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

A Loughborough University academic appeal asks the University to reconsider a formal decision made by a Programme Board or, for some doctoral researchers, a Progression Board or research-degree examination body.

Undergraduate and taught postgraduate students must normally submit an appeal within 10 working days of publication of the relevant Programme Board decision. The appeal must identify at least one ground permitted by Regulation XIV and include supporting evidence.

Students cannot appeal simply because they disagree with a mark, degree classification, feedback or an examiner’s academic judgement. Instead, they must identify serious undisclosed circumstances, a procedural irregularity, prejudice or bias.

Loughborough currently asks taught students to use the Regulation XIV Appeal Form. Students should send the completed form and evidence to the University’s Appeals Team at:

studentappeals@mailbox.lboro.ac.uk

Doctoral researchers follow the separate appeal routes in Regulation XXVI.

Solicitor-led academic appeals, complaints and misconduct defence

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

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

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

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

• Assessing the permitted grounds, deadline and prospects.
• Reviewing the Programme Board decision and applicable regulations.
• Analysing medical, academic, digital and procedural evidence.
• Drafting or revising a Regulation XIV Appeal Form.
• Preparing a late-appeal explanation.
• Addressing previously undisclosed mitigating circumstances.
• Identifying procedural irregularities in assessment or Programme Board proceedings.
• Preparing allegations of prejudice, bias or conflict of interest.
• Reviewing the Programme Board Chair’s response.
• Preparing the student’s written comments on University evidence.
• Advising doctoral researchers on progression, thesis and viva appeals.
• Preparing student complaints and final-review requests.
• Responding to plagiarism, collusion and contract-cheating allegations.
• Defending allegations involving ChatGPT or other generative AI tools.
• Preparing students for Minor or Major Academic Misconduct Committees.
• Drafting academic misconduct appeals.
• Preparing complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
• Providing representation where the relevant procedure allows it.

No adviser can guarantee an outcome. However, early professional advice can reduce mistakes involving the grounds, evidence, deadline and requested remedy.

Loughborough University academic appeal deadlines

Procedure	Normal deadline or timeframe
Regulation XIV appeal by a taught student	10 working days after publication of the Programme Board decision
Initial appeal eligibility decision	Normally within 5 working days after receipt of the complete appeal
Final Regulation XIV decision	Normally within a maximum of 40 working days after receipt of the complete appeal
Reconvened Programme Board after a successful appeal	Normally within 20 working days
Notification of reconvened Board decision	Normally within 3 working days
Research-degree examination appeal	10 working days after notification of the examination result
Doctoral Progression Board appeal	10 working days after written notification
Regulation XVIII academic misconduct appeal	10 working days after notification of the misconduct outcome
Formal student complaint	Normally within 3 months of the last event complained about
Formal complaint outcome	Normally within 30 working days
Final complaint review request	10 working days after the formal complaint outcome
Final complaint review outcome	Normally within 30 working days
OIA complaint	Normally within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter

The formal Regulation XIV deadline is 10 working days. However, the current Student Handbook says that this period pauses while a student is actively discussing the relevant concern with their School or a University support service. The pause runs from the first relevant contact until the last relevant communication. Students should preserve the written correspondence and should not assume that an informal conversation automatically pauses time.

A late appeal must explain the delay and include evidence of the reason. The student must establish the appeal ground as well as a good reason for missing the submission deadline.

What is a Loughborough University academic appeal?

A Loughborough University academic appeal challenges a formal academic decision made by a Programme Board.

At Loughborough, the Programme Board considers students’ academic performance and makes formal decisions about progression, reassessment and awards. Regulation XIV gives taught students a route to challenge those decisions on limited grounds.

An appeal may concern:

• An examination result.
• A coursework or project result.
• A failed module.
• Progression to the next part of a programme.
• A resit or reassessment decision.
• A permitted repeat attempt.
• Termination of studies following academic failure.
• A degree classification.
• A final degree or award.
• Another formal Programme Board decision.

Students should identify the exact decision under appeal. A general statement that their studies went badly will not normally establish an appeal ground.

Can a student appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

Regulation XIV applies to formal Programme Board decisions. Loughborough does not normally hold a Programme Board to confirm marks at the end of Semester One. Consequently, Semester One marks generally remain unconfirmed until the relevant end-of-year Board.

Students normally cannot use Regulation XIV immediately after receiving Semester One marks. Instead, they should consider the Mitigating Circumstances procedure where circumstances have affected those assessments. The formal appeal right normally arises after the Programme Board confirms the marks.

Where the issue appears to be a simple recording or calculation error, the student should contact the School promptly. According to the current Student Handbook, a relevant written enquiry pauses the appeal deadline while the School considers the matter.

What is academic judgement?

Academic judgement means the professional evaluation made by examiners and academic decision-makers.

For example, it may involve:

• The quality of an essay.
• Whether an argument meets the academic standard.
• The mark awarded after proper marking and moderation.
• Whether learning outcomes have been achieved.
• The academic standard of a dissertation.
• The classification awarded under the regulations.

Therefore, the following statements will not normally support an appeal:

• “My work deserved a higher mark.”
• “The examiner misunderstood my argument.”
• “My feedback was too harsh.”
• “Another student received a higher result.”
• “My average was close to the next degree classification.”
• “A different marker might have awarded more marks.”
• “My supervisor expected me to achieve a better result.”

Loughborough does not allow students to request a remark through Regulation XIV. Its assessment safeguards include second marking, moderation and external examiner scrutiny. A student cannot ask the appeals process to replace one academic opinion with another.

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

For example, an appeal may have merit where:

• The University applied the wrong regulation.
• A required mark was omitted.
• Required moderation did not take place.
• The Programme Board received inaccurate information.
• Approved reasonable adjustments were not implemented.

What are the Loughborough University academic appeal grounds?

Regulation XIV provides three grounds:

1. Serious circumstances affected the student, but the Programme Board did not know about them when it made its decision.
2. A procedural irregularity occurred in the assessment or Programme Board process.
3. Evidence exists of prejudice or bias by one or more examiners, and that evidence was not available to the Programme Board.

The student must also establish good cause for not raising the issue before the relevant Mitigating Circumstances deadline, unless the ground arose from the operation of the Programme Board itself.

Ground One: serious circumstances not known to the Programme Board

A student may appeal where serious circumstances affected academic performance, but the Programme Board did not know about them.

Possible circumstances include:

• Serious physical illness.
• Acute mental health difficulties.
• Hospital admission.
• Bereavement.
• A family crisis.
• Domestic or sexual violence.
• Being a victim of crime.
• Unexpected caring responsibilities.
• A sudden deterioration in a disability or long-term condition.
• Another significant event outside the student’s control.

Loughborough’s Mitigating Circumstances guidance recognises physical and mental illness, disability, bereavement, crime, adverse family circumstances, exceptional travel disruption and certain global events as potentially relevant circumstances.

However, evidence that the circumstances existed only establishes part of the case.

The student must also explain why they did not submit a Mitigating Circumstances claim at the appropriate time.

What does “good cause” for late disclosure mean?

A Regulation XIV appeal based on undisclosed circumstances requires good cause for the earlier non-disclosure.

Loughborough gives significant mental health difficulties as one possible example. By contrast, lack of awareness of the Mitigating Circumstances procedure will not normally amount to good cause. Realising only after the results that circumstances affected performance will not usually be enough either.

Relevant questions may include:

• Did the student understand the seriousness of their condition?
• Did symptoms affect communication or decision-making?
• Was the student receiving emergency treatment?
• Could the student access email or University systems?
• Was the student able to contact their School?
• Did a disability affect their ability to use the process?
• How long did the inability to act continue?
• When did the student regain the ability to manage the issue?
• Which independent evidence supports the explanation?

For example, a letter may confirm that a student had depression.

However, it may not explain why the condition prevented them from submitting a Mitigating Circumstances claim. A more useful report may address the relevant dates, the severity of the symptoms and their effect on the student’s ability to act.

Appealing after a Mitigating Circumstances claim

An appeal will not normally succeed merely because the student disagrees with the Mitigating Circumstances Panel’s decision.

Likewise, repeating the same information and evidence will rarely justify a different outcome.

New information may still support an appeal. However, the student must explain why they did not provide that material with the original claim.

Where the University upheld an MC claim but the student disagrees with the type of remedy, they should first contact the School. For example, a student who received a marks adjustment but prefers a permitted repeat attempt may be able to resolve that issue without a Regulation XIV appeal.

Ground Two: procedural irregularity

A procedural irregularity means that the University departed from the correct assessment or decision-making process.

Loughborough interprets this ground relatively broadly. The Student Handbook states that it may include a module being delivered differently from its published module specification.

Possible examples include:

• The University recorded the wrong mark.
• A mark calculation omitted an assessment component.
• The Programme Board applied the wrong regulation.
• A first attempt was wrongly treated as a resit.
• Required second marking did not take place.
• Required moderation was not completed.
• The School failed to implement an approved adjustment.
• The assessment differed materially from the module specification.
• The student received incorrect assessment instructions.
• The Programme Board received incomplete information.
• A late-submission penalty was applied incorrectly.
• An improperly constituted body made the decision.
• A conflict of interest was not managed.
• The Board failed to consider relevant approved information.

A strong appeal should answer four questions:

1. Which rule or published procedure applied?
2. What should the University have done?
3. What happened instead?
4. How might the difference have affected the Programme Board’s decision?

A minor administrative mistake may not justify a remedy. The student should explain why the error was material.

Where the student raised the irregularity before the Programme Board and the School took appropriate remedial action, a later appeal may be unlikely to succeed.

Ground Three: prejudice or bias

A student may appeal where evidence shows prejudice or bias by one or more examiners.

The student must provide more than a feeling that the examiner treated them unfairly or marked the work harshly.

Potential evidence may include:

• Emails showing prejudgement.
• Comments unrelated to academic performance.
• An unmanaged conflict of interest.
• Inappropriate remarks about the student’s background.
• Materially different treatment without academic justification.
• Evidence that a previous dispute influenced the assessment.
• A decision-maker’s involvement in a related complaint.
• Failure to follow a conflict-management process.

A difficult working relationship does not automatically establish bias.

Similarly, critical feedback does not by itself show prejudice. The appeal must identify specific conduct and connect it to the academic decision.

What evidence should support a Loughborough University academic appeal?

Regulation XIV expects evidence to support the appeal. Where the issue could have been disclosed earlier, the student will normally need independent, professional and contemporaneous evidence to establish good cause.

The Student Handbook also states that appeals without supporting evidence will not normally receive consideration. Evidence should generally relate to the same period as the circumstances described.

Relevant documents may include:

• The formal result or Programme Board decision.
• GP records.
• Hospital or specialist reports.
• Mental health service records.
• Counselling or therapy records.
• Crisis-team correspondence.
• Police or court documents.
• Bereavement evidence.
• Emails sent to tutors or the School.
• A Mitigating Circumstances claim and outcome.
• Disability support records.
• Reasonable adjustment documents.
• Assessment submission receipts.
• Module specifications.
• Programme regulations.
• Examination instructions.
• Mark calculations.
• Evidence of marking or moderation arrangements.
• Meeting notes.
• Witness statements.
• System screenshots.
• A dated chronology.

Students should explain what each document proves. The Appeals Team should not have to guess why a document matters.

Can evidence be submitted later?

Students should normally submit the evidence with the Regulation XIV Appeal Form.

However, a student who cannot obtain a document before the deadline should still submit the form on time. The appeal should identify the missing evidence, explain why it is not yet available and state when the student expects to provide it.

Waiting for every document may create an unnecessary late-appeal problem.

At the same time, students should avoid submitting vague allegations with no evidential basis. The Appeals Team may dismiss an appeal where sufficient evidence has not been provided and further investigation is unlikely to produce it.

Evidence not written in English

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

A suitable translation should normally:

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

The student should avoid submitting only a personal English summary without the source document.

How should the evidence be organised?

A simple evidence schedule can make the case easier to follow.

For example:

• Exhibit A1: Programme Board result.
• Exhibit A2: medical evidence.
• Exhibit A3: email to the School.
• Exhibit A4: Mitigating Circumstances submission.
• Exhibit A5: module specification.
• Exhibit A6: reasonable adjustment record.
• Exhibit A7: chronology.
• Exhibit A8: requested remedy.

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

For example:

The medical evidence confirms that my symptoms became acute during the examination period and materially affected my ability to communicate with the University. Please see Exhibit A2.

This approach is more effective than submitting a large collection of unexplained files.

How to draft a Loughborough University academic appeal

A persuasive appeal should remain clear, concise and evidence-based.

1. Identify the decision under appeal

State:

• The programme.
• The relevant module or assessment.
• The decision made.
• The publication date.
• The Programme Board concerned.
• When the student received the result.

2. Identify the formal ground

Write clearly whether the appeal relies on:

• Serious undisclosed circumstances.
• A procedural irregularity.
• Prejudice or bias.
• More than one ground.

Avoid vague wording such as:

“The University treated me unfairly.”

A clearer formulation may be:

This appeal relies on a procedural irregularity because the Programme Board did not receive my approved reasonable adjustment information before deciding my progression outcome.

3. Explain the facts in date order

Use short paragraphs to explain:

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

A separate chronology may help in a complex case.

4. Explain the academic impact

The appeal should connect the circumstances or procedural error to the formal decision.

The student should explain how the issue may have affected:

• A particular examination.
• A coursework assessment.
• A project.
• An overall module result.
• Progression.
• Reassessment rights.
• A degree classification.
• A final award.

5. Address good cause separately

Where the student did not submit Mitigating Circumstances on time, include a separate section.

That section should explain:

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

6. Cite the relevant regulation

A procedural appeal may refer to:

• Regulation XIV.
• The programme regulations.
• The module specification.
• The assessment brief.
• Marking and moderation procedures.
• Reasonable adjustment documentation.
• The Mitigating Circumstances procedure.
• Formal University correspondence.

7. Request a remedy that the University can provide

Possible requests may include:

• Reconvening the Programme Board.
• Reconsideration using the complete information.
• Correction of a mark-entry or calculation error.
• A permitted repeat attempt.
• Treatment of a reassessment as a first attempt.
• Reconsideration of progression.
• Reconsideration of the award under the correct regulations.
• Consideration by a new Programme Board where bias affected the original process.

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

How does the Loughborough University academic appeal procedure work?

Step One: seek clarification from the School

Loughborough strongly encourages students to discuss the issue with the School or a University support service before submitting the formal appeal.

This step may resolve:

• A mark-entry error.
• A calculation problem.
• A misunderstanding about the regulations.
• Missing information.
• An administrative issue that can be corrected quickly.

The current Student Handbook says that the 10-working-day deadline pauses while the relevant discussion remains active. Students should keep emails showing the first contact and the last relevant response.

Step Two: complete the Regulation XIV Appeal Form

The student should set out:

• The Programme Board decision.
• The relevant ground or grounds.
• The factual background.
• The good-cause explanation, where applicable.
• The supporting evidence.
• The remedy sought.

The completed form and evidence should be sent to the Appeals Team.

Step Three: initial consideration by the Appeals Team

The Academic Registrar, or a nominee in the Appeals Team, conducts the initial review.

The appeal may be dismissed where:

• It does not identify a permitted ground.
• The student has not shown good cause for late disclosure.
• The evidence is insufficient.
• Further investigation is unlikely to establish the missing requirement.

Alternatively, the Appeals Team may refer the case for further consideration. The University normally aims to provide the initial decision and reasons within five working days of receiving the complete appeal documents.

Step Four: response from the Programme Board

Where the appeal proceeds, the Academic Registrar will normally ask the Chair of the Programme Board for written comments.

The Appeals Team may also seek evidence from other sources. For example, it may contact disability or wellbeing services where the appeal involves a disability issue.

The University should provide the Programme Board report and other relevant submissions to the student for written comment.

The student should use that opportunity to address:

• Factual errors.
• Misunderstood evidence.
• Incorrect regulations.
• Missing information.
• An inadequate proposed remedy.

Step Five: decision by the Academic Registrar or Pro-Vice-Chancellor

After considering the student’s appeal, the Programme Board response and the student’s comments, the Academic Registrar may uphold or dismiss the case where the appropriate outcome is clear.

Other cases may proceed to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education and Student Experience.

The University normally aims to communicate the final Regulation XIV decision within a maximum of 40 working days after receiving the complete appeal.

The current Student Handbook also states that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor may refer a case for further investigation by an Academic Appeal Committee. Students should confirm current hearing and representation arrangements with the Appeals Team if their case takes that route.

What happens when an appeal succeeds?

A successful appeal does not normally result in the Appeals Team directly changing a mark.

Instead, the University will usually reconvene the Programme Board. The Board then reconsiders the decision as though it had known the successful appeal information at the original meeting.

In many cases, the reconvened Board may allow the student to retake affected assessments on a Permitted Repeat Attempt basis.

The reconvened Board should normally consider the case within 20 working days. The University should then notify the student of its decision within three working days.

However, a successful appeal does not guarantee the student’s preferred outcome. The Programme Board must still make the academic decision under the applicable regulations.

Can a student appeal the Regulation XIV outcome again?

Regulation XIV does not provide an ordinary second academic appeal.

Decisions by the Academic Registrar and Pro-Vice-Chancellor are normally final. A student may use the Student Complaints Procedure only where they allege a procedural irregularity in the handling of the Regulation XIV appeal itself.

The complaint procedure cannot simply reconsider the merits because the student disagrees with the result.

Can a solicitor represent a student in a taught academic appeal?

Regulation XIV appeals proceed mainly through written submissions.

A solicitor can therefore provide substantial assistance by:

• Assessing whether a recognised ground exists.
• Drafting the appeal.
• Reviewing the evidence.
• Preparing the good-cause explanation.
• Responding to the Programme Board report.
• Advising on the remedy.
• Preparing the student for any meeting.

The current Student Handbook refers to possible referral to an Academic Appeal Committee. However, the live Regulation XIV page does not set out a general automatic right to external solicitor representation at such a hearing.

Students should therefore ask the Appeals Team to confirm:

• Whether a hearing will take place.
• Whether an external lawyer may attend.
• Whether the lawyer may speak.
• The deadline for notifying the University.
• Any restrictions on the representative’s role.

Postgraduate research and doctoral appeals

Doctoral researchers follow Regulation XXVI rather than the ordinary Regulation XIV process for research-degree examination and certain progression decisions.

A doctoral student may appeal:

• A thesis examination fail outcome.
• Termination following the research-degree examination.
• A decision to transfer registration from PhD or EngD to MPhil.
• A Progression Board decision to terminate studies.
• A serious research-degree academic misconduct decision.

The normal deadline is 10 working days after written notification of the relevant decision.

Research-degree examination appeal grounds

A research student challenging a fail outcome may rely on:

1. Serious circumstances affected the student’s examination performance, but the examiners did not know about them.
2. Procedural irregularities or other issues in the examination create reasonable doubt about whether the examiners would otherwise have reached the same conclusion.
3. Evidence shows prejudice, bias or inadequate assessment by one or more examiners.

Challenges to the examiners’ academic judgement are excluded.

Where the appeal relies on ill health or exceptional personal circumstances, the student must provide independent professional evidence.

The student must also establish good cause for not informing the University earlier. During the research period, students should normally seek extensions or use the available complaint and redress procedures when a problem arises.

Can inadequate doctoral supervision support an appeal?

Inadequate supervision will not normally become a post-examination appeal ground.

Research students should raise supervision concerns with the Director of Doctoral Programmes during the period of study. Only exceptional reasons for not raising the issue earlier may allow it to become relevant after the examination.

A supervision complaint may concern:

• Long periods without meetings.
• Delayed feedback.
• Conflicting advice.
• Failure to provide agreed training.
• Failure to arrange replacement supervision.
• Failure to follow the research-degree Code of Practice.
• Inadequate support before submission.

Depending on the facts, a student may need both:

• A complaint about the supervision service.
• An appeal about a later formal decision affected by a separate procedural irregularity.

What happens at a research-degree Appeal Committee?

An eligible research appeal may proceed to an Appeal Committee whose members must not have taken part in the examination or supervision. They must also come from outside the student’s School.

The student has the right to appear and may bring a person of their choosing.

The Doctoral College Code of Practice states that the appellant or representative may present the case. The parties may ask questions through the Chair, and the student has an opportunity to make a final statement.

Therefore, solicitor-led representation may be possible in a research-degree appeal. The student should notify the University promptly and confirm the representative’s role.

What remedies can a research Appeal Committee provide?

Where a thesis appeal succeeds on the serious-circumstances or procedural-irregularity ground, the Committee may:

• Direct the examiners to reconsider.
• Permit revision and resubmission for re-examination by the same examiners.
• Annul the examination and direct a fresh examination.

Where prejudice, bias or inadequate assessment affected the examination, the Committee may annul the original examination and direct a fresh one. New examiners will normally conduct a fresh examination.

For a successful Progression Board appeal, the Board may need to reconsider the transfer-to-MPhil or termination decision. Where bias affected the original Progression Board, the Appeal Committee may direct the University to appoint a new Board.

Academic appeal or student complaint?

An academic appeal and a student complaint serve different purposes.

Academic appeal

Use an academic appeal to challenge a formal academic decision involving:

• Marks.
• Assessment.
• Progression.
• Reassessment.
• Degree classification.
• A final award.
• Doctoral progression.
• A thesis or viva result.

Student complaint

Use a complaint to challenge:

• Teaching quality.
• Supervision.
• Administrative services.
• Communication failures.
• Delayed feedback.
• Facilities or resources.
• Failure to provide promised support.
• The handling of another University process.
• Another issue affecting the student experience.

Ordinance XXXVIII defines a complaint as a specific concern about matters or services provided by Loughborough that affect learning opportunities or the student experience. Academic decisions, academic misconduct and student discipline normally follow their separate procedures.

Loughborough University student complaints procedure

The complaints procedure has three broad stages:

1. Informal resolution.
2. Formal complaint.
3. Final review.

The procedure applies to current students and normally remains available for three months after the student’s registration ends.

Informal complaint stage

Students should raise the concern as early as possible with the staff member closest to the issue.

If that step does not resolve the problem, the student may ask the Dean of School or Director of the relevant service to investigate and seek an informal resolution.

Possible outcomes may include:

• An explanation.
• An apology.
• Correction of an administrative error.
• Provision of a service.
• A change in arrangements.
• Another practical resolution.

Formal complaint stage

A formal complaint should normally reach the Academic Registrar within three months of the last event complained about.

The student should provide:

• A clear statement of the complaint.
• Independent supporting evidence.
• The action or remedy sought.

The University normally aims to issue the formal complaint outcome within 30 working days. It should explain any delay in a complex case and provide an expected completion date.

Final complaint review

A student who remains dissatisfied may request a final review within 10 working days of the formal complaint outcome.

The reviewer does not usually investigate the whole complaint again. Instead, the review considers:

• Whether the formal-stage investigation was appropriate.
• Whether the outcome was reasonable and consistent with the facts.
• Whether relevant new evidence could not be provided earlier for a valid reason.

The University normally aims to issue the final review outcome within 30 working days. That outcome also serves as the Completion of Procedures Letter.

Complaining about the handling of an academic appeal

A dismissed Regulation XIV appeal cannot receive another merits review through the complaints procedure.

However, a student may complain where procedural irregularities affected the handling of the academic appeal.

For example, a complaint might allege that:

• The Appeals Team failed to follow Regulation XIV.
• The University did not share relevant reports for comment.
• A conflicted decision-maker handled the case.
• The student did not receive a fair opportunity to respond.
• The University failed to consider a formal appeal ground.
• The decision relied on inaccurate procedural information.

The complaint should focus on the handling of the appeal, not simply repeat the original academic case.

Loughborough University academic misconduct procedure

Academic misconduct cases follow Regulation XVIII for taught students.

The University defines academic misconduct as conduct that gives, or could give, the student or another person an unfair assessment advantage. It also covers conduct that undermines academic standards and research integrity.

Potential allegations include:

• Plagiarism.
• Self-plagiarism.
• Contract cheating.
• Substantial third-party proofreading or editing.
• Impersonation.
• Unauthorised assistance.
• Obtaining or distributing another student’s work.
• Fabrication or falsification.
• Collusion.
• Examination misconduct.
• Breaches of research and ethics requirements.
• Inappropriate or undisclosed use of generative AI.

Plagiarism allegations

Plagiarism means presenting another person’s words, work or ideas as the student’s own without clear acknowledgement.

A student responding to a plagiarism allegation should review:

• The passages in dispute.
• The original sources.
• Citations and footnotes.
• The reference list.
• Their note-taking practices.
• Drafts and version histories.
• The text-matching report.
• The assessment instructions.
• The academic-integrity guidance provided.

A general statement such as “I did not intend to plagiarise” may not answer the evidence.

Instead, the response should explain:

• How the similar material entered the work.
• Whether a citation was omitted.
• Whether a note-taking error occurred.
• Which content the student created independently.
• Whether the University has overstated the extent of the problem.
• Whether the matter reflects limited poor practice rather than deliberate misconduct.

Collusion allegations

Collusion involves unauthorised cooperation on work that students should complete independently.

It may include:

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

However, not every discussion between students amounts to collusion.

The student should compare:

• What cooperation the assessment permitted.
• What communication actually occurred.
• Whether students shared complete work or only discussed general concepts.
• Where the similarities came from.
• Which parts each student completed independently.

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

Contract cheating and third-party assistance

Contract cheating occurs where a third party completes assessed work that the student then presents as their own.

Payment is not essential. A friend, colleague, tutor or family member can also become the third party.

Loughborough may also treat extensive proofreading or copy-editing as contract cheating where the amendments are so substantial that the work can no longer be regarded as the student’s own.

Students should preserve:

• Early drafts.
• Research notes.
• Source files.
• Raw data.
• Code records.
• Payment records.
• Messages.
• File metadata.
• Version histories.
• Cloud timestamps.

These materials may help explain authorship and the development of the assessment.

AI and ChatGPT allegations

Loughborough requires students to check the assessment brief before using generative AI.

Where AI use is permitted, the student must normally:

• Acknowledge the tool.
• Explain how it was used.
• Record the prompts.
• Describe how the output was changed.
• Reference the output appropriately.
• Retain the AI output.
• Keep plans, drafts and other developmental work.

Inappropriate AI use, or a failure to acknowledge its use, may lead to an academic misconduct referral.

The University’s standard acknowledgement states that the student should name the AI tool, explain whether it supported background research or generated material later adapted, and confirm that all AI content has been acknowledged and referenced.

School-specific instructions take priority. Therefore, students must check the module guidance for every assessment.

What evidence should a student preserve in an AI case?

Students should retain:

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

The University expressly requires students to retain developmental work and AI outputs so they can show how the submitted work developed.

After receiving an allegation, the student should not delete or alter original records.

They should also avoid creating false drafts, prompts or version histories. Fabricating evidence may create an additional misconduct allegation.

Minor and major academic misconduct

Loughborough classifies taught-student academic misconduct as minor or major.

A first, limited failure to acknowledge sources may proceed as a minor offence. Contract cheating, substantial copying, repeated misconduct, examination misconduct or a case requiring a serious penalty may proceed as a major offence.

A minor case goes to a Minor Academic Misconduct Committee, known as a MAMC.

A major case goes to the University’s Academic Misconduct Committee, known as the AMC.

Voluntary Academic Integrity Awareness Course

For some minor plagiarism or self-plagiarism cases, the Academic Integrity Lead may offer a Voluntary Academic Integrity Awareness Course instead of a MAMC hearing.

This route applies where the issue appears to result from poor academic practice rather than an intention to obtain an unfair advantage.

The student must normally accept or decline the offer within five working days. Acceptance means accepting that an unintentional minor offence occurred. The student must then complete the course within a further ten working days.

After successful completion:

• The University recalculates the mark using only the student’s own non-plagiarised work.
• The student does not receive a formal academic misconduct finding.
• The incident does not automatically trigger the repeat-offence provisions later.

Students should understand those consequences before accepting the course.

Notice and preparation for a misconduct meeting

For both minor and major misconduct committees, the student should normally receive at least 10 working days’ written notice.

The notice should identify:

• The allegation.
• The evidence.
• The meeting date.
• The Committee members.

The student may:

• Submit a written defence.
• Provide documentary evidence.
• Attend the meeting.
• Bring an individual of their own choosing.
• Call witnesses.

The written defence, evidence and companion details must normally reach the Committee Secretary at least four working days before the meeting.

Can a solicitor attend an academic misconduct meeting?

Regulation XVIII allows the student to bring an individual of their own choosing.

Therefore, a solicitor may potentially attend as the chosen companion. However, the procedure describes the person as an accompanying individual rather than giving an automatic right to formal legal advocacy.

The student should confirm:

• Whether the solicitor may address the Committee.
• Whether the solicitor may ask questions.
• Whether the student must answer all factual questions.
• The deadline for notifying the Secretary.
• Whether any written authority is required.

Even where the role remains limited, a solicitor can prepare the written defence, evidence bundle, questions and closing statement.

What penalties can academic misconduct attract?

For a minor offence, possible outcomes include:

• A formal warning.
• Reduction of marks in the relevant module.
• A requirement to attend a compulsory academic-integrity course.
• In limited circumstances, capped resubmission of work from a resit module.

For a major offence, possible outcomes include:

• A formal warning.
• Reduction of marks in one or more modules.
• Withdrawal of resit rights.
• A cap on reassessment marks.
• Immediate termination of studies.
• Other programme consequences permitted by the regulations.

Serious misconduct relating to an earlier programme may also lead to termination of a later Loughborough programme or a recommendation to revoke an earlier award.

Appealing an academic misconduct outcome

A student must normally submit an academic misconduct appeal within 10 working days of receiving the MAMC or AMC decision.

The grounds include:

1. Mitigating circumstances existed, but the original Committee did not know about them.
2. Procedural irregularities affected the investigation or Committee process.
3. Prejudice or bias affected the case.
4. The penalty was disproportionate.

New information will normally receive consideration only where the student shows good cause for not presenting it earlier. Supporting evidence is required.

The appeal should use the Academic Misconduct Appeal Form and go to the Secretary of the Academic Misconduct Appeals Committee.

Academic misconduct appeal outcomes

A valid appeal against a minor decision normally receives written consideration from the Chair of the Academic Misconduct Appeals Committee.

The Chair may confirm, set aside or amend the decision. The Chair may also confirm or reduce the penalty. The student should normally receive the outcome within 15 working days after the Secretary receives the complete appeal documents.

A valid major-offence appeal normally proceeds to a full Academic Misconduct Appeals Committee.

That Committee may confirm, set aside or amend the original decision. It may also confirm or reduce the penalty. The University should normally provide the written result within three working days after the meeting.

Postgraduate research academic misconduct

Research-degree misconduct follows Regulation XXVI rather than Regulation XVIII.

Where suspected misconduct arises after thesis submission and the University finds a prima facie case, the student must normally provide a written response within 14 working days. The matter then goes to a research-degree Academic Misconduct Committee.

The student has the right to appear, bring a person of their choosing and call witnesses.

If serious research misconduct is proven, the Committee may terminate the student’s studies. A research student may appeal the decision within ten working days on grounds including serious undisclosed circumstances, procedural irregularity, bias or disproportionate penalty.

What happens after the internal procedure ends?

After completing the applicable internal process, the student should receive a Completion of Procedures Letter.

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 Completion of Procedures Letter.

An OIA complaint may consider whether Loughborough:

• Followed its procedures.
• Considered the relevant evidence.
• Gave the student a fair opportunity to respond.
• Gave adequate reasons.
• Acted reasonably.
• Managed conflicts of interest.
• Implemented reasonable adjustments.
• Applied a proportionate penalty or remedy.

The OIA does not act as another examination board.

It cannot simply replace the academic judgement of Loughborough’s examiners. However, it may recommend that the University repeat a flawed process, offer a fresh assessment opportunity or remark work under the correct procedure.

How Ginkgo Advisory can assist

Initial case assessment

We review:

• The formal decision.
• The publication date.
• The 10-working-day deadline.
• The available grounds.
• The existing evidence.
• The applicable procedure.
• The outcome sought.

We then identify whether the matter is more suitable for:

• A Regulation XIV academic appeal.
• A Regulation XXVI research appeal.
• A Mitigating Circumstances claim.
• A student complaint.
• An academic misconduct response.
• An academic misconduct appeal.
• An OIA complaint.

Appeal-ground analysis

We assess whether the facts support:

• Serious undisclosed circumstances.
• Good cause for non-disclosure.
• A procedural irregularity.
• Prejudice or bias.
• A research-degree examination ground.
• A Progression Board appeal.
• A complaint about procedural handling.

Weak or irrelevant arguments can then be removed before submission.

Evidence review

We can analyse:

• Whether medical evidence covers the correct dates.
• Whether the evidence explains the academic impact.
• Whether good cause has independent support.
• Whether the University followed the applicable regulation.
• Whether reasonable adjustments were implemented.
• Whether a mark calculation appears correct.
• Whether the chronology is consistent.
• Which documents should enter the evidence bundle.
• Which materials may weaken the case.
• Whether a professional translation is required.

Drafting and written advocacy

We can prepare or review:

• Regulation XIV Appeal Forms.
• Late-appeal explanations.
• Appeals involving mitigating circumstances.
• Procedural-irregularity appeals.
• Bias or prejudice appeals.
• Responses to Programme Board reports.
• Doctoral progression appeals.
• Thesis and viva appeals.
• Formal student complaints.
• Final complaint reviews.
• Plagiarism and collusion responses.
• Contract-cheating responses.
• AI and ChatGPT allegation responses.
• Minor and Major Academic Misconduct Committee statements.
• Academic misconduct appeals.
• OIA complaints.
• Evidence schedules and chronologies.

Each submission reflects the facts of the individual case.

Meeting and hearing preparation

We can prepare students for:

• A taught academic appeal hearing, where arranged.
• A doctoral Appeal Committee.
• A Minor Academic Misconduct Committee.
• A Major Academic Misconduct Committee.
• An Academic Misconduct Appeals Committee.
• A complaint meeting.
• Another University interview or panel.

Preparation may include:

• Likely questions.
• Difficult evidence.
• Clear oral answers.
• An opening statement.
• Questions for witnesses.
• A closing statement.
• Procedural objections.
• A realistic remedy.
• A strategy for adverse evidence.

Representation where permitted

The applicable regulation and the Committee’s directions determine whether a solicitor may attend and speak.

Research-degree appeals expressly allow a companion of the student’s choosing.

Academic misconduct procedures also allow a chosen companion, although the University should confirm that person’s speaking role.

Taught Regulation XIV appeals remain mainly written. Any representation at a Committee hearing should be agreed with the Appeals Team in advance.

Common mistakes in Loughborough University academic appeals

Appealing only because the mark seems too low

Academic judgement does not create a valid appeal ground.

The student must identify serious circumstances, procedural irregularity or bias.

Missing the 10-working-day deadline

Students should contact the School promptly and keep written evidence of any relevant discussion that pauses the deadline.

Appealing a provisional mark

Regulation XIV normally applies only after a Programme Board formally confirms the result.

Failing to establish good cause

Medical evidence may prove illness.

However, it may not explain why the student could not submit Mitigating Circumstances on time.

Providing only a diagnosis

The evidence should also address:

• Dates.
• Severity.
• Duration.
• Academic impact.
• The student’s ability to engage with University procedures.

Repeating a rejected Mitigating Circumstances claim

Using the same information and evidence will rarely produce a successful appeal.

New material requires a good-cause explanation.

Providing evidence without explaining it

The appeal should connect each document to a fact and formal ground.

Waiting for every document before submitting

Where evidence is outstanding, students should submit the form on time and explain when the document will follow.

Asking for a direct mark increase

The usual successful outcome involves Programme Board reconsideration or a permitted repeat attempt.

The Appeals Team does not simply add marks.

Treating a complaint as a second academic appeal

The complaints procedure can address procedural mishandling.

It cannot reconsider the academic merits merely because the student disagrees with the Regulation XIV outcome.

Raising supervision concerns only after a failed viva

Doctoral researchers should raise supervision issues during the research period.

A late supervision allegation will normally require an exceptional explanation.

Attending a misconduct meeting without preparation

An early explanation can shape the entire case.

Students should review the allegation, evidence, drafts and assessment instructions first.

Deleting drafts or AI records

Drafts, prompts, AI output and version histories may support the student’s authorship.

Students should preserve original records.

Failing to acknowledge permitted AI use

Loughborough requires transparency even where the underlying AI use was allowed.

Assuming a solicitor can automatically speak at every hearing

A right to bring a companion does not always create an unrestricted right to legal advocacy.

Students should confirm the representative’s role in advance.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Loughborough University academic appeal deadline?

A taught student normally has 10 working days from publication of the Programme Board decision.

The current Student Handbook says the deadline pauses during active relevant discussions with the School or a University support service.

How do I submit a Loughborough University academic appeal?

Complete the Regulation XIV Appeal Form.

Send the completed form and evidence to:

studentappeals@mailbox.lboro.ac.uk

Can I appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

Students normally need to wait until the Programme Board formally confirms the result.

Can I appeal because I disagree with my mark?

Not on that basis alone.

Loughborough does not permit appeals against academic judgement.

What are the three Regulation XIV grounds?

The grounds are:

• Serious circumstances that the Programme Board did not know about.
• A procedural irregularity in the assessment or Programme Board process.
• Evidence of prejudice or bias by an examiner.

What if I did not submit Mitigating Circumstances?

An appeal may still be possible.

However, the student must show good cause for not using the MC procedure at the correct time.

Is not knowing about the MC procedure good cause?

Usually not.

Loughborough states that lack of awareness will not normally establish good cause.

Can I appeal a rejected MC claim?

Possibly, but repeating the same information and evidence will not normally succeed.

New material requires an explanation of why it was unavailable earlier.

Do I need supporting evidence?

Yes.

Appeals without supporting evidence will not normally receive consideration.

Can I submit evidence after the form?

The student should submit the appeal on time and identify any evidence that will follow.

They should explain why it is outstanding and when they expect to obtain it.

How long does an appeal take?

The initial decision should normally follow within five working days after the University receives the complete documents.

The final decision should normally arrive within a maximum of 40 working days.

What happens if the appeal succeeds?

The University will usually reconvene the Programme Board.

The Board may allow affected assessments to be repeated as permitted repeat attempts.

Can a solicitor draft a Loughborough appeal?

Yes.

A solicitor can assess the grounds, review the evidence and prepare or revise the written submission.

Can a solicitor attend a taught academic appeal hearing?

The ordinary process is mainly written.

Where the University refers the case to a Committee, the student should ask the Appeals Team to confirm whether a solicitor may attend and speak.

Can a doctoral student appeal a thesis or viva result?

Yes, where one of the Regulation XXVI grounds applies.

The deadline is normally ten working days after notification of the examination result.

Can inadequate supervision support a doctoral appeal?

It will not normally become a post-examination appeal ground.

Students should raise supervision concerns through the available complaint and doctoral-programme procedures while the problem is ongoing.

Can a solicitor attend a doctoral Appeal Committee?

Regulation XXVI allows the student to bring a person of their choosing.

The Doctoral College Code of Practice also refers to the appellant or representative presenting the case.

What is the student complaint deadline?

A formal complaint should normally reach the Academic Registrar within three months of the last event complained about.

What is the final complaint review deadline?

The student normally has ten working days after the formal complaint outcome.

Can I use the complaints procedure after an unsuccessful academic appeal?

Only to challenge a procedural irregularity in the handling of the appeal.

The complaints procedure is not a second merits appeal.

Can I defend a ChatGPT or AI allegation?

Yes.

The response should address:

• The assessment instructions.
• Whether AI use was allowed.
• The acknowledgement and referencing requirements.
• The student’s genuine working process.
• Prompts, outputs, drafts and version histories.
• The University’s evidence.

Does Loughborough require students to preserve AI output?

Yes.

Students must retain AI outputs and developmental work so they can demonstrate how the assessment was produced.

Can a solicitor attend an academic misconduct meeting?

The student may bring an individual of their choosing.

However, the student should confirm whether the solicitor may speak or act as an advocate.

What is the academic misconduct appeal deadline?

Normally ten working days after the student receives the misconduct outcome.

What happens after Loughborough’s internal process ends?

The University should issue a Completion of Procedures Letter.

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.

Request a confidential case assessment

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

Early professional advice can help the student identify the correct procedure, preserve the deadline and organise the evidence.

Ginkgo Advisory provides solicitor-led academic appeals, student complaints and academic misconduct defence.

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

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

Contact Ginkgo Advisory for a confidential assessment of your Loughborough University academic appeal, student complaint, plagiarism allegation, AI misconduct case, doctoral progression, thesis or viva dispute.

Independent-service disclaimer

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

This article provides general information only.

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

Loughborough University may update its regulations, forms, policies and assessment instructions. Students should check the current official documents and their decision letter before acting.