King’s College London Academic Appeal: Procedure, Grounds, Deadlines and Solicitor-Led Support

A King’s College London academic appeal must challenge a ratified academic decision on a permitted ground. For taught students, the Stage One deadline is normally 15 working days after the release of ratified results. Students cannot use the process simply to dispute academic judgment or request a remark.

King’s now asks taught students to submit Stage One appeals through Student Records. At that stage, the University considers two main grounds. These concern undisclosed mitigating circumstances and a significant administrative error affecting the assessment.

This guide reflects the King’s College London 2025/26 Academic Regulations and policies available on 18 July 2026. King’s reviews its rules regularly, so students should also check the version linked to their decision.

Solicitor-led academic appeals, complaints and misconduct defence

Ginkgo Advisory provides confidential and independent support for students at King’s College London and other UK universities.

For a King’s College London academic appeal, our solicitor-led service may include:

• An initial assessment of the merits and deadline.
• Analysis of the applicable King’s regulations.
• Review of medical, academic and digital evidence.
• Preparation or revision of written submissions.
• Strategy for Stage One and Stage Two appeals.
• Student complaint drafting.
• Academic misconduct and AI allegation defence.
• Preparation for an Appeal Committee, Academic Integrity Meeting or Misconduct Committee.
• OIA complaint drafting.
• Representation where King’s rules and the relevant Chair allow it.

Every case requires individual analysis. Therefore, we do not treat templates as a substitute for evidence or valid regulatory grounds.

No adviser can guarantee an outcome. However, early advice can reduce avoidable procedural and evidential mistakes.

King’s College London academic appeal deadlines at a glance

Procedure	Normal deadline
Taught student Stage One academic appeal	15 working days after ratified results
Taught student Stage Two academic appeal	10 working days after the Stage One outcome
PGR upgrade or MD(Res) transfer appeal	15 working days after the upgrade decision
PGR thesis or oral examination appeal	15 working days after notification of the examination result
Stage Two student complaint	Within three months of the incident or last related incident
Stage Three complaint appeal	10 working days after the Stage Two outcome
Stage One misconduct contestation	10 working days after the written AIM outcome
Misconduct Committee appeal	10 working days after the Committee outcome
OIA complaint	Normally within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter

King’s sets the academic appeal and research degree deadlines in Chapters 6 and 7 of its Academic Regulations.

Its complaints and academic misconduct policies contain separate deadlines. The OIA must normally receive an eligible complaint within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter.

Students should calculate the deadline immediately. Late submissions require a clear explanation and supporting evidence. Even then, King’s retains discretion over whether to accept them.

What is an academic appeal at King’s?

An academic appeal asks King’s to reconsider a formal academic decision.

For taught students, the decision may concern:

• A ratified module result.
• Progression to the next stage.
• Reassessment rights.
• Removal for insufficient academic progress.
• A final award.
• A degree classification.
• The outcome of a mitigating circumstances request.

King’s treats marks as provisional until the Faculty Assessment Board ratifies them. Therefore, a taught student normally appeals only after publication of the ratified result. Students removed for insufficient academic progress may also use the academic appeal route.

What cannot be challenged?

King’s does not allow an academic appeal against academic judgment.

Academic judgment covers an expert academic assessment of quality. For example, it may include the mark awarded, the quality of an argument or the academic value of a dissertation.

Consequently, the following arguments will not normally succeed on their own:

• “My work deserved a higher mark.”
• “The marker misunderstood my argument.”
• “The feedback was too harsh.”
• “Another student received a better result.”
• “My degree classification should be higher.”

A procedural problem may still support an appeal. For instance, a student may question whether King’s followed the correct marking, moderation or assessment process.

However, the student must distinguish that concern from disagreement with the marker’s academic opinion.

Which grounds support a King’s College London academic appeal?

For pre-undergraduate, undergraduate and postgraduate taught students, Stage One has two main grounds.

1. Undisclosed mitigating circumstances

A student may appeal where mitigating circumstances adversely affected an assessment.

However, the student must also show that they could not, or for a valid reason would not, disclose those circumstances before the original decision.

Examples may include:

• Serious physical illness.
• Acute mental health difficulties.
• Bereavement.
• Hospital treatment.
• A family crisis.
• Trauma.
• A significant disability-related issue.
• Another unexpected event outside the student’s control.

The submission should answer two separate questions.

First, how did the circumstances affect the assessment?

Second, why did the student not use the earlier mitigating circumstances process?

King’s expects students to submit a Mitigating Circumstances Form as soon as possible. Its current guidance refers to submission before an assessment or within seven days afterwards.

Therefore, a retrospective appeal needs more than proof of illness. It should also explain the late disclosure.

For example, a medical letter may confirm a diagnosis. Yet it may not explain why the student could not engage with the earlier procedure.

The evidence should address both issues.

2. Significant administrative error

A student may appeal where clear evidence shows a significant administrative error by King’s or an error in the conduct of the assessment.

Possible examples include:

• An incorrectly recorded mark.
• Use of the wrong assessment rules.
• Failure to implement an approved arrangement.
• Loss of an assessment.
• Omission of relevant information from an Assessment Board.
• A material error in the examination process.
• A serious failure in the marking or moderation procedure.

Not every mistake justifies a new outcome.

Therefore, the student should explain how the problem may have affected the assessment or resulting decision.

Can a student appeal a rejected mitigating circumstances request?

Yes, but the student must normally wait until King’s ratifies the relevant results.

The appeal may rely on one or both of these grounds:

1. Important new evidence could not reasonably have been supplied earlier, or a good reason explains why it was not supplied.
2. King’s made a significant procedural error when it considered the mitigating circumstances request.

These are narrower tests than general disagreement with the mitigating circumstances outcome.

The student should address the earlier decision directly. Merely repeating the original circumstances will often leave the key issue unanswered.

Instead, the appeal should identify the new evidence or procedural error. It should then explain why that point could have affected the result.

Evidence for a King’s College London academic appeal

Evidence should support each important factual statement.

Useful documents may include:

• GP, hospital or specialist records.
• Counselling or mental health records.
• Disability support documents.
• Emails sent to tutors or programme staff.
• Assessment submission receipts.
• Student Records screenshots.
• Approved Personalised Assessment Arrangements.
• Module and programme handbooks.
• Marking or moderation records.
• Meeting notes.
• Witness statements.
• Travel, police or bereavement documents.
• A dated chronology.
• Certified translations where the original evidence is not in English.

King’s asks students to submit a supporting statement and evidence with the appeal. Its regulations also identify evidential and translation issues that may cause an appeal to fail the initial screening stage.

Contemporaneous evidence usually carries more weight. Therefore, documents created near the relevant events can be especially helpful.

A strong bundle also stays focused. Each document should have a number, date and short explanation.

The written submission should then refer to those numbers. This approach helps the decision-maker follow the evidence.

How does the King’s College London academic appeal process work?

Before Stage One

King’s encourages students to seek advice from a module leader, programme director or KCLSU before submitting a formal appeal.

An informal enquiry may correct a simple recording error. However, it does not extend the formal deadline unless King’s confirms an extension.

Students should therefore protect the formal deadline while pursuing any informal enquiry.

Stage One: submission through Student Records

Since 8 July 2025, taught students have submitted Stage One appeals through the Student Records system.

The normal deadline is 15 working days after King’s publishes the ratified results.

The form asks for:

• The relevant regulatory criteria.
• The module mark.
• The assessment concerned.
• A supporting statement.
• Supporting evidence.
• Details of any related academic misconduct finding.

Student Conduct & Appeals first checks the submission.

It may reject an appeal that is:

• Late.
• Incomplete.
• Unsupported by evidence.
• Outside the scope of the procedure.
• Based on academic judgment.
• Frivolous or vexatious.

The Academic Regulations set out the circumstances in which King’s may reject a Stage One appeal before it reaches the Faculty Assessment Board.

Where Student Conduct & Appeals rejects the case at that preliminary stage, the decision notice should explain the right to contest it within five working days.

If the case passes the initial check, the Faculty Assessment Board Chair, a delegated representative or the full Board considers it.

The decision-maker may confirm or modify the original decision. The outcome letter should also give reasons.

King’s normally aims to notify students within 30 working days of publication of the relevant results. However, its guidance warns of higher appeal volumes between July and October and during February.

A well-prepared King’s College London academic appeal should address the regulations from the outset. Later stages may not cure a weak or incomplete first submission.

Stage Two: review of the Stage One outcome

A student must normally submit a Stage Two form within 10 working days of the Stage One outcome.

Stage Two is not an opportunity to repeat the same account. Instead, the student must rely on at least one review ground:

• Significant new evidence that could not reasonably have been supplied earlier.
• A significant procedural error in King’s consideration of Stage One.
• An unreasonable Stage One decision when assessed against the evidence and representations.

King’s sets out these grounds in regulation 7.25.

The Stage Two submission should analyse the Stage One decision closely.

For example, it may identify:

• Evidence that the Board misunderstood.
• A material document that the Board overlooked.
• An incorrect interpretation of the regulations.
• Reasoning that does not address a central issue.
• An outcome that the available evidence cannot reasonably support.

Student Conduct & Appeals normally decides within 30 working days whether the request meets the Stage Two criteria.

If it does not, King’s issues a Completion of Procedures outcome. No further internal academic appeal then remains.

If it does, King’s arranges an Appeal Committee.

What happens at a King’s Appeal Committee?

King’s normally gives at least 10 working days’ notice of the Committee date.

The student may present the case. Meanwhile, the Faculty Assessment Board Chair or a nominee may respond for the faculty.

The rules normally allow representation by:

• Another member of King’s.
• A member of KCLSU.
• A member of the student’s professional organisation, where applicable.

A friend or family member may accompany the student. However, that person cannot normally speak unless King’s permits this as a reasonable adjustment.

King’s must receive the representative’s or companion’s name at least 48 hours before the hearing.

In addition, a party seeking to rely on new evidence should normally submit it at least five working days before the Committee date. The Chair decides whether to admit late or new material.

The standard academic appeal rules do not give students an automatic right to solicitor representation.

Even so, a solicitor can assess the case, draft the submission and prepare the student before the hearing. Any request for external attendance should be made early and should not assume approval.

What outcomes can the Appeal Committee order?

The Appeal Committee decides whether sufficient reason exists to challenge the Stage One outcome.

If the student succeeds, the Committee may:

• Set aside the Faculty Assessment Board’s decision.
• Replace that decision with a permitted outcome.
• Refer the case back for fresh consideration.
• Set aside an assessment attempt and permit reassessment.

However, the Committee cannot act as a marking board.

It cannot:

• Raise a mark.
• Convert a fail into a pass.
• Raise a degree classification.
• Make an academic award.

Where a successful appeal concerns an award or classification, the Committee refers the matter back to the relevant Faculty Assessment Board.

The Appeal Committee’s decision is final within King’s. The University normally communicates the decision within five working days.

Can a student progress while an appeal is pending?

An appeal does not create an automatic right to continue or progress.

The student must still meet the minimum progression requirements.

Therefore, anyone facing termination, placement issues or a time-sensitive reassessment should seek advice quickly.

A student awaiting a Stage One decision should also contact the department about any scheduled reassessment.

King’s warns that taking a reassessment while an appeal remains pending may affect the student’s attempt position if the appeal later fails.

Postgraduate research appeals at King’s

A King’s College London academic appeal for a research degree follows the separate rules in Chapter 6.

Postgraduate research students may appeal:

• A decision not to approve an MPhil-to-PhD upgrade or MD(Res) transfer.
• The outcome of a thesis and oral examination.

Neither route allows a challenge to academic judgment.

PGR upgrade and transfer appeals

A PGR student must normally submit the upgrade appeal within 15 working days of the decision.

The grounds include:

• Mitigating circumstances that affected performance and could not, or for a valid reason would not, be disclosed earlier.
• A significant administrative or procedural error in the upgrade process that accounted for the student’s performance.

The Associate Dean for Doctoral Studies first decides whether the appeal meets the criteria. The regulations say that the Associate Dean will normally communicate that decision within 10 working days.

If the case proceeds, an Appeals Panel considers the relevant documents. It may also interview the student or supervisor.

Possible outcomes include:

• Confirming termination.
• Confirming continued registration at MPhil level.
• Allowing the MPhil-to-PhD upgrade.
• Permitting another upgrade attempt.

The Panel normally aims to reach its decision within 30 working days of receiving the appeal.

Thesis and viva appeals

A student must normally appeal a thesis or oral examination result within 15 working days of notification.

The principal grounds concern:

• Undisclosed mitigating circumstances affecting the oral examination.
• A significant administrative or procedural error in the examination.

The Vice-Chancellor normally decides within 30 working days whether the appeal may proceed.

If King’s accepts the appeal for a hearing, an Appeal Committee may ask the original examiners to reconsider.

Alternatively, it may cancel the original examination and order a new examination with different examiners.

Academic appeal or student complaint?

A King’s College London academic appeal is not the same as a student complaint.

The correct procedure depends on the decision and the remedy.

An academic appeal concerns assessment, progression or an award. By contrast, a complaint concerns a service, action or failure by King’s.

The complaints process may cover:

• Programme delivery.
• Inadequate PGR supervision.
• Facilities or central services.
• Action or inaction by staff.
• Bullying.
• Harassment.
• Discrimination.
• Sexual misconduct.

However, a complaint cannot directly provide an academic outcome, such as a new progression decision.

King’s also states that students cannot use the complaints procedure to relitigate an unsuccessful academic appeal.

Some cases may require both procedures.

For example, a complaint may investigate poor supervision. The resulting findings may then support a separate academic appeal.

Stage One complaint: local resolution

Students should normally raise the concern with the relevant person as early as possible.

This may involve:

• A personal tutor.
• A graduate tutor.
• A supervisor.
• A programme tutor.
• A service manager.
• A head of department.

The aim is to resolve the issue without a formal investigation.

Stage Two complaint: formal investigation

A student should normally submit the Stage Two Complaint Form within three months of the incident or the last event in a related series.

King’s may accept a late complaint where circumstances justify an extension.

An appointed investigator may review documents, interview relevant people and consider the University’s procedures.

King’s normally aims to communicate the investigation outcome within 25 working days.

Stage Three complaint appeal

A student must normally appeal within 10 working days of the Stage Two outcome.

The main grounds are:

• Important new evidence that could not reasonably have been supplied earlier.
• A significant procedural error in King’s investigation.

The Vice President for Education and Student Success also retains discretion to consider other grounds, including compassion.

King’s normally aims to decide the Stage Three request within 20 working days.

It may:

• Dismiss the appeal.
• Offer a resolution.
• Convene an Appeal Committee.

The Appeal Committee’s decision ends the internal complaints process.

King’s academic misconduct procedure

Academic misconduct requires a different response from an academic appeal.

King’s may investigate concerns involving:

• Plagiarism.
• Collusion.
• Contract cheating.
• Unauthorised collaboration.
• Fabrication or falsification.
• Examination misconduct.
• Authorship concerns.
• Inappropriate use of generative AI.

King’s applies the balance of probabilities. In addition, the University does not need to prove that the student intended to commit misconduct.

However, proven intent may increase the seriousness of the case or penalty.

Academic Integrity Meeting

A Stage One Academic Integrity Meeting explores how the student prepared the assessment.

It also allows staff to explain the concerns and gives the student an opportunity to respond.

The student may bring:

• Another member of the King’s community.
• A KCLSU representative.
• A friend.
• A family member.

The accompanying person may normally advise and assist. However, they cannot usually present the case unless they represent KCLSU.

A legal representative cannot attend an Academic Integrity Meeting.

King’s states that a student who seeks legal representation may decline the AIM. The matter should then go to Student Conduct & Appeals for possible Misconduct Committee consideration.

The Committee Chair then decides whether legal representation may attend and in what capacity.

That choice can change the route and risk profile. Therefore, a student should obtain case-specific advice before deciding.

After the AIM, the student may normally provide further information within five working days. The Assessment Sub-Board Chair then determines the local outcome.

Contesting a Stage One misconduct outcome

Where the Stage One decision finds misconduct and applies a local outcome, the student may contest it within 10 working days.

Relevant reasons may include:

• Significant new evidence.
• A serious procedural or administrative error.
• An outcome that relevant academic integrity or penalty guidance cannot reasonably support.

Student Conduct & Appeals normally communicates its contestation decision within 15 working days.

Where Student Conduct & Appeals refuses the contestation, it should provide a Completion of Procedures Letter.

Misconduct Committee

Serious, disputed or repeat cases may proceed to a Misconduct Committee.

King’s normally gives at least 10 working days’ notice. The student should normally submit defence evidence and witness details at least five working days before the hearing.

The rules allow representation by:

• A King’s member.
• A KCLSU representative.
• A relevant professional organisation member.

The Chair has discretion to approve another representative, including a legal representative. The Chair may also define that person’s role.

Possible outcomes range from education or a warning to:

• A capped mark.
• A zero mark.
• Restrictions on reassessment.
• Suspension.
• Expulsion.
• A recommendation to revoke an award.

King’s may also refer cases involving professional programmes for fitness-to-practise consideration.

Misconduct appeal

A student must normally appeal a Misconduct Committee decision within 10 working days.

The published grounds include:

• Significant new evidence that could not reasonably have been supplied earlier.
• A significant procedural error before or during the Committee.

The Vice-Chancellor and President may also consider other grounds, including compassion.

The final appeal body may uphold, modify or reverse the finding or outcome.

AI and ChatGPT allegations at King’s

King’s states that inappropriate generative AI use without attribution can amount to academic misconduct.

Potential outcomes may range from a formal warning or resubmission to suspension or expulsion.

The first task is to identify the exact rule for the assessment.

Some uses may be permitted. Other uses may require disclosure or may be prohibited.

Relevant evidence can include:

• Drafts and tracked changes.
• Document version history.
• Research notes.
• Source materials.
• Citation records.
• Prompt or chat records, where available.
• Cloud timestamps.
• Earlier work showing a consistent writing style.
• A clear account of the research and drafting process.

A student should not rely only on a general denial.

Instead, the response should address each piece of evidence. It should also explain how the work developed.

Where King’s invites the student to an Academic Integrity Meeting, preparation should focus on the student’s genuine research and writing process.

Can a solicitor help with a King’s case?

For a King’s College London academic appeal, a solicitor can provide substantial help even when the University restricts external attendance.

Support may include:

• Identifying the correct procedure.
• Calculating the deadline.
• Assessing whether the facts meet a regulatory ground.
• Testing causation and materiality.
• Reviewing the available evidence.
• Identifying missing documents.
• Drafting a concise chronology.
• Preparing Stage One or Stage Two submissions.
• Responding to misconduct allegations.
• Preparing questions and oral answers.
• Requesting reasonable adjustments.
• Advising on a realistic remedy.
• Preparing an OIA complaint.

Representation depends on the specific procedure.

Therefore, Ginkgo Advisory provides attendance only where King’s permits it.

Common mistakes to avoid

Many King’s College London academic appeal submissions fail because they do not match the published grounds.

Challenging only the mark

Disagreement with academic judgment does not create a valid appeal.

Instead, the submission should identify mitigating circumstances or a significant administrative error.

Missing the 15-working-day deadline

The clock runs from publication of ratified results for taught appeals.

Therefore, students should not wait for informal discussions to finish unless King’s confirms an extension.

Providing evidence without explaining its impact

A diagnosis does not automatically prove that circumstances affected an assessment.

The student should connect the evidence to the relevant dates, task and academic result.

Ignoring the reason for late disclosure

Retrospective mitigating circumstances require an explanation.

Consequently, the appeal should show why the student could not or would not disclose the issue earlier.

Repeating Stage One at Stage Two

Stage Two has narrower grounds.

The submission should challenge the Stage One reasoning, identify new evidence or explain the procedural error.

Choosing a complaint when an academic remedy is needed

A complaint cannot directly change a progression decision.

Students should identify the desired outcome before choosing the route.

Submitting an unstructured evidence bundle

Decision-makers need a clear case.

Therefore, the student should use a chronology, numbered exhibits and precise cross-references.

Asking for a remedy King’s cannot provide

The Appeal Committee cannot simply raise a mark.

Instead, the requested remedy should reflect the powers available under the regulations.

Frequently asked questions

What is the King’s College London academic appeal deadline?

A taught student normally has 15 working days after publication of ratified results to submit Stage One.

Can I appeal because my mark is too low?

Not on that basis alone. King’s does not allow an appeal against academic judgment.

Can an appeal increase my mark?

The Appeal Committee cannot simply raise a mark or convert a fail into a pass.

A successful appeal may instead lead to reassessment or Faculty Assessment Board reconsideration.

How long do I have for Stage Two?

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

Can I appeal a rejected mitigating circumstances request?

Yes, after King’s ratifies the relevant results.

You must normally show important new evidence or a significant procedural error.

Can a solicitor attend an academic Appeal Committee?

King’s does not provide an automatic right to solicitor representation under the standard academic appeal rules.

However, legal advice, drafting and hearing preparation remain available before the Committee.

Can a solicitor attend an Academic Integrity Meeting?

No. King’s Academic Misconduct Procedure states that a legal representative cannot attend an AIM.

Can a solicitor attend a Misconduct Committee?

The Chair may approve alternative representation, including legal representation.

However, the Chair has discretion over attendance and the permitted role.

Can a PhD student appeal a viva result?

Yes, on the limited grounds in Chapter 6.

The normal deadline is 15 working days after notification of the examination result.

What happens after King’s completes its process?

King’s should normally issue a Completion of Procedures Letter when no internal route remains.

An eligible student may then complain to the OIA.

What is the OIA deadline?

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

Can the OIA change my mark?

The OIA cannot substitute its own academic judgment or directly award a particular mark.

However, it may recommend reconsideration where a provider failed to follow a fair process.

Request a confidential case assessment

A King’s College London academic appeal can affect progression, reassessment, graduation and future study.

Early advice helps students identify the correct ground, preserve evidence and meet the deadline.

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

Our support is confidential, independent and case-specific.

Assistance can continue from the initial assessment to the final written submission. Where the procedure permits it, we can also provide representation.

Contact Ginkgo Advisory for a confidential assessment of your King’s College London appeal, complaint or academic misconduct case.

Independent service disclaimer

Ginkgo Advisory is independent from King’s College London, KCLSU and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

This article provides general information. It does not guarantee an outcome or replace advice on an individual case.

King’s can update its regulations and procedures. Therefore, students should check the rules and decision letter that apply to their case.