City St George’s Academic Appeals: Procedure, Grounds, Deadlines and Solicitor-Led Support

A City St George’s academic appeal asks the University to review a formally confirmed decision about assessment, progression, an award, research status or a research examination. Taught and research students normally have 20 working days to submit a Stage 1 appeal. A Stage 2 review normally carries a 15-working-day deadline.

Students must rely on a ground recognised by the University. They cannot appeal simply because they dislike a mark, degree classification or examiner’s academic judgement. Instead, the submission must identify a material error, previously undisclosed extenuating circumstances, bias or a reasonable perception of bias.

City St George’s currently uses different online routes for some campuses and programmes. Therefore, students should check the latest Student Hub instructions and their decision letter before submitting anything. The central policies page links taught appeal forms through e:Vision, while the Tooting-specific page directs students to a separate form and email route. The University also states that its policies remain subject to review during institutional integration.

Solicitor-led academic appeals, complaints and misconduct defence

Ginkgo Advisory provides strategic advice, drafting and representation for students at City St George’s, University of London and other UK universities.

Our support is confidential, independent and specific to each case.

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

Our solicitor-led service may include:

• Assessing appeal grounds, deadlines and prospects.
• Reviewing the University’s regulations and decision letters.
• Analysing medical, academic, digital and procedural evidence.
• Drafting Stage 1 academic appeals.
• Preparing Stage 2 review requests.
• Advising research students on registration and examination appeals.
• Preparing student complaints and complaint reviews.
• Responding to plagiarism, collusion and contract-cheating allegations.
• Defending allegations involving ChatGPT or other generative AI tools.
• Preparing students for academic misconduct or disciplinary panels.
• Drafting complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
• Providing representation where the relevant rules allow it.

No adviser can guarantee a particular result. However, early advice can reduce avoidable procedural and evidential mistakes.

Which City St George’s submission route applies?

The correct submission route may depend on the student’s campus, programme and level of study.

The University’s central policies page currently provides:

• Taught Stage 1 and Stage 2 appeal forms through e:Vision.
• Separate online forms for research students.
• Separate routes for some study-abroad and validated-programme students.
• Dedicated complaint forms for Stage 2 and Stage 3 complaints.

By contrast, the Tooting Student Hub instructs students to complete its appeal form and email the form with supporting evidence to the Student Conduct and Compliance team.

Certain vocational law students should also check their programme handbook for any programme-specific process. Regulation 20 expressly tells students on listed professional law programmes to confirm the correct route in their handbook.

Because procedures can change during integration, students should not rely on an old form, saved link or previous student’s instructions.

City St George’s academic appeal deadlines

The current regulations set the following normal time limits. Different rules may apply to validated programmes or a decision governed by another procedure.

Procedure	Normal deadline
Taught student Stage 1 academic appeal	20 working days after release of results following the relevant Assessment Board
Research student Stage 1 academic appeal	20 working days after written confirmation of the registration or examination decision
Taught or research Stage 2 review	15 working days after the Stage 1 outcome
Outstanding evidence for an academic appeal	Normally 10 working days after receipt of the appeal
Clerical mark check	28 calendar days after notification of results
Initial student complaint	Within three months of the event or last event in a series
Stage 2 formal complaint	15 working days after the Stage 1 response
Stage 3 complaint review	15 working days after the Stage 2 outcome
Appeal against a Sanction 5 misconduct referral	20 working days after the sanction
Regulation 13 disciplinary appeal	15 working days after the written decision
OIA complaint	Normally within 12 months of the final decision or Completion of Procedures Letter

Students should calculate the deadline as soon as they receive the result or decision.

A late appeal will normally fail unless exceptional circumstances caused the delay. The explanation and evidence should cover the entire period between the original deadline and the eventual submission date.

Where a disability or learning difference may prevent timely submission, the student should contact the School before the deadline where possible. The University may allow additional time at the relevant decision-maker’s discretion.

What is a City St George’s academic appeal?

A City St George’s academic appeal challenges a decision made by an academic body, usually an Assessment Board.

For taught students, the appeal may concern:

• A mark in a module or assessment.
• Progression or non-progression.
• A requirement to resit an assessment.
• An award or degree classification.
• Withdrawal from the programme.
• Receipt of no award or a lower award than expected.
• A ratified recommendation from an Extenuating Circumstances Panel.
• A ratified recommendation arising from an academic misconduct process.

The student must identify the exact decision. A general complaint that the course “went badly” will not normally establish an appealable case.

Likewise, the student should distinguish the formal Assessment Board decision from earlier recommendations or provisional marks.

Can a student appeal provisional results?

No, not through the ordinary Regulation 20 process.

The University normally considers an appeal only after the relevant Assessment Board has ratified the result, progression decision or award. A provisional mark or unratified recommendation does not usually qualify.

Students should still check the deadline carefully. Waiting after formal notification can reduce the available preparation time.

What cannot be challenged through an academic appeal?

Regulation 20 excludes several categories.

A student cannot normally use it to challenge:

• A provisional result.
• A proper exercise of academic judgement.
• The quality of teaching or supervision.
• General service delivery.
• A fee-status decision.
• A disciplinary decision governed by another procedure.
• A matter that belongs under a different University process.

Where an appeal includes concerns about teaching, supervision or services, the University may transfer those issues to the student complaints procedure.

Consequently, some cases require two connected submissions. One may challenge the academic outcome, while another addresses the underlying service failure.

What is academic judgement?

Academic judgement covers decisions that require the opinion of an academic expert.

Examples include:

• The mark awarded after correct marking and moderation.
• The academic quality of an argument.
• The standard of a dissertation or thesis.
• Whether work satisfies a learning outcome.
• The academic categorisation of poor academic practice or misconduct.

Therefore, the following statements will not usually create a valid appeal:

• “My work deserved a higher mark.”
• “The examiner misunderstood my argument.”
• “My feedback was unfair.”
• “Another student received a better grade.”
• “I was close to the next degree classification.”
• “A different marker may have given me more marks.”

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

For example, an appeal may have merit where the University used the wrong marking procedure, failed to moderate the work or provided the Assessment Board with incorrect information. The submission must focus on that procedural problem rather than the student’s preferred mark.

Which grounds support a City St George’s academic appeal?

Regulation 20 provides three principal Stage 1 grounds for taught students:

1. A material error affected the Assessment Board’s decision.
2. Previously undisclosed extenuating circumstances affected the assessment.
3. Bias or a reasonable perception of bias affected the academic decision.

A strong appeal should identify the relevant ground at the beginning. It should then connect every important fact and document to that ground.

Ground 1: material error

A material error is more than a minor administrative mistake.

The student must normally show a significant procedural error that affected the Assessment Board’s decision. In practical terms, the student should explain why the outcome would probably have differed without the error.

Possible examples include:

• The University recorded the wrong mark.
• A calculation omitted an assessment component.
• The Board applied the wrong programme regulation.
• An approved reasonable adjustment was not provided.
• The correct moderation process did not take place.
• Relevant information did not reach the Assessment Board.
• The University used an incorrect assessment format.
• The Board treated a first attempt as a resit.
• A penalty was applied contrary to the published rules.
• The decision-making body lacked required information.

The appeal should identify the relevant rule, handbook provision or written instruction.

Next, it should compare the required procedure with what actually happened.

Finally, the student must explain the likely effect on the outcome.

Ground 2: previously undisclosed extenuating circumstances

Extenuating circumstances are normally unexpected events outside the student’s control. They must have had a direct and substantial effect on study, assessment completion or performance.

Examples may include:

• Serious physical illness.
• Acute mental health difficulties.
• Hospital treatment.
• Bereavement.
• A family crisis.
• Trauma.
• Serious disruption outside the student’s control.
• A previously unidentified disability.
• A sudden deterioration in an existing condition.

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

The student must also establish a valid and overriding reason for not using the ordinary extenuating circumstances procedure at the correct time. Both the circumstances and the reason for non-disclosure require evidence.

The University will not normally accept either of these explanations by itself:

• The student did not know about the extenuating circumstances procedure.
• The student assumed that the event would not affect their performance.

Therefore, a retrospective claim should answer four questions:

1. What happened?
2. Which assessments did it affect?
3. How did it affect the student’s work?
4. Why could the student not report it at the proper time?

A medical diagnosis alone may not answer the fourth question.

For example, a letter may confirm severe anxiety. Yet it may not explain why the student could not understand, access or engage with the University’s reporting process.

More detailed medical or professional evidence may therefore be necessary.

Ground 3: bias or a reasonable perception of bias

A student may appeal where staff or an academic body failed to assess the work impartially.

The student does not always need to prove deliberate personal hostility. However, the evidence must support actual bias or a reasonable perception that the decision-making process lacked impartiality.

Relevant evidence might include:

• Emails showing prejudgment.
• Comments unrelated to the academic merits of the work.
• A conflict of interest.
• Different treatment without a clear academic reason.
• A decision-maker’s involvement in an earlier dispute.
• Failure to manage a declared conflict.
• Evidence that a previous complaint influenced the assessment.

A difficult relationship does not automatically establish bias.

Likewise, critical feedback does not prove prejudice. The appeal should identify specific conduct and explain how it affected the academic decision.

What evidence supports a City St George’s academic appeal?

The University normally expects objective, independent and relevant evidence.

Regulation 20 gives examples such as:

• Medical certificates.
• Reports from doctors or counsellors.
• Death certificates.
• Police or court records.
• Other official third-party confirmation.

Depending on the case, useful evidence may also include:

• Emails sent to tutors or programme staff.
• Disability support records.
• Reasonable adjustment plans.
• Assessment submission receipts.
• Examination notices.
• Mark calculations.
• Programme handbooks.
• Module specifications.
• Meeting notes.
• Academic feedback.
• System screenshots.
• Version histories.
• Witness statements.
• A dated chronology.

Documents not written in English require an official or accredited translation.

The University will not normally rely on statements from friends or relatives in place of independent evidence. It may also reject evidence that covers the wrong period or does not relate to the assessment.

Organising the evidence

An effective evidence bundle should remain easy to follow.

Students can label documents as:

• Exhibit A1: decision letter.
• Exhibit A2: medical evidence.
• Exhibit A3: email to programme staff.
• Exhibit A4: relevant programme regulation.
• Exhibit A5: chronology.

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

A large bundle without explanation may weaken the case. Decision-makers should not need to guess why a document matters.

Can evidence arrive after the appeal?

Students should submit the appeal on time even where some evidence remains outstanding.

The University normally requires any outstanding evidence within 10 working days after receiving the appeal. It may refuse evidence supplied after that period.

The student should identify the missing evidence in the original form. They should also state when they expect to receive it.

How does the City St George’s academic appeal procedure work?

The internal process normally has two stages:

• Stage 1: School-level consideration.
• Stage 2: independent University-level review.

City St George’s aims to complete both stages within 90 calendar days. However, complex cases and School Appeal Panels may take longer.

Stage 1: School-level academic appeal

A taught student must normally submit the appeal within 20 working days after the University releases the results following the relevant Assessment Board.

At least two members of staff within the School then conduct the initial consideration.

The University normally aims to issue a written Stage 1 decision within 20 working days after receiving the complete appeal.

Possible outcomes include:

• Rejection because the case does not meet an appeal ground.
• Return of the form for correction or clarification.
• Immediate corrective action in a material-error case.
• Referral to an Assessment Board.
• Referral of an extenuating circumstances claim to an EC Panel.
• Referral to a School Appeal Panel in an exceptional case.

The University may give the student 10 working days to revise and resubmit a returned form.

However, students should not rely on receiving that opportunity. An incomplete form, unsupported claim or invalid ground may lead to rejection.

What happens at a School Appeal Panel?

The University may convene a School Appeal Panel where the case requires a hearing or the initial reviewers cannot resolve it.

The Panel will normally meet within 20 working days of the initial consideration outcome. The University usually sends the written result within 10 working days after the meeting.

A student may attend and bring one companion, such as someone from the Students’ Union.

The student should normally provide the companion’s details at least five working days before the Panel. Representation in the student’s absence requires exceptional circumstances and the Chair’s agreement.

The standard procedure does not give an automatic right to have a solicitor speak for the student.

Nevertheless, a solicitor can still:

• Draft the appeal.
• Review the evidence.
• Prepare the student for questions.
• Identify procedural concerns.
• Advise on the available remedy.
• Prepare a request for external attendance where justified.

What can the School Appeal Panel decide?

A successful taught appeal may lead to:

• A recommendation for another assessment attempt.
• Treatment of a resit as a first or additional attempt.
• Reinstatement on the programme where necessary.
• Referral back to the Assessment Board with comments.
• Another appropriate corrective step.

However, the School Appeal Panel cannot recommend changing the original marks itself.

Therefore, students should request a remedy that falls within the Panel’s powers.

Asking the Panel simply to add marks will usually be ineffective.

Stage 2: University-level review

Stage 2 is not a complete rehearing of the original appeal.

A student cannot request Stage 2 merely because they disagree with the Stage 1 result.

Instead, the student must normally establish one or both of these grounds:

• A material administrative or procedural error affected Stage 1.
• Substantive new information has become available and could not have been supplied earlier for a valid overriding reason outside the student’s control.

The normal deadline is 15 working days after the Stage 1 outcome.

At least two staff members outside the student’s School usually consider the review. The University normally aims to issue the decision within 20 working days after receiving the complete Stage 2 submission.

A strong Stage 2 request should analyse the Stage 1 reasoning.

For example, it may argue that:

• The reviewers overlooked an important document.
• The School applied the wrong regulation.
• The decision misrepresented the student’s evidence.
• The reasons do not address a central issue.
• A procedural error affected the investigation.
• Important new evidence could not reasonably have been provided earlier.

Repeating the Stage 1 statement without addressing the review grounds will rarely be enough.

What happens after a successful Stage 2 review?

The University may take immediate corrective action.

Alternatively, it may refer the matter back to the School for further consideration. The School will normally have 20 working days to respond following such a referral.

Where the reconsidered outcome remains unfavourable, a further review may be available only on material-error grounds.

Students should read the new outcome carefully before taking another step.

Does the original decision pause during the appeal?

No automatic suspension applies.

The Assessment Board’s decision remains in force unless the appeal changes it. Therefore, students must continue to follow the existing decision concerning progression, reassessment or an award.

Where the University has required a resit, the student should continue preparing for it.

Likewise, anyone seeking another assessment opportunity should prepare for the possibility of a decision shortly before the next assessment date.

International students should also seek separate immigration advice where withdrawal, suspension or non-progression may affect Student visa sponsorship.

What happens when an appeal succeeds?

A successful Stage 1 appeal may result in:

• Another attempt at an affected assessment.
• Immediate corrective action.
• Referral of an extenuating circumstances claim to an EC Panel.
• Reconsideration by the School or Assessment Board.

A successful Stage 2 review may result in corrective action or referral back to the School.

An upheld appeal does not guarantee that every related issue will succeed.

For example, the University may accept the reason for late disclosure but the EC Panel may later decide that the circumstances did not materially affect performance.

The student should therefore treat the academic appeal and the substantive EC decision as connected but separate questions.

Clerical mark check or academic appeal?

A clerical check may suit a straightforward calculation concern.

Students can request one within 28 calendar days after notification of the result.

However, a clerical check does not involve remarking the work. It only checks whether the University counted or calculated the marks correctly.

A clerical check may be appropriate where:

• Marks do not add up.
• A component appears missing.
• The transcript shows a different mark.
• A weighting seems incorrect.

By contrast, a formal appeal may be necessary where a material procedural error affected the Assessment Board’s decision.

Research student academic appeals

Research students use Senate Regulation 21 rather than Regulation 20.

A research appeal may challenge a decision about:

• Withdrawal or suspension of registration.
• Transfer from MPhil to PhD.
• Extension beyond the maximum candidature period.
• Transfer to writing-up status.
• Refusal to award a research degree.
• Refusal to allow resubmission.
• An award different from the degree for which the student registered.

Research students may also use Regulation 21 in specified academic misconduct situations.

However, they cannot use it merely to challenge academic judgement or complain about supervision quality. A supervision or service complaint normally belongs under Regulation 26.

Research appeal grounds

Research students may rely on:

• A material error in the monitoring or assessment of progress.
• A material error in the conduct of the examination.
• Previously undisclosed extenuating circumstances.
• Bias or a reasonable perception of bias.

A research student must normally submit Stage 1 within 20 working days after receiving written confirmation of the registration or examination decision.

The University normally aims to provide the initial outcome within 20 working days.

Possible research appeal outcomes

For a registration-status case, a School Appeal Panel may recommend:

• Re-registration.
• Transfer from MPhil to PhD.
• An extension of candidature.
• Suspension of registration.
• Transfer to writing-up status.
• Submission of additional work for progress assessment.

For an examination appeal, the Panel may recommend:

• Reconsideration by the original examiners.
• Revision and resubmission.
• Re-examination by the original or new examiners.
• Appointment of new examiners.
• A new viva where required.

Research Stage 2 uses the same broad review structure as taught Stage 2.

The student normally has 15 working days after the Stage 1 decision and must identify a material error or qualifying new information.

Academic appeal or student complaint?

An appeal and a complaint serve different purposes.

A City St George’s academic appeal directly challenges an Assessment Board or research decision about assessment, progression, registration or an award.

A student complaint concerns dissatisfaction with the learning experience or a service or facility that the University provided, or should have provided.

A complaint may involve:

• Poor administration.
• Inadequate teaching arrangements.
• Repeated communication failures.
• Delayed feedback.
• Inadequate research supervision.
• Failure to deliver a stated service.
• Failure to follow an administrative process.
• Problems with facilities.
• Unfair treatment unrelated to an academic judgement.

A complaint cannot normally replace an academic appeal.

Likewise, an academic appeal may not resolve a service problem.

Some cases require both procedures. For example, a student may complain about inadequate supervision while separately appealing a later academic decision affected by a procedural error.

City St George’s student complaints procedure

Regulation 26 contains three internal stages:

1. Stage 1 informal local resolution.
2. Stage 2 formal local resolution.
3. Stage 3 University-level review.

The University aims to complete Stages 2 and 3 within a combined period of 90 calendar days.

Complaint deadline

A current student should normally complain within three months of the event.

Where the complaint concerns a series of connected events, the three-month period normally runs from the final event.

A former student should generally complain within three months after their last registered date.

Stage 1 complaint

The student should first raise the issue with the staff member, programme, School or service closest to the problem.

The University aims to resolve matters quickly. Where possible, it seeks to complete Stage 1 within six weeks.

The written outcome should explain either:

• The proposed resolution; or
• Why the University cannot offer a satisfactory resolution.

Stage 2 formal complaint

A student should normally submit Stage 2 within 15 working days after the Stage 1 response.

The University should acknowledge the form within five working days.

The formal complaint should include:

• A concise account of the issue.
• A chronology.
• The Stage 1 steps.
• Relevant evidence.
• The impact on the student.
• The requested outcome.

Students should submit the complaint on time even where further evidence remains outstanding.

Stage 3 complaint review

A student must normally request Stage 3 within 15 working days after the Stage 2 outcome.

Permitted grounds include:

• A procedural irregularity affected Stage 2.
• Important new information could not have been disclosed earlier.
• The Stage 2 decision was unreasonable.

Stage 3 reviews the reasonableness and handling of Stage 2. It does not simply conduct the entire complaint again.

Complaint outcomes

Where the University upholds or partly upholds a complaint, it may recommend:

• An apology.
• Delivery of a service that should have been provided.
• Corrective action.
• Local reconsideration.
• Consideration of compensation.
• Another suitable remedy.

Can a solicitor represent a student in a complaint?

The complaints regulation states that neither the University nor the student would normally have legal representation.

Students should also normally communicate with the University themselves. Exceptions may apply where disability or another serious circumstance prevents direct engagement.

Solicitor-led assistance can still include:

• Reviewing the merits.
• Drafting the complaint.
• Organising evidence.
• Analysing the Stage 2 outcome.
• Preparing the Stage 3 review.
• Advising the student before meetings.

City St George’s academic misconduct procedure

Academic misconduct allegations require a different strategy from an ordinary academic appeal.

The University’s current policy covers all programmes leading to a City St George’s award. It works alongside the Assessment Regulations, Student Discipline Regulation and doctoral regulations.

Potential allegations include:

• Plagiarism.
• Self-plagiarism.
• Collusion.
• Contract cheating.
• Impersonation.
• Fabrication or falsification.
• Examination misconduct.
• Unauthorised assistance.
• Unauthorised use of generative AI.
• Submission of work created by another person or service.

The University distinguishes between Poor Academic Practice, Academic Misconduct and Severe Academic Misconduct. It determines the category through academic judgement and the balance-of-probabilities standard.

AI and ChatGPT allegations

City St George’s expects students not to use generative AI to create assessed work unless the assessment instructions expressly allow or require it.

Where the University permits AI, the student should acknowledge, describe and reference the use in the required way. Passing AI-generated work off as the student’s own may amount to academic or severe academic misconduct.

The first defence question should therefore be:

What did the assessment instructions allow?

Other important questions include:

• Did the module permit planning or brainstorming with AI?
• Did it allow language correction?
• Did the student need to disclose prompts?
• Was AI-generated text prohibited?
• Did the student acknowledge permitted use?
• Which part of the work does the allegation concern?
• What evidence does the University rely on?

Evidence in an AI misconduct case

Students should preserve:

• Early outlines.
• Rough drafts.
• Dated revisions.
• Word or Google Docs version histories.
• Research notes.
• Source materials.
• Citation records.
• Cloud timestamps.
• Prompt records, where available.
• Browser records.
• Data files.
• Previous work showing a consistent writing style.

The University itself strongly encourages students to retain dated outlines, drafts and revisions because they may help demonstrate authorship.

Students should not delete or alter files after receiving an allegation.

A clear record of how the work developed can carry more weight than a general denial.

How may the University use detection tools?

The policy allows technology such as Turnitin to support academic judgement.

However, a report should only become evidence where an academic interprets it and provides a short written analysis.

Specific evidence may include:

• A Turnitin report with academic interpretation.
• Screenshots suggesting collusion.
• Unattributed copied wording.
• Similarities between student submissions.
• Generative AI markers, such as invented references.

Where no specific evidence exists, the University may rely on reasonable suspicion to begin an investigation.

Nevertheless, that suspicion must rest on academic judgement and identifiable facts. The policy says it should not rest on subjective feelings, vague assumptions or unsupported hunches.

Preliminary Investigation

A Preliminary Investigation considers whether there is a potential case to answer.

The University may ask the student to explain:

• How they researched the work.
• Which sources they used.
• How the argument developed.
• Why the writing style changed.
• How they produced particular sections.
• Whether they collaborated with anyone.
• Whether they used AI or another tool.
• Whether they can provide drafts.

Where a meeting takes place, the policy recommends seven calendar days’ notice where possible. The University should also consider disability and any agreed reasonable adjustments.

The Preliminary Investigation is not the formal hearing.

However, the student’s answers can shape the later case. If the matter proceeds to an Academic Misconduct Panel, the Panel may question the student more closely.

Students should therefore prepare carefully before providing a written or oral explanation.

Academic Misconduct Panel

Most academic misconduct cases and all severe cases may proceed to an Academic Misconduct Panel.

At that stage, the University carries the burden of proving the allegation. The Panel applies the balance-of-probabilities standard.

The policy normally provides:

• At least 14 calendar days’ notice of the Panel date.
• Relevant evidence at least seven calendar days before the hearing.
• An opportunity for the student to respond.
• A written recommendation no later than 14 calendar days after the hearing.

The student may bring a support person or witness.

However, the policy does not permit legal representation at the Academic Misconduct Panel. A legally qualified companion may attend only in a supportive role.

Accordingly, solicitor-led preparation may be especially important before the hearing.

Serious academic misconduct and disciplinary proceedings

An Academic Misconduct Panel may refer a serious case to a Regulation 13 Disciplinary Panel. A student on a professionally regulated course may instead face a Fitness to Practise or Fitness to Train process.

At the disciplinary stage, possible academic misconduct sanctions can include:

• A zero mark.
• Removal of remaining resit rights.
• Reduction or cancellation of earlier marks.
• A reduced degree classification.
• Exclusion.
• Suspension.
• Expulsion.
• Retrospective withdrawal of an award.

Professional programmes may create further consequences. The University may report a finding to the relevant professional body where it considers this necessary and appropriate.

Can a solicitor attend a Disciplinary Panel?

Legal attendance is not the normal position.

However, Regulation 13 allows a solicitor or barrister to attend in very exceptional circumstances.

The University may consider:

• The seriousness of the allegation.
• The complexity of the evidence.
• The student’s ability to understand the case.
• Likely procedural challenges.

Permission remains case-specific.

Even where the University allows legal attendance, the student should expect to answer factual questions personally. Another person may speak on the student’s behalf only with the Chair’s agreement.

How can a student appeal an academic misconduct outcome?

The correct route depends on the sanction.

Sanctions 1 to 4

A student can normally challenge the recommended sanction after the Assessment Board ratifies it.

The student then uses the academic appeal timeline under Regulation 20 or Regulation 21.

Sanction 5 referral

Sanction 5 refers the case to a Disciplinary Panel or Fitness to Practise process.

The student does not need to wait for Assessment Board ratification.

Instead, the student must normally appeal within 20 working days after the sanction. The appeal is limited to material-error grounds.

Regulation 13 disciplinary appeal

A student must normally appeal a disciplinary decision within 15 working days after receiving the written outcome.

The available grounds include:

• Procedural errors made the decision unsafe.
• Bias or prejudice affected the finding or penalty.
• The decision was unreasonable.
• The penalty was disproportionate.
• Important new evidence could not previously have been submitted for a valid overriding reason.

A disciplinary appeal is not a full rehearing.

The Academic Registrar may:

• Reject the appeal.
• Amend the sanction.
• Revoke the sanction.
• Refer the matter for a fresh investigation.
• Order a new Disciplinary Panel.

What happens after the internal procedure ends?

After Stage 2 of an academic appeal, the University should issue a Completion of Procedures Letter confirming that the internal process has ended.

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

The OIA must normally receive the complaint within 12 months of the provider’s final decision, usually the date of the Completion of Procedures Letter.

An OIA complaint should focus on matters such as:

• Failure to follow the published procedure.
• Unreasonable handling of the evidence.
• Lack of fair opportunity to respond.
• Inadequate reasons.
• Bias or conflict of interest.
• An unreasonable or disproportionate outcome.
• Failure to implement reasonable adjustments.
• Failure to provide an appropriate remedy.

The OIA does not act as another marking body. It cannot simply replace the University’s academic judgement or remark work because the student disagrees with the result.

How Ginkgo Advisory can assist with a City St George’s academic appeal

Initial case assessment

We review:

• The formal decision.
• The applicable deadline.
• The relevant campus or programme route.
• The available appeal grounds.
• Existing evidence.
• The outcome the student seeks.

We then identify whether the matter should proceed as an academic appeal, research appeal, complaint, misconduct response, disciplinary appeal or OIA complaint.

Grounds and merits analysis

A persuasive submission must do more than tell a difficult story.

We test whether the facts satisfy:

• Material error.
• Undisclosed extenuating circumstances.
• Bias or perceived bias.
• Stage 2 review grounds.
• Disciplinary appeal grounds.
• Complaint review grounds.

Weak arguments can then be removed or reframed before filing.

Evidence review

We assess the relevance and value of each document.

This may include:

• Medical evidence.
• University correspondence.
• Assessment records.
• Disability documentation.
• Programme rules.
• Drafts and version histories.
• AI-related records.
• Misconduct evidence.
• Panel documents.
• Witness material.

We can also identify missing documents and inconsistencies.

Chronology and case theory

A clear chronology helps the decision-maker understand the case.

Therefore, we organise the events by date and connect them to the applicable ground.

The final submission should make three matters clear:

1. What went wrong.
2. Why it affected the decision.
3. What the University should do about it.

Written submissions

We can prepare or review:

• Taught Stage 1 appeals.
• Research Stage 1 appeals.
• Stage 2 review requests.
• Late-appeal explanations.
• Extenuating circumstances statements.
• Student complaints.
• Stage 3 complaint reviews.
• Academic misconduct responses.
• AI and ChatGPT allegation responses.
• Disciplinary appeals.
• Fitness to Practise submissions.
• OIA complaints.
• Evidence schedules and chronologies.

Each document reflects the facts of the individual case.

Meeting and hearing preparation

We can help students prepare for:

• School Appeal Panels.
• Preliminary Investigations.
• Academic Misconduct Panels.
• Regulation 13 Disciplinary Panels.
• Fitness to Practise proceedings.
• Research appeal hearings.
• Complaint meetings.

Preparation may cover likely questions, difficult evidence, oral answers and procedural strategy.

Representation where permitted

Representation depends on the applicable rules and the relevant Chair’s approval.

Where external attendance is unavailable, solicitor-led preparation can still shape the written case and hearing strategy.

Common mistakes in City St George’s academic appeals

Appealing only because the mark seems unfair

Academic judgement is not a valid appeal ground by itself.

Instead, the student must identify material error, qualifying extenuating circumstances or bias.

Missing the 20-working-day deadline

Informal discussions do not automatically extend the deadline.

Students should protect the formal deadline while seeking clarification.

Appealing a provisional result

Regulation 20 normally applies only after Assessment Board ratification.

Submitting too early may result in rejection.

Failing to explain late disclosure

Evidence of illness does not automatically explain why the student missed the extenuating circumstances process.

Both the circumstances and the reason for non-disclosure require support.

Providing evidence without connecting it to the decision

A diagnosis may confirm a condition.

However, the appeal must also explain how that condition affected a particular assessment or outcome.

Using a complaint when an academic remedy is required

A complaint may address poor teaching or administration.

It cannot usually replace an appeal against progression, classification or an award.

Repeating Stage 1 at Stage 2

Stage 2 applies narrower review grounds.

The submission should identify an error in Stage 1 or qualifying new information.

Waiting too long for outstanding evidence

Students should normally submit the appeal within time.

They can identify outstanding evidence and provide it within the further period allowed by the regulations.

Asking for a direct mark increase

The School Appeal Panel cannot recommend changing the original marks.

A realistic remedy may involve reassessment, reconsideration or corrective action.

Giving an unprepared misconduct explanation

An early explanation can affect the rest of the case.

Students should review the allegation, evidence, drafts and assessment rules before responding.

Deleting AI or drafting records

Deleting records may remove evidence that supports authorship.

Students should preserve original files, version histories and research materials.

Assuming a solicitor has an automatic right to attend

Different procedures impose different rules.

Academic Misconduct Panels prohibit legal representation, while Regulation 13 allows it only in very exceptional cases.

Frequently asked questions

What is the City St George’s academic appeal deadline?

A taught student normally has 20 working days after release of results following the relevant Assessment Board.

A research student normally has 20 working days after written confirmation of the registration or examination decision.

How long do I have to submit Stage 2?

The normal deadline is 15 working days after the Stage 1 outcome.

Can I appeal because I disagree with my mark?

Not on that basis alone.

The University does not normally allow appeals against academic judgement. A valid case must identify a permitted ground.

Can I appeal a provisional mark?

Normally, no.

The relevant Assessment Board must first confirm the result or decision.

What are the three Stage 1 grounds?

The grounds are material error, previously undisclosed extenuating circumstances, and bias or a reasonable perception of bias.

What happens if I did not submit extenuating circumstances?

An appeal may remain possible where the student had a valid overriding reason outside their control.

The student must support both the circumstances and the reason for non-disclosure with evidence.

Can I submit evidence later?

The appeal itself should arrive before the deadline.

Outstanding evidence must normally follow within 10 working days after the University receives the appeal.

Can I ask for a remark?

A clerical check can confirm that the University counted and calculated the marks correctly.

However, it does not involve remarking the assessment.

Can a solicitor attend my appeal hearing?

The standard appeal rules do not provide an automatic right to solicitor representation.

A student may normally bring one companion. Representation in the student’s absence requires exceptional circumstances and the Chair’s approval.

Can a solicitor attend an Academic Misconduct Panel?

A legally qualified person may attend only in a supportive role.

The policy does not permit legal representation at the Academic Misconduct Panel itself.

Can a solicitor attend a Disciplinary Panel?

The University may permit a solicitor or barrister in very exceptional circumstances.

It considers factors such as seriousness, evidential complexity, student capacity and likely procedural issues.

How long do I have to appeal a disciplinary decision?

The normal deadline is 15 working days after written confirmation of the decision.

Can a PhD student appeal a viva result?

A research student may appeal an examination result on the permitted Regulation 21 grounds.

Possible remedies can include reconsideration, revision and resubmission, new examiners or a new viva.

Does the original decision pause during the appeal?

No automatic suspension applies.

Students should comply with the original progression, award or reassessment decision unless the University changes it.

Can I complain about inadequate supervision?

Supervision quality normally falls under the student complaints procedure.

However, a separate research appeal may also arise where a qualifying procedural error affected a formal academic decision.

Can I challenge an AI misconduct allegation?

Yes. The correct response should address the assessment instructions, the evidence, permitted AI use and the student’s actual drafting process.

Dated drafts, version histories and research records may provide important authorship evidence.

What happens after Stage 2?

The University should issue a Completion of Procedures Letter when no further internal route remains.

An eligible student may then complain to the OIA.

What is the OIA deadline?

The OIA normally requires the complaint within 12 months of the final decision or Completion of Procedures Letter.

Request a confidential case assessment

A City St George’s academic appeal can affect progression, reassessment, graduation, professional training and future study.

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

Ginkgo Advisory provides solicitor-led academic appeals, complaints and misconduct defence for students at UK universities.

Our service is confidential, independent and tailored to each case.

Support is available from initial case assessment to final written submission. Where the relevant procedure permits it, we can also provide representation.

Contact Ginkgo Advisory for a confidential assessment of your City St George’s academic appeal, complaint or misconduct matter.

Independent-service disclaimer

Ginkgo Advisory is independent from City St George’s, University of London, its Students’ Union and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

This article provides general information only.

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

University regulations, policies and submission routes may change. Students should therefore check the current Student Hub, programme handbook and decision letter.