the quality of an essay;
• the strength of an argument;
• whether the student met the learning outcomes;
• the mark awarded after proper marking;
• whether a dissertation meets the pass standard;
• whether a PhD thesis meets the required standard; or
• whether the academic record supports the degree classification.

Therefore, the following statements will not normally establish a valid appeal:

• “My work deserved a higher mark.”
• “The marker misunderstood me.”
• “I worked very hard.”
• “My tutor expected me to pass.”
• “Another student received a higher mark.”
• “I only missed the next classification by one mark.”
• “A different marker might have given me more marks.”

Nevertheless, a student may challenge the procedure that led to the academic judgement.

For example, an appeal may be possible where:

• the University applied the wrong regulations;
• a mark was calculated incorrectly;
• the University omitted an assessment mark;
• required second marking did not take place;
• moderation did not take place;
• reasonable adjustments were not implemented;
• the Board of Examiners received incomplete information;
• a conflict of interest affected the marking; or
• actual or apparent bias affected the process.

The Five Stage One Appeal Grounds

Ground One: A Material Error in the PEC Procedure

This ground applies where the student submitted a PEC claim but the University made a material procedural error when deciding it.

Possible examples include:

• failing to consider medical evidence;
• using the wrong dates;
• failing to address a central issue;
• failing to present an approved PEC to the Board of Examiners;
• applying the wrong policy;
• failing to explain the decision properly;
• allowing the wrong person to make the decision; or
• failing to apply an accepted PEC to the correct assessment.

It is not enough to say:

My PEC was rejected, so the outcome was unfair.

Instead, the student should explain:

1. when they submitted the PEC;
2. what evidence they provided;
3. what the University should have done;
4. what the University actually did; and
5. how the error affected the outcome.

Ground Two: Important New Evidence About a Rejected PEC

This ground applies where the University rejected a PEC and important new evidence later became available.

The student must show that:

• the evidence relates directly to the original PEC;
• the evidence could materially affect the decision;
• it was unavailable at the time;
• exceptional circumstances explain why it was unavailable; and
• the student acted promptly after receiving it.

A later medical letter will not automatically satisfy this ground.

The student should explain:

• when they requested the letter;
• why the medical provider delayed;
• whether they followed up;
• when they received the evidence; and
• what new information it provides.

What If the Student Never Submitted a PEC?

A student who never submitted a PEC cannot normally rely directly on personal circumstances in an ordinary academic appeal.

Instead, the student should usually submit a late PEC claim under Appendix M.

The student must explain why they could not submit the claim within the normal deadline.

Before taking action, the student should determine:

• whether a PEC was previously submitted;
• whether a late PEC claim remains possible;
• whether there was also a marking or procedural error;
• whether a progression decision exists; and
• which procedure can provide the requested remedy.

Ground Three: A Procedural Error in an Academic Integrity Case

A student may appeal a Category 2, 3 or 4 academic integrity decision where a material procedural error affected the investigation or decision.

Possible errors include:

• failing to explain the allegation;
• failing to give the student enough time to respond;
• withholding evidence;
• failing to consider the student’s explanation;
• involving someone with a conflict of interest;
• forming the panel incorrectly;
• treating AI-detection software as conclusive;
• failing to consider reasonable adjustments; or
• relying on incorrect information.

By contrast, the student cannot rely only on statements such as:

• “I did not cheat.”
• “The penalty was too severe.”
• “The AI detector was wrong.”
• “The marker did not believe me.”

The appeal must identify a procedural defect.

Ground Four: A Material Assessment Irregularity

A material irregularity may include:

• a mark-recording error;
• an incorrect calculation;
• an omitted assessment component;
• use of the wrong programme regulations;
• recording a first attempt as a reassessment;
• applying the wrong mark cap;
• failing to complete second marking;
• failing to complete moderation;
• setting an assessment that differed materially from the published instructions;
• failing to implement reasonable adjustments;
• giving incomplete information to the Board of Examiners;
• applying an incorrect late penalty; or
• using the wrong modules or weightings in a degree calculation.

The appeal should answer four questions:

1. Which rule applied?
2. What should the University have done?
3. What did the University actually do?
4. How did the error affect the result?

A minor clerical mistake will not always justify a remedy. The student must show a material effect on the mark, module result, reassessment, progression, classification or award.

Ground Five: Bias or Apparent Bias

A student may appeal where actual bias or a reasonable perception of bias affected the assessment.

Evidence may include:

• a marker expressing a predetermined view;
• an unmanaged conflict of interest;
• a marker participating in a related dispute;
• discriminatory comments;
• retaliatory treatment after a complaint;
• unexplained unequal treatment; or
• involvement by someone with a direct personal interest.

Harsh feedback alone does not prove bias.

Similarly, a poor relationship with a tutor does not automatically establish unfairness.

The student should identify:

• who acted improperly;
• when it happened;
• what evidence supports the allegation;
• how the person took part in the assessment; and
• why a reasonable observer would question the person’s impartiality.

Personal Extenuating Circumstances

PEC means Personal Extenuating Circumstances.

A student may submit a PEC where serious circumstances affected their ability to prepare for, complete or attend an assessment.

The University may accept circumstances such as:

• serious short-term illness;
• serious illness on the day of an examination;
• a mental-health crisis;
• severe emotional distress;
• bereavement;
• serious illness of a close relative;
• unexpected caring responsibilities;
• eviction;
• unsafe accommodation;
• a safeguarding concern;
• late diagnosis of a disability; or
• delay in implementing reasonable adjustments.

However, the University will not normally accept:

• a minor cold;
• poor time management;
• inadequate preparation;
• misunderstanding a deadline;
• holidays or weddings;
• minor transport disruption;
• failure of a personal computer; or
• an existing long-term condition without a significant and unexpected deterioration.

A PEC does not excuse academic misconduct. However, personal circumstances may sometimes affect the penalty.

PEC Deadlines

Students should submit a PEC as early as possible.

The normal deadline is no later than 14 calendar days after the examination date or assessment deadline.

Where the student submits a late claim, they must explain why they could not act earlier.

A PEC application should include:

• a clear account of the circumstances;
• a chronology;
• the affected assessments;
• an explanation of the academic impact; and
• independent supporting evidence.

If evidence is not yet available, the student should submit the claim first and provide the evidence later. The University will normally expect the evidence within three weeks.

Possible PEC Outcomes

A successful PEC may result in:

• deferral to a later assessment date;
• another first attempt;
• an uncapped reassessment;
• a capped reassessment;
• an additional assessment opportunity;
• exclusion of a small assessment component where the rules allow;
• a new uncapped dissertation attempt; or
• consideration of the PEC in a degree classification decision.

The University will not normally award assumed marks.

In addition, students cannot usually retake a passed module simply to improve the mark.

Clinical Programme Risks

Students on clinical programmes have professional duties to protect the public.

If illness or personal circumstances may affect a clinical assessment, the student should notify the school before taking the assessment.

The University will not normally accept a retrospective PEC after a clinical assessment.

Moreover, a later claim that the student was unfit to take the assessment may raise Fitness to Practise concerns.

Students on medical, dental, veterinary, nursing and other clinical programmes should therefore obtain advice before making a retrospective statement.

Evidence for an Academic Appeal

A Stage One appeal should include:

• the formal result;
• the outcome letter;
• the decision notice;
• evidence supporting the appeal ground; and
• a clear explanation of the remedy requested.

Relevant evidence may include:

• PEC documents;
• GP records;
• hospital reports;
• specialist letters;
• mental-health records;
• counselling records;
• police or court documents;
• bereavement evidence;
• emails to the school;
• reasonable-adjustment documents;
• submission receipts;
• examination arrangements;
• programme handbooks;
• assessment instructions;
• meeting records;
• mark calculations;
• document version history;
• AI prompts and outputs;
• system screenshots;
• witness statements; and
• a dated chronology.

Medical Evidence

Medical evidence should explain more than the diagnosis.

A useful report may cover:

• when the symptoms began;
• how severe they were;
• how long they lasted;
• which assessments they affected;
• how they affected concentration or memory;
• how they affected communication;
• whether the student could manage administrative tasks;
• whether the student could contact the University; and
• why the student could not submit a claim on time.

The clinician does not need to say that the appeal should succeed.

Instead, the clinician should explain the medical facts and their practical effect.

Evidence in Another Language

Evidence should be in English or accompanied by a reliable translation.

A suitable translation should:

• come from an independent translator;
• identify the translator;
• confirm accuracy and completeness;
• preserve dates and reference numbers; and
• accompany the original document.

A student’s own summary may help explain the document. However, it should not replace the original evidence and professional translation.

Organising the Evidence

A clear evidence schedule helps the decision-maker understand the case.

Exhibit	Document
A1	Formal result or outcome letter
A2	Medical evidence
A3	Emails to the school
A4	PEC claim and outcome
A5	Relevant regulations
A6	Reasonable-adjustment documents
A7	Chronology
A8	Requested remedy

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

For example:

The medical report confirms that my symptoms affected my concentration and communication during the two weeks before the examination. See Exhibit A2.

Submitting a large number of unexplained documents may weaken rather than strengthen the appeal.

Can Evidence Be Submitted Later?

In exceptional circumstances, yes.

The student should explain:

• which evidence remains unavailable;
• why it is unavailable;
• what steps they have taken to obtain it; and
• when they expect to receive it.

The University may allow additional evidence within 30 UK working days after submission of the appeal.

However, students should not miss the original appeal deadline while waiting for evidence.

Instead, they should submit the appeal on time and explain that further evidence will follow.

How to Draft the Appeal

A strong appeal should be clear, focused and supported by evidence.

Identify the Decision

State:

• the programme;
• the module or assessment;
• the formal decision;
• the result date;
• the decision-maker; and
• the date the student received notice.

State the Formal Ground

Avoid vague statements such as:

The decision was unfair.

Instead, write:

This appeal is based on a material irregularity because the Board of Examiners did not receive information about my approved reasonable adjustments.

Explain the Facts in Date Order

Set out:

• what happened;
• when it happened;
• what the student did;
• how the University responded; and
• how the event affected the decision.

Link the Facts to the Ground

The appeal should explain why the facts meet the formal appeal ground.

For example, it should show:

• why the error was material;
• why new evidence was unavailable;
• why the procedure was defective; or
• why a reasonable observer would perceive bias.

Explain the Academic Effect

State how the error affected:

• the mark;
• module result;
• reassessment;
• progression;
• degree classification;
• final award; or
• academic integrity decision.

Address Any Delay

If the appeal is late, explain:

• when the difficulty began;
• why the student could not act;
• how long the problem continued;
• when the student regained the ability to act; and
• what evidence supports the explanation.

Request a Realistic Remedy

Possible remedies include:

• correcting a calculation;
• reconsidering a PEC;
• reconsidering the case with new evidence;
• referring the matter back to the Board of Examiners;
• granting another assessment opportunity;
• removing an incorrect mark cap;
• reconsidering the degree classification; or
• arranging a fresh decision by an independent person.

Students should not normally ask the University simply to add a specific number of marks.

The Stage One Procedure

Contacting the Chair

Before submitting an appeal, a student may contact the Chair of the Board of Examiners.

The Chair may help:

• explain a mark;
• check a calculation;
• correct an obvious error;
• explain the regulations; or
• confirm whether an appeal is necessary.

However, contacting the Chair does not automatically extend the appeal deadline.

Submitting the Form

The student must normally submit the Stage One form within 10 UK working days.

The form should identify:

• the decision;
• the appeal ground;
• the facts;
• the evidence;
• the remedy requested; and
• any explanation for delay.

Students who cannot use the online form may contact:

appeals@liverpool.ac.uk

Eligibility Screening

The University will check:

• whether the appeal is on time;
• whether it raises a recognised ground;
• whether evidence supports it; and
• whether another procedure applies.

The University may reject an appeal at this stage where the student:

• challenges academic judgement only;
• fails to identify a ground;
• omits the result or decision;
• relies on personal circumstances without a PEC;
• appeals a Category 1 decision;
• submits a late appeal without evidence; or
• uses the wrong procedure.

Stage One Outcome

The University will normally aim to respond within 20 UK working days.

It may:

• uphold the appeal;
• partly uphold the appeal; or
• reject the appeal.

Where the appeal succeeds, the University may:

• reconsider the PEC;
• refer the case back to the Board of Examiners;
• refer the matter to the Academic Integrity Committee;
• correct an obvious error;
• grant another assessment opportunity; or
• correct the academic record.

A successful appeal does not guarantee the exact outcome requested.

Stage Two Review

A student must normally submit Stage Two within 10 UK working days after the Stage One outcome.

Stage Two accepts three grounds:

1. the Stage One outcome was unreasonable;
2. the University did not follow the Stage One procedure correctly; or
3. important new evidence could not have been submitted earlier.

Stage Two is not a complete rehearing.

The student should respond directly to the Stage One decision.

The University will usually issue the Stage Two outcome within 20 UK working days.

If Stage Two fails, the student will normally receive a Completion of Procedures Letter.

Does an Appeal Suspend the Decision?

No.

The original decision remains in force until the University makes a new decision.

Therefore, the student should continue to:

• prepare for reassessment;
• meet assessment deadlines;
• follow registration instructions;
• remain in contact with the school; and
• seek immigration advice where necessary.

Submitting an appeal does not automatically restore registration, permit progression or protect Student visa sponsorship.

Graduation During an Appeal

The University will not normally confer an award while the student appeals the award or classification.

As a result, the student cannot usually attend graduation or receive the award certificate.

Accepting conferral will normally count as withdrawal of the appeal.

Students should therefore consider the effect on:

• employment;
• postgraduate study;
• visa applications;
• professional registration; and
• future graduation dates.

Progression Appeals for Taught Students

Termination for inadequate progress, attendance or engagement usually falls under Appendix E rather than Appendix F.

The student will normally have 10 working days to appeal.

Grounds may include:

• failure to apply the correct programme regulations;
• another material procedural irregularity; or
• serious circumstances that affected performance and could not reasonably have been disclosed earlier.

A progression committee cannot change an assessment mark.

Therefore, a student may need both a progression appeal and a separate assessment appeal.

Progression Hearings

An eligible appeal may proceed to a Faculty Progress Committee.

The student may bring:

• a Guild adviser;
• another student;
• an academic adviser;
• a family member; or
• another support person.

A solicitor cannot normally represent the student at the hearing.

However, a solicitor may assist with the written statement and hearing preparation.

Postgraduate Research Progression Appeals

A postgraduate research student may appeal:

• transfer to MPhil;
• termination for inadequate progress; or
• certain withdrawal decisions based on engagement.

The normal deadline is 10 working days.

Recognised grounds include:

• a material procedural irregularity; or
• serious circumstances that affected performance or engagement and could not reasonably have been disclosed earlier.

The student cannot appeal academic judgement alone.

Inadequate supervision should normally be raised through the complaints procedure.

PhD Thesis and Viva Appeals

PhD thesis and viva appeals follow the Research Degree Appeals Procedure.

The normal deadline is 14 calendar days after the formal outcome.

Possible grounds include:

• a material irregularity in the viva;
• exceptional circumstances affecting viva performance;
• examiner bias;
• inadequate assessment;
• a procedural error in a research misconduct decision;
• failure to address a serious difficulty during the viva; or
• a procedural irregularity involving non-attendance.

A student cannot appeal simply because they believe the thesis deserved a PhD.

Similarly, the supervisor’s opinion does not replace the examiners’ academic judgement.

Student Complaints

An academic appeal challenges an academic decision.

By contrast, a student complaint concerns matters such as:

• teaching quality;
• supervision;
• programme delivery;
• delayed feedback;
• poor administration;
• communication problems;
• facilities;
• staff conduct; or
• failure to provide promised support.

The complaints procedure has three stages:

1. Early Resolution;
2. Formal Complaint; and
3. Review.

Students should normally raise the issue within one month.

The University usually aims to resolve Early Resolution cases within 10 working days and formal complaints within 25 working days.

A student may authorise a solicitor to prepare and submit a complaint.

Enquiries may be sent to:

actadmin@liverpool.ac.uk

Academic Integrity Allegations

The University divides academic integrity cases into four categories.

Category 1

It normally covers poor academic practice, such as:

• inadequate paraphrasing;
• weak citation;
• poor acknowledgement of permitted AI use; or
• misunderstanding academic standards.

Category 2

It may cover a first instance of:

• plagiarism;
• copying;
• collusion;
• unauthorised AI use; or
• fabricated data.

The penalty may include a mark of zero for the assessment.

Category 3

Category 3 normally applies where the student repeats similar misconduct after receiving a written warning.

The penalty may include a mark of zero for the whole module.

Category 4

Category 4 covers dishonest conduct intended to obtain an unfair advantage.

Examples include:

• purchasing work;
• commissioning another person;
• extensive undisclosed AI use;
• presenting another person’s work as the student’s own;
• fabricating data; or
• coercing another student to collude.

Possible penalties include suspension or termination.

Responding to Plagiarism or Collusion

A student should review:

• the identified passages;
• original sources;
• citations;
• bibliography;
• drafts;
• notes;
• version history;
• similarity reports;
• chat records; and
• assessment instructions.

The response should explain how the similarity occurred and whether the University has classified the issue correctly.

A statement such as “I did not intend to plagiarise” will rarely be enough by itself.

AI and ChatGPT Allegations

Students cannot assume that every module allows ChatGPT or another AI tool.

Potentially prohibited uses include:

• generating an entire assignment;
• submitting AI-generated sections without disclosure;
• using paraphrasing tools to disguise AI text;
• using AI to create false references;
• using AI to write conclusions;
• using AI for assessed analysis without permission; or
• using AI during a prohibited examination.

Where AI use is allowed, students may still need to:

• identify the tool;
• keep prompts and outputs;
• explain how they used it;
• acknowledge the use;
• check accuracy; and
• ensure that the final work reflects their own judgement.

Students facing an allegation should preserve:

• drafts;
• notes;
• reading records;
• Word version history;
• Google Docs history;
• cloud timestamps;
• raw data;
• source code;
• AI prompts;
• AI outputs; and
• earlier work showing a consistent writing style.

They should never manufacture drafts, alter files or falsify version history.

Fitness to Practise

Fitness to Practise procedures may apply to students on professional programmes, including medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and nursing.

Possible outcomes include:

• no further action;
• remedial work;
• conditions;
• increased supervision;
• suspension;
• repetition of part of the programme;
• termination from the clinical programme; or
• termination of University registration.

The normal appeal deadline is 10 working days.

Possible grounds include:

• important new evidence;
• procedural irregularity;
• an unreasonable decision;
• a biased or inadequate hearing; or
• a disproportionate outcome.

Legal representation at the original panel requires approval from the University Secretary.

Complaints to the OIA

After completing the University’s internal procedures, the student will normally receive a Completion of Procedures Letter.

The student may then complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.

The normal deadline is 12 months after the date of the letter.

The OIA may consider whether the University:

• followed its procedures;
• considered evidence fairly;
• allowed the student to respond;
• provided adequate reasons;
• reached a reasonable outcome;
• managed conflicts of interest;
• implemented reasonable adjustments; and
• imposed a proportionate penalty.

The OIA does not replace academic judgement.

However, it may recommend:

• a fresh procedure;
• reconsideration by different staff;
• a new assessment opportunity;
• remarking under the correct procedure;
• reconsideration of a penalty; or
• another practical remedy.

How Ginkgo Advisory Can Help

Initial Assessment

We can assess:

• the decision;
• the deadline;
• the appeal grounds;
• the available evidence;
• whether a PEC exists;
• the correct procedure; and
• the outcome requested.

Evidence Review

We can review:

• medical evidence;
• delay evidence;
• reasonable adjustments;
• mark calculations;
• procedural documents;
• AI prompts;
• version history;
• drafts; and
• the overall chronology.

Drafting

We can prepare or review:

• Stage One appeals;
• Stage Two reviews;
• late PEC explanations;
• progression appeals;
• PhD appeals;
• student complaints;
• complaint reviews;
• academic integrity responses;
• Fitness to Practise appeals;
• OIA complaints;
• evidence schedules; and
• chronologies.

Hearing Preparation

We can also help students prepare:

• likely questions;
• clear oral answers;
• opening statements;
• procedural objections;
• responses to difficult evidence; and
• realistic requests for a remedy.

Common Mistakes

Students commonly weaken their cases by:

• appealing only because the mark is low;
• missing the deadline;
• failing to identify a formal ground;
• relying on illness without submitting a PEC;
• submitting a diagnosis without explaining its impact;
• failing to explain late evidence;
• waiting too long for documents;
• asking for arbitrary extra marks;
• repeating Stage One at Stage Two;
• failing to prepare for reassessment;
• accepting the award during the appeal;
• using the wrong procedure;
• relying on inadequate supervision as a PhD appeal ground;
• treating AI-detection software as conclusive;
• deleting digital evidence; or
• assuming a solicitor may attend every hearing.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the academic appeal deadline?

A taught student will normally have 10 UK working days after publication of the result or decision.

Can a student appeal a Semester One mark?

Yes, provided the University formally published the provisional mark.

Can a student appeal because they disagree with the mark?

No. Disagreement with academic judgement is not enough.

What if the student never submitted a PEC?

The student should normally consider a late PEC claim rather than rely directly on personal circumstances in an academic appeal.

How long does Stage One take?

The University normally aims to respond within 20 UK working days.

What is the Stage Two deadline?

The normal deadline is 10 UK working days after the Stage One outcome.

Does the appeal suspend the result?

No. The original decision remains effective unless the University changes it.

Can the student graduate during the appeal?

Usually not where the award or classification remains under appeal.

Can a solicitor draft the appeal?

Yes. A solicitor may assess the case, review evidence and prepare the written appeal.

Can a solicitor submit the appeal?

The University may accept submission by an authorised third-party representative.

Can a solicitor attend every hearing?

No. Different procedures impose different representation rules.

Can a Category 1 academic integrity decision be appealed?

Not through the ordinary Appendix F academic integrity appeal procedure.

Can AI-detection software prove misconduct?

Not by itself. The University must still review the full evidence and exercise academic judgement.

What is the PhD viva appeal deadline?

The normal deadline is 14 calendar days after the formal outcome.

What is the OIA deadline?

The normal deadline is 12 months after the Completion of Procedures Letter.

Request a Confidential Case Assessment

A University of Liverpool academic appeal may affect reassessment, progression, graduation, degree classification, doctoral study, professional registration and immigration status.

Early professional advice can help a student choose the correct procedure, protect the deadline and present the evidence clearly.

Ginkgo Advisory provides solicitor-led support for:

• academic appeals;
• PEC disputes;
• progression appeals;
• academic misconduct allegations;
• AI and ChatGPT allegations;
• PhD thesis and viva appeals;
• student complaints;
• Fitness to Practise appeals; and
• OIA complaints.

Contact Ginkgo Advisory for a confidential assessment of your University of Liverpool academic appeal or student dispute.

Independent Service Disclaimer

Ginkgo Advisory is independent of the University of Liverpool, the Liverpool Guild of Students and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.

This article provides general information only. It does not guarantee the outcome of any case and does not replace advice based on the facts of an individual matter.

University policies, deadlines, forms and procedures may change. Students should therefore check the latest official guidance and their formal outcome letter before taking action.