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

A University of Aberdeen academic appeal asks the University to review a formal decision involving assessment, progression, an academic award, termination of studies or another decision covered by its Student Appeals Policy.

Students should normally raise the issue at the frontline within 10 working days of the matter arising or becoming known. If the issue remains unresolved, they should submit Part A of the Appeals and Complaints Form, together with the supporting evidence, within a further five working days.

An assessment appeal can normally challenge only the final Common Grading Scale, or CGS, mark released through Student Hub. A provisional result, an informal indication of performance or disagreement with a marker’s academic opinion will not usually create a valid appeal.

The University revised its Student Appeals Policy most recently on 19 June 2024. Students should nevertheless check the current policy, their decision letter and any programme-specific rules before taking action.

Solicitor-led academic appeals, complaints and misconduct defence

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

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

Support can begin with an initial case assessment and continue through to the final written submission, Head of School meeting, Appeal Panel or external SPSO complaint.

For a University of Aberdeen academic appeal, our solicitor-led assistance may include:

• Assessing the appeal grounds, deadlines and prospects.
• Reviewing the formal decision, CGS result and applicable regulations.
• Analysing medical, academic, digital and procedural evidence.
• Preparing a frontline-resolution strategy.
• Drafting or revising Part A of the Appeals and Complaints Form.
• Preparing the student for a Head of School meeting.
• Reviewing and responding to the Part B outcome.
• Drafting Part C and the requested remedy.
• Preparing for a Grounds to Proceed review.
• Preparing opening and closing submissions for an Appeal Panel.
• Advising on examiner authority, procedural defects and conflicts of interest.
• Preparing postgraduate research, thesis, viva and progression appeals.
• Drafting student complaints and Stage Two complaints.
• Responding to plagiarism, collusion and contract-cheating allegations.
• Defending allegations involving ChatGPT and other generative AI tools.
• Preparing students for Preliminary Investigations and Discipline Hearings.
• Advising on Undergraduate Students’ Progress Committee decisions.
• Preparing fitness-to-practise appeals.
• Drafting complaints to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
• Providing representation where the applicable procedure permits it.

No adviser can guarantee a particular result. However, early professional advice can reduce avoidable errors involving the deadline, regulatory ground, evidence and requested remedy.

University of Aberdeen academic appeal deadlines

Procedure	Normal deadline or timeframe
Raise an academic appeal at the frontline	Within 10 working days of the issue arising or becoming known
Frontline response	Normally within 5 working days
Submit Part A after unsuccessful frontline resolution	Within 5 working days
Competency and timeliness review	Normally within 5 working days of receipt
Head of School or Service meeting	Within 10 working days of receiving the case file
Notice of the Head of School meeting	At least 3 working days
Part B outcome	Normally within 3 working days after the meeting
Submit Part C	Within 5 working days of receiving Part B
Grounds to Proceed review	Normally within 5 working days
Appeal Panel hearing	Normally within 20 working days of the Grounds to Proceed decision
Appeal Panel case papers	At least 5 working days before the hearing
Appeal Panel written outcome	No later than 3 working days after the hearing
Academic misconduct Preliminary Investigation	Normally within 10 working days of the allegation
Preliminary Investigation record and outcome	Normally within 5 working days after the meeting
Academic misconduct appeal	Normally within 10 working days; follow the outcome letter
Fitness-to-practise appeal	Normally within 10 working days; follow the outcome letter
Stage One student complaint	Normally within 6 months of first becoming aware of the problem
Stage One complaint response	Normally within 5 working days; no more than 10 where extended
Stage Two complaint acknowledgment	Within 3 working days
Stage Two complaint response	Normally within 20 working days
SPSO complaint	Normally within 12 months of first becoming aware of the issue

Late academic appeals will normally proceed only where exceptional circumstances provide a good reason for the delay. Students should not assume that informal correspondence, evidence gathering or seeking advice automatically extends the deadline.

What is a University of Aberdeen academic appeal?

A University of Aberdeen academic appeal is a request to review a decision made by the University concerning:

• Admission or re-admission.
• Assessment.
• A degree or programme award.
• A class certificate.
• Progression within a postgraduate programme.
• Termination of studies on academic grounds.
• An academic or non-academic disciplinary outcome.
• A decision of the Undergraduate Students’ Progress Committee.
• A fitness-to-practise decision.

An ordinary academic appeal might therefore concern:

• A final course result.
• A failed course.
• Progression to Honours.
• Progression to the next year of study.
• A reassessment or resit position.
• Termination following academic failure.
• A degree classification.
• A final award.
• Postgraduate progression.
• A formal research-degree outcome.
• A refusal to issue a class certificate.

The correct route depends on the decision being challenged. Disciplinary, Students’ Progress Committee and fitness-to-practise appeals enter the procedure at a later stage rather than repeating the ordinary frontline and Part A process.

Can a student appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

An assessment appeal will normally be accepted only after the University has released the final CGS mark for the course through Student Hub. A provisional mark, an individual component mark or an informal indication from a tutor will not ordinarily be an appealable academic decision.

Where the student believes that a mark has been entered incorrectly or calculated using the wrong components, they should contact the School promptly.

However, the student should still calculate the formal appeal deadline. Waiting for a School response does not necessarily protect the right to appeal unless the University confirms the position in writing.

What is the Common Grading Scale?

The University of Aberdeen uses the Common Grading Scale, commonly called the CGS, to express academic results.

A student’s final course result may appear as an alphanumeric grade such as A3, B1 or D3. The appeal policy refers specifically to the final CGS course mark published through Student Hub.

The student should identify the exact final result and the date on which it became available. This date will usually be central to calculating the 10-working-day appeal period.

What is academic judgement?

Academic judgement is the considered application of academic expertise when assessing or grading a student’s work.

It includes decisions about:

• The academic quality of an answer.
• The strength of an argument.
• Whether learning outcomes were achieved.
• The mark awarded after the proper marking process.
• The standard of a dissertation or thesis.
• The classification or award justified by the academic record.

The University will not normally consider an appeal that simply challenges the academic judgement of an examiner or committee.

Consequently, the following statements will not usually establish an appeal:

• “My work deserved a higher CGS mark.”
• “The marker misunderstood my argument.”
• “The feedback was too harsh.”
• “Another student received a better mark.”
• “I was close to a higher classification.”
• “A different marker might have awarded more.”
• “My supervisor expected me to pass.”
• “My thesis was good enough for the degree.”

A student may still 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.
• The correct examiner or committee did not make the decision.
• Required moderation did not occur.
• Material information was withheld from the examiners.
• A conflict of interest affected the procedure.
• The decision was one that no reasonable and properly informed decision-maker could have reached.

The appeal must focus on the procedural or decision-making defect rather than inviting the Appeal Panel to substitute its own academic opinion.

What are the University of Aberdeen academic appeal grounds?

An appeal must establish one or more of the following:

1. The University did not follow its procedures.
2. The person or body making the decision lacked authority.
3. The person or body making the decision did not act impartially.

In addition, the student must show that they suffered, or could suffer, a material disadvantage because of the problem.

These requirements operate together.

It is not enough to show a technical error with no possible effect on the student. Likewise, serious academic consequences do not establish an appeal unless they arose from a recognised procedural, authority or impartiality problem.

Ground One: the University did not follow its procedures

The first ground applies where the University departed from a relevant policy, regulation or published process.

Possible examples may include:

• The wrong mark was entered.
• The final mark calculation omitted an assessment component.
• The wrong degree regulation was used.
• A first attempt was incorrectly recorded as a resit.
• Required second marking or moderation did not take place.
• The correct examiner was not involved.
• A committee was constituted incorrectly.
• Relevant approved evidence did not reach the decision-maker.
• The University did not implement reasonable adjustments.
• A class-certificate procedure was not followed.
• The University failed to give the student a required opportunity to respond.
• A disciplinary or progress procedure departed from its published requirements.
• The decision-maker relied on materially inaccurate information.

A strong procedural appeal should answer four questions:

1. Which procedure applied?
2. What should the University have done?
3. What happened instead?
4. How did the difference cause, or risk causing, material disadvantage?

The student should refer to the relevant policy, programme handbook, assessment instructions, University correspondence or formal decision record.

Ground Two: the decision-maker lacked authority

The second ground concerns the authority of the person or body that made the decision.

Depending on the facts, a lack-of-authority argument may arise where:

• A person made a decision reserved for a committee.
• A committee acted outside its formal remit.
• A required approval was never obtained.
• The wrong body determined progression or an award.
• A decision was communicated as final before the competent academic body approved it.
• The decision-maker exercised a power that the relevant regulation did not give them.

The appeal should identify the provision allocating responsibility for the decision.

It should then explain who actually decided the matter and why that person or body lacked the required authority. The student must also show the resulting or potential material disadvantage.

Ground Three: the decision-maker did not act impartially

The third ground applies where the person or body did not act impartially.

Possible issues may include:

• An unmanaged conflict of interest.
• A decision-maker’s prior involvement in a dispute with the student.
• Evidence that the outcome had been predetermined.
• Consideration of irrelevant personal factors.
• Retaliatory treatment after a complaint.
• Discriminatory comments or conduct.
• Materially different treatment without a proper reason.
• Participation by someone with a direct personal or professional interest in the outcome.

A difficult relationship, critical feedback or an unfavourable decision does not automatically prove bias.

The student needs specific evidence. Relevant material might include emails, meeting records, comments, committee membership information or documents showing prior involvement.

The University’s policy requires those investigating and deciding appeals to act impartially and excludes anyone with a material interest or actual or potential conflict. Allegations of discrimination must also be supported by evidence.

What is material disadvantage?

Material disadvantage means a real and verifiable disadvantage resulting from the procedural failure, lack of authority or prejudice.

Examples given by the University include:

• Being denied admission to an Honours programme.
• An Honours classification being adversely affected by a problem with a course.

Other possible examples may include:

• Being required to withdraw.
• Losing a reassessment opportunity.
• Having a resit treated incorrectly.
• Receiving a lower award.
• Being unable to progress.
• Losing registration on a postgraduate programme.
• Receiving a disciplinary penalty through a defective procedure.
• Facing professional-programme consequences.

The appeal should explain causation clearly.

Instead of stating only that a mistake occurred, the student should show how that mistake affected, or could reasonably affect, the formal academic position.

Extenuating or mitigating circumstances

The University uses the terms extenuating circumstances and mitigating circumstances for serious events that may adversely affect academic performance.

Examples may include:

• Serious illness.
• Acute mental health difficulties.
• Hospital treatment.
• Bereavement.
• A family emergency.
• Trauma.
• Being the victim of crime.
• A sudden deterioration in a disability or long-term condition.
• Another serious and unforeseen event outside the student’s control.

Students should report an inability to attend or perform required work through the University’s absence-reporting process at the earliest opportunity. Where a student attends an examination or submits an assignment, the University may ordinarily treat them as having declared themselves fit to do so. Failure to report the circumstances before results are published may undermine a later appeal.

Late mitigating circumstances are not a separate fourth academic appeal ground.

Instead, they may support an appeal only where the student gives a satisfactory explanation for not providing the information within the permitted period. The Head of School or, at the further stage, the Grounds to Proceed Panel decides whether late notification should be accepted.

What is a satisfactory explanation for late disclosure?

A satisfactory explanation must show why the student could not reasonably disclose the circumstances earlier.

Potentially relevant factors may include:

• Emergency admission to hospital.
• Severe mental health symptoms affecting judgement or communication.
• A period in which the student could not manage ordinary administrative tasks.
• Acute trauma.
• A disability directly affecting the ability to understand or use the process.
• Reasonable reliance on materially incorrect advice from the University.
• Another serious and independently evidenced barrier.

The following explanations may be weak when used alone:

• The student did not know the procedure existed.
• The student did not think the circumstances would affect the result.
• The student wanted to wait for the mark.
• The student felt embarrassed.
• The student preferred not to disclose personal information.
• The student was busy with other work.
• The student believed that effort alone would overcome the problem.

The evidence should address both the academic circumstances and the inability to report them.

For example, a letter confirming anxiety may establish that the condition existed. However, it may not explain why the student could not access Student Hub, contact the School or seek help. A more useful report will address the relevant period, symptom severity and functional impact.

What evidence should support a University of Aberdeen academic appeal?

The University expects the student to provide independent evidence supporting the appeal.

The appeal file may include:

• The final result or decision letter.
• A screenshot of the final CGS mark in Student Hub.
• GP records.
• Hospital or specialist reports.
• Mental health service records.
• Counselling or therapy records.
• Crisis-service correspondence.
• Police or court documents.
• Bereavement evidence.
• Emails sent to the School or supervisor.
• Absence or mitigating-circumstances submissions.
• Disability support documents.
• Reasonable adjustment records.
• Assessment submission receipts.
• Examination notices.
• Mark calculations.
• Course and programme handbooks.
• University regulations.
• Committee or meeting records.
• Supervision records.
• Research progress reports.
• Document version histories.
• System screenshots.
• Independent witness statements.
• A dated chronology.

The University’s glossary describes evidence as independent supporting information, such as material from a medical practice.

Every document should support a specific point.

The student should not upload a large bundle and expect the Case Officer or panel to identify the relevance without explanation.

What should medical evidence include?

A useful medical report should normally address:

• The nature of the condition.
• The dates affected.
• The severity of the symptoms.
• The duration of the problem.
• The effect on academic performance.
• The effect on attendance or assessment.
• The student’s ability to communicate.
• The student’s ability to make decisions.
• The student’s ability to manage administrative tasks.
• The student’s ability to report the problem to the University.

Where the report is written retrospectively, the clinician should explain the basis for commenting on the earlier period.

A report need not say that the academic appeal should succeed. That is a matter for the University. The clinician’s role is to provide medical facts and explain functional impact.

Evidence of a procedural defect

A procedural appeal may rely on:

• The relevant regulation.
• A programme handbook.
• An assessment brief.
• Marking or moderation requirements.
• Emails from the School.
• Examination instructions.
• Student Hub records.
• A reasonable adjustment plan.
• Committee membership information.
• A written account of a meeting.
• Evidence that the student raised the problem promptly.
• Documents showing what information the decision-maker received.

The appeal should compare the required procedure with the procedure actually followed.

A minor clerical issue that had no possible effect on the outcome will not normally establish material disadvantage.

Evidence of a lack of impartiality

A bias or impartiality case needs precise evidence.

Potential material may include:

• Emails showing predetermination.
• Comments unrelated to academic performance.
• Evidence of a personal conflict.
• Committee records.
• Prior complaint correspondence.
• Unequal procedural treatment.
• A failure to disclose or manage a conflict of interest.
• Evidence of discrimination linked to a protected characteristic.

The submission should avoid speculation.

It should identify the conduct, the person involved, the relevant date and the connection between that conduct and the decision.

Evidence not written in English

Where a supporting document is not in English, the student should provide the original and a reliable English translation.

A suitable translation should ideally:

• Be completed by an independent professional.
• Identify the translator and their credentials.
• Confirm that the translation is complete and accurate.
• Preserve the original dates and reference numbers.
• Be submitted together with the source document.

A personal summary may help explain the document, but it should not replace the original and a reliable translation.

How should the evidence be organised?

A simple evidence schedule makes the case easier to follow.

For example:

• Exhibit A1: formal result or decision letter.
• Exhibit A2: medical evidence.
• Exhibit A3: email to the School.
• Exhibit A4: absence or mitigating-circumstances submission.
• Exhibit A5: relevant University regulation.
• Exhibit A6: reasonable adjustment document.
• Exhibit A7: chronology.
• Exhibit A8: requested remedy.

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

For example:

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

This approach is more persuasive than submitting unexplained documents.

How to draft a University of Aberdeen academic appeal

An effective appeal should remain focused, chronological and evidence-based.

1. Identify the exact decision

State:

• The programme.
• The course or assessment.
• The final CGS mark or other decision.
• The date on which the result was published.
• The person or body that made the decision.
• When the student first became aware of it.

2. Identify the formal ground

State whether the appeal concerns:

• Failure to follow procedure.
• Lack of authority.
• Lack of impartiality.
• More than one ground.

Avoid writing only:

The decision was unfair.

A clearer formulation might be:

This appeal relies on a failure to follow University procedure because the relevant approved reasonable adjustment information was not provided to the examiners before the final progression decision.

3. Explain the material disadvantage

The appeal should state what happened or may happen because of the defect.

For example:

• The student could not enter Honours.
• The student was required to withdraw.
• A reassessment opportunity was lost.
• The final classification may have been affected.
• A disciplinary penalty was imposed through a defective process.
• A postgraduate progression decision was made by the wrong body.

4. Present the facts in date order

Use short paragraphs and exact dates.

A complex case may require a separate chronology, but the main submission should still explain the central argument.

5. Address late disclosure separately

Where the student relies on circumstances not reported on time, use a separate heading.

Explain:

• When the circumstances began.
• Which assessment was affected.
• Why the student could not report them.
• How long the inability continued.
• When the student regained the ability to act.
• Which independent evidence supports the explanation.

6. Cite the relevant procedure

Refer to:

• The Student Appeals Policy.
• The applicable degree regulation.
• The programme handbook.
• The assessment requirements.
• The absence policy.
• Reasonable adjustment documents.
• The discipline code.
• The PGR Code of Practice.
• Formal University correspondence.

7. Request an available remedy

Possible remedies may include:

• Referral back to the examiners.
• Reconsideration by the properly authorised body.
• Correction of an administrative or mark-recording error.
• A fresh consideration without the conflicted decision-maker.
• Reconsideration of progression.
• Reconsideration of a degree classification.
• Restoration of a reassessment opportunity.
• A new disciplinary process.
• Rehearing by a properly constituted committee.
• Another fair procedural remedy.
• Compensation where appropriate.

The Appeal Panel may provide or propose a fair remedy. However, an academic decision will normally return to the examiners because only the examiners can alter their academic judgement.

Students should also understand that reconsideration does not guarantee an improved result. The examiners may leave the result unchanged, raise it or reduce it.

How does the University of Aberdeen academic appeal procedure work?

The ordinary process has three internal stages:

1. Frontline resolution.
2. The initial formal stage using Parts A and B.
3. The further stage using Part C, a Grounds to Proceed review and, where appropriate, an Appeal Panel.

The final internal outcome can then be taken to the SPSO for external procedural review.

Step One: frontline resolution

The student should first raise the concern with the relevant School or Service.

This should normally happen within 10 working days of the problem arising or becoming known.

Frontline resolution may be suitable for:

• An incorrect mark entry.
• A calculation problem.
• Missing information.
• A class-certificate issue.
• An apparent misunderstanding of a regulation.
• Another problem that the School can correct quickly.

The School or Service should normally respond within five working days.

A student may exceptionally proceed directly to the formal stage.

However, Part A must explain why frontline resolution was not attempted.

Step Two: submit Part A

If the issue remains unresolved, the student should submit Part A of the Appeals and Complaints Form with the supporting evidence to Academic Services.

The current policy identifies the submission address as:

academicservices@abdn.ac.uk

Part A should normally be submitted within five working days of the failure to resolve the matter at the frontline.

Part A should explain:

• The decision under appeal.
• The date of the decision.
• The relevant ground.
• The facts.
• The material disadvantage.
• The evidence.
• The remedy sought.
• Any reason for bypassing frontline resolution.
• Any reason for late submission.

Step Three: Competency Panel review

A Competency Panel will normally consider Part A within five working days.

It examines:

• Timeliness: whether the appeal was submitted within the required period.
• Competency: whether the case raises a permitted appeal ground rather than merely questioning academic judgement.

An out-of-time or incompetent appeal may be rejected without progressing to a Head of School investigation.

If the case proceeds, the University will allocate a Case Officer and create a formal file record.

That file will contain the student’s form, evidence, University responses and later decisions. It may also be provided to the SPSO if the matter reaches external review.

Step Four: Head of School or Service meeting

The case will normally go to the relevant Head of School or Service, or an appropriate nominee.

The decision-maker at this stage should not be the same person who handled the frontline matter or someone named in the appeal.

The University should arrange the meeting within 10 working days of receiving the case file and give the student at least three working days’ notice.

The student may:

• Attend personally.
• Be accompanied by one person of their choice.
• Be represented by a third party.
• Make an opening statement.
• Answer questions.
• Put questions to relevant staff.
• Make a closing statement.

The Head of School will then prepare Part B.

Step Five: Part B outcome

Part B records:

• The investigation undertaken.
• The outcome of the meeting.
• The response to the student’s points.
• Any proposed remedy.
• Any supporting documents.
• Information about taking the matter further.

The student should normally receive Part B within three working days after the meeting, unless additional investigation is reasonably required.

The student should review Part B carefully.

Important questions include:

• Did it address every ground?
• Did it apply the correct policy?
• Did it consider the evidence accurately?
• Does it contain factual errors?
• Is the proposed remedy sufficient?
• Did the School avoid the central issue?
• Is there a reason to proceed to Part C?

Step Six: submit Part C

If the student remains dissatisfied, they may submit Part C within five working days of receiving Part B.

Part C should explain:

• Why Part B did not resolve the appeal.
• Which findings are disputed.
• Which procedural points remain unanswered.
• Whether Part B misinterpreted the evidence.
• What remedy remains necessary.
• Whether any additional evidence is included.

Part C is normally the final point at which the student can add new issues. The submission should therefore be complete and carefully structured.

Step Seven: Grounds to Proceed Panel

A Grounds to Proceed Panel normally reviews Part C within five working days.

Its role is to decide whether the appeal contains a proper basis for a formal hearing.

The Panel considers whether the case genuinely concerns procedure, authority, impartiality and material disadvantage rather than disagreement with academic judgement.

The Panel may:

• Decide that there are no grounds to proceed.
• Refer the matter back to the School for further review.
• Decide that the appeal should proceed to an Appeal Panel hearing.

Where the case does not proceed, the student should receive information about approaching the SPSO.

Step Eight: Appeal Panel hearing

Where the case proceeds, the University should normally hold the Appeal Panel hearing within 20 working days of the Grounds to Proceed decision.

The University will try to give at least 10 working days’ notice. It should circulate the hearing papers at least five working days before the meeting.

The Appeal Panel normally has three members:

• Two members of staff.
• One student member.

A Case Officer attends to record the proceedings. Panel members should come from a trained pool and must not have a conflict of interest.

The student may:

• Attend personally.
• Be accompanied by one person of their choice.
• Be represented by a third party.
• Request relevant witnesses.
• Make an opening statement.
• Answer questions.
• Question relevant University witnesses.
• Make a concluding statement.

The University should issue the written outcome no later than three working days after the hearing.

What can the Appeal Panel decide?

The Appeal Panel may:

• Reject the appeal.
• Uphold it in full.
• Uphold it in part.
• Refer an academic decision back to the examiners.
• Refer a procedural matter to the responsible School or Service.
• Propose another fair remedy.
• Consider compensation in an appropriate case.

The Panel cannot simply replace the academic judgement of the examiners with its own.

The Appeal Panel’s decision is final within the University.

The student cannot bring another University appeal on the same matter. The final correspondence should explain the SPSO route.

Can a solicitor represent a student in the academic appeal?

The University’s policy permits a student to be accompanied by one person of their choice or represented by a third party at both the Head of School meeting and the Appeal Panel hearing.

The hearing procedure also allows the representative to make submissions, respond to questions, question witnesses and make the concluding statement.

The policy does not expressly exclude a solicitor from acting as the chosen person or third-party representative.

Nevertheless, the student should confirm the following with Academic Services in advance:

• The solicitor’s attendance.
• Whether written authority is required.
• The role the solicitor may perform.
• Whether the student must also attend.
• Any deadline for providing the representative’s details.
• Whether the meeting will be online or in person.

The University encourages students to seek help from the Students’ Union before contacting a legal adviser. It also states that it will not reimburse external legal costs unless required by a court order. That does not prohibit a student from obtaining private legal advice or representation.

Aberdeen Students’ Union support

The Students’ Union Advice Centre can provide independent support throughout the appeal process.

Its assistance may include:

• Explaining the procedure.
• Reviewing the form.
• Accompanying the student.
• Representing the student at a meeting or hearing.

The University expressly recognises Students’ Union support at every stage.

Ginkgo Advisory is independent from the Students’ Union and does not replace the free support available to students.

Does the student’s status change during the appeal?

Generally, the student’s status will not be affected simply because they submitted an appeal.

A current student will normally be allowed to continue pending the outcome. Where the right to re-register depends on the appeal, the University may permit temporary registration. If the appeal fails, that temporary registration can lapse.

In exceptional circumstances, the University may bar a student from study while the appeal is pending. This requires a justified recommendation and approval at a senior level.

Students should still confirm their position regarding:

• Attendance.
• Registration.
• Reassessment.
• Progression.
• Placements.
• Research activity.
• Student visa sponsorship.

An appeal does not necessarily entitle the student to begin a new programme or progress to a stage for which they are not otherwise academically qualified.

Class Certificate appeals

A class certificate confirms that the student attended and completed the work prescribed for a course.

Where the University refuses or withdraws a class certificate, the student should act immediately.

The appeal policy strongly expects frontline resolution because delay may make it harder for the student to remain on track. Current student guidance for C7 decisions may require the appeal form within five working days of the relevant email.

A class-certificate appeal may involve:

• Disputed attendance records.
• Unrecorded engagement.
• Illness or other good cause.
• Failure to consider submitted evidence.
• Incorrect application of the monitoring procedure.
• A reasonable adjustment issue.
• A decision made by the wrong person.

Submitting medical evidence does not automatically reverse the class-certificate decision. The School may still need to decide whether the student can achieve the learning outcomes.

Undergraduate Students’ Progress Committee appeals

The Undergraduate Students’ Progress Committee may make decisions concerning progression or discontinuation.

A student appealing such a decision does not repeat the frontline and Part A stages. Instead, the appeal enters the process at the equivalent of Part C and proceeds through the further-stage review.

The student must still identify a valid general appeal ground:

• Procedure was not followed.
• The decision-maker lacked authority.
• The decision-maker did not act impartially.
• Material disadvantage resulted or could result.

The student should use the form and deadline specified in the outcome correspondence.

Admission and re-admission appeals

The Student Appeals Policy also covers admission and re-admission decisions.

An applicant or former student cannot appeal merely because they believe their application was academically stronger than another person’s.

A potentially valid case might instead concern:

• Failure to apply the published admission procedure.
• A decision made by an unauthorised person.
• Incorrect information in the application record.
• A conflict of interest.
• Discriminatory treatment.
• A material procedural failure affecting the admission decision.

The student or applicant should identify the formal decision, procedure and resulting disadvantage precisely.

Postgraduate research and doctoral appeals

The University’s general appeal grounds also apply to postgraduate researchers.

The current 2025–26 PGR Code states that a research student cannot appeal simply because they disagree with an assessment outcome. A PGR appeal must concern procedure, authority, impartiality and material disadvantage.

A PGR appeal may concern a formal decision involving:

• Research progression.
• Candidature or registration.
• Termination of studies.
• A formal assessment.
• Thesis examination.
• A viva process.
• The research degree awarded.
• Another formal postgraduate decision.

The exact scope depends on the regulations governing the particular decision.

What evidence may support a doctoral appeal?

A postgraduate researcher may need:

• The formal progression or examination decision.
• Supervisor meeting records.
• Research progress reports.
• Annual review documents.
• Candidature or registration correspondence.
• Thesis drafts.
• Examiner reports.
• Viva notices and records.
• Reasonable adjustment documents.
• Medical evidence.
• Research-degree regulations.
• The current PGR Code of Practice.
• A detailed chronology.

The appeal must still distinguish procedural error from disagreement with the examiners’ academic judgement.

PGR mitigating circumstances

The current PGR Code requires postgraduate researchers to notify the relevant Head of School immediately where mitigating circumstances affect an assessment, examination or submission.

The Code refers to a particularly short reporting period and states that circumstances submitted late cannot support an appeal without a satisfactory explanation. PGR students should therefore check the current PGR Code and act immediately rather than relying on the ordinary taught-student reporting process.

Inadequate doctoral supervision

Inadequate supervision will normally be a student complaint rather than a direct challenge to academic judgement.

Possible complaints include:

• Long periods without supervision meetings.
• Persistent delays in feedback.
• Conflicting guidance.
• Failure to arrange replacement supervision.
• Failure to provide agreed research support.
• Inadequate research resources.
• Failure to follow the PGR Code.

The current PGR Code encourages a researcher to raise service or supervision concerns first with the supervisor or relevant School staff. If that is unsuitable or unsuccessful, the student may approach the School PGR Director or use the Complaints Handling Procedure.

In some cases, the same factual background may lead to:

• A complaint about supervision or services.
• A separate appeal against a formal academic decision affected by a procedural defect.

The student should avoid duplicating the same issue under both routes.

Academic appeal or student complaint?

An academic appeal and a student complaint have different purposes.

Academic appeal

Use an appeal to challenge a formal decision involving:

• Assessment.
• Progression.
• An academic award.
• Admission or re-admission.
• A class certificate.
• Academic termination.
• A disciplinary outcome.
• Student progress.
• Fitness to practise.

Student complaint

Use a complaint to challenge:

• Failure to provide a service.
• Poor service quality.
• Unreasonable delay.
• Poor teaching arrangements.
• Inadequate supervision.
• Administrative failures.
• Communication problems.
• Facilities or learning resources.
• Failure to apply law, procedure or guidance when delivering services.
• Conduct or treatment by a member of staff.

The Complaints Handling Procedure does not replace an established academic appeals process. The same issue should not be considered under both procedures, although clearly separable appeal and service issues may proceed through different routes.

University of Aberdeen student complaints procedure

The University currently operates a two-stage Complaints Handling Procedure:

1. Stage One: frontline response.
2. Stage Two: investigation.

The procedure follows the Scottish higher-education model developed by the SPSO.

Student complaint deadline

A complainant should normally raise the complaint within six months of first becoming aware of the problem.

The University may accept a later complaint in special circumstances, such as serious illness or recent bereavement.

Where the student received a Stage One response and wishes to escalate, they should normally request Stage Two:

• Within six months of first becoming aware of the problem; or
• Within two months of the Stage One response,

whichever is later.

Stage One: frontline response

Stage One is intended for straightforward issues that require little or no investigation.

The University should normally respond within five working days.

In exceptional circumstances, the University may extend the process by up to another five working days. If the matter cannot be closed within 10 working days, it should proceed to Stage Two.

Possible outcomes include:

• An explanation.
• An apology.
• Correction of an error.
• Provision of a missing service.
• Another practical resolution.
• Rejection of the complaint with reasons.

Stage Two: investigation

Stage Two applies where:

• The student remains dissatisfied after Stage One.
• The student declines frontline handling.
• The complaint is complex.
• The complaint is serious or high-risk.
• A formal investigation is required.

The University should acknowledge the complaint within three working days and normally provide a full response within 20 working days.

Where additional time is necessary, the University should:

• Explain the reason for the extension.
• Provide a revised timescale.
• Keep the complainant updated.
• Normally provide an update at least every 20 working days.

The final response should address the issues, explain the decision and signpost the student to the SPSO.

Can a solicitor submit a University of Aberdeen complaint?

Yes, subject to the student’s authority.

The current Complaints Handling Procedure accepts third-party complaints from relatives, friends, advocates and advisers. A signed mandate or other written authorisation will normally be sufficient.

A solicitor may therefore be able to:

• Draft the complaint.
• Submit it as the authorised representative.
• Organise the evidence.
• Communicate with the investigator.
• Prepare the student for a meeting.
• Analyse the final response.
• Draft the SPSO complaint.

The student should give clear written consent covering the sharing of personal and sensitive information.

University of Aberdeen academic misconduct procedure

Academic misconduct follows the Code of Practice on Student Discipline rather than the ordinary academic-result appeal procedure.

As of 28 July 2026, the University’s public Student Discipline page still links the 2024–25 Academic Code. Students should use the version named in their allegation or outcome letter and ask Academic Services for clarification if different documents appear to apply.

The publicly linked code covers:

• Plagiarism.
• Self-plagiarism.
• Collusion.
• Contract cheating.
• Other forms of cheating.
• Research misconduct.
• Unauthorised or unacknowledged use of AI-generated content.

The University uses the balance of probabilities. It asks whether the alleged event was more likely than not to have occurred.

Plagiarism allegations

The University defines plagiarism as using another person’s intellectual work in an assessment without adequate acknowledgment.

Self-plagiarism concerns the reuse of identical or substantially similar material that the same student previously submitted for another assessment.

A student responding to a plagiarism allegation should review:

• The passages identified.
• The alleged source material.
• Citations and footnotes.
• The bibliography.
• Note-taking practices.
• Drafts and version histories.
• Any originality or similarity report.
• The assessment instructions.
• Referencing guidance issued by the School.

A general statement that the student did not intend to plagiarise may not answer the evidence.

The response should explain:

• How the disputed wording entered the work.
• Whether the source was cited elsewhere.
• Whether a note-taking error occurred.
• Which content the student produced independently.
• Whether the University has overstated the affected proportion.
• Whether the student took reasonable care to avoid presenting another person’s work as their own.

Collusion allegations

Collusion is unauthorised collaboration between students in preparing an assignment.

It does not include authorised group work assessed through a joint report or presentation.

A response should consider:

• What cooperation the assessment allowed.
• What communication actually occurred.
• Whether students shared ideas or directly usable text.
• Whether complete drafts were exchanged.
• Whether a common source explains similarities.
• Which parts each student completed independently.
• Whether the University has evidence identifying who produced or copied the material.

Chat messages, document histories, drafts and cloud timestamps may be important.

Contract-cheating allegations

Contract cheating involves submitting work produced partly or wholly by someone else with an intention to pass it off as the student’s own.

Payment is not essential. The third party may be a commercial service, friend, relative, tutor or another person.

A contract-cheating or authorship case may involve:

• Purchasing an essay.
• Asking a friend to complete an assignment.
• Using an essay-writing service.
• A tutor rewriting substantial parts.
• Third-party data analysis.
• Another person writing code.
• Submitting an online answer as original work.
• Presenting substantial AI-generated work as the student’s own.

The student should preserve:

• Early drafts.
• Research notes.
• Source materials.
• Raw data.
• Code records.
• Payment records.
• Messages.
• File metadata.
• Version histories.
• Cloud timestamps.
• Earlier work showing the student’s normal style.

AI and ChatGPT allegations

The publicly linked Academic Code treats the unauthorised or unacknowledged use of AI tools to generate content for assessed work as plagiarism.

The University’s broader AI principles require staff and students to:

• Be transparent about AI use.
• Keep records that allow others to understand the use.
• Evaluate AI output critically.
• Comply with institutional policies.
• Remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of AI-generated material.

A student should first check:

• The assessment brief.
• The course handbook.
• Any AI instructions issued by the tutor.
• Whether AI use was permitted.
• Whether acknowledgment was required.
• Which uses were prohibited.
• Whether the student retained prompts and outputs.

Where the assessment instructions are unclear, the University advises students to ask the course tutor before using generative AI.

What evidence should be preserved in an AI case?

The student should retain:

• The assessment instructions.
• AI guidance issued by the School.
• Early plans.
• Handwritten or electronic notes.
• Research records.
• Word version history.
• Google Docs version history.
• Cloud timestamps.
• Drafts.
• Raw data.
• Original code.
• Reference-management records.
• AI prompts.
• AI outputs.
• The student’s edits to those outputs.
• Any AI acknowledgment submitted.
• Earlier assessments showing a consistent style.

Postgraduate researchers are specifically advised to record and disclose generative AI use, including prompts and outputs. PGR examiners may ask to see those records during the viva.

After receiving an allegation, the student should not:

• Delete prompts.
• Alter original files.
• Manufacture drafts.
• Fabricate a version history.
• Recreate research records that did not exist.
• Submit false medical or other evidence.

Fabricated evidence may create an additional disciplinary issue.

Preliminary Investigation

Where the School believes that academic misconduct may have occurred, it may arrange a Preliminary Investigation.

The publicly linked code says that the meeting should normally occur no later than 10 working days after the allegation is raised. The student should receive the allegation and the evidence relied upon in writing.

You should normally receive a copy of the meeting record and outcome within five working days after the meeting.

You should prepare to explain:

• How the topic was selected.
• Which sources were used.
• How the argument developed.
• How the work changed between drafts.
• How particular passages were written.
• How data or code was produced.
• Whether another person assisted.
• Whether AI was used.
• The precise nature of any permitted AI use.
• Why the final work reflects the student’s own understanding.

Discipline Hearing

A more serious, repeated or unresolved case may proceed to a Discipline Hearing.

The student should normally receive at least five working days’ notice and copies of the written material to be considered.

At the hearing:

• The allegation will be explained.
• The student may admit or deny it.
• The School may present evidence.
• The student or representative may respond.
• Witnesses may be called.
• The student or representative may put questions through the Investigating Officer.
• The student or representative may make a concluding statement.

Can a solicitor attend an academic misconduct meeting?

The publicly linked code allows a student to be accompanied or represented by one person of their choice at any meeting or Discipline Hearing.

The University does not provide legal representation, although AUSA representation is available.

The wording does not exclude a privately instructed solicitor.

Nevertheless, the student should confirm:

• Whether the solicitor may speak.
• Whether the solicitor may question witnesses.
• Whether the student must attend personally.
• Whether written authority is required.
• The deadline for notifying the School or Academic Services.

If the student cannot attend, the code allows them to request one rescheduling, appoint a representative or make written representations. Where a representative will attend without the student, written notification is normally required at least two working days before the hearing.

What penalties can academic misconduct attract?

Under the academic code currently linked on the University website, possible consequences may include:

• A formal warning.
• A CGS G3 for the assessment.
• A CGS G3 for the course.
• Reassessment capped at CGS D3.
• No reassessment for certain substantial postgraduate-taught assessments.
• Expulsion in serious, repeated or contract-cheating cases.
• Failure of a research degree for proven research misconduct.
• Reduction or rescission of a graduate’s award.

The code also gives the decision-maker discretion to impose a lesser or reasonable alternative penalty after considering the evidence and the student’s explanation.

The precise outcome depends on:

• The code version applying to the case.
• The type of misconduct.
• The level and weight of the assessment.
• Whether the student has a previous finding.
• The degree of planning.
• The evidence.
• Any relevant mitigation.

Students should therefore rely on the code cited in their own allegation letter rather than assume that a particular penalty is inevitable.

How can a student appeal an academic misconduct outcome?

A student has a right to appeal an academic misconduct decision where a valid general appeal ground exists.

The misconduct appeal does not repeat the frontline and Part A stages. It enters the Student Appeals Policy at the equivalent of Part C and proceeds through the further-stage process.

The student must normally show:

• A procedural failure.
• Lack of authority.
• Lack of impartiality.
• Material disadvantage.

The appeal should directly analyse:

• The Preliminary Investigation.
• The evidence provided.
• The Discipline Hearing procedure.
• The reasoning in the outcome.
• The penalty.
• Any conflict of interest.
• Any new material that could not reasonably have been provided earlier.

The ordinary appeal deadline is normally 10 working days from the decision becoming known. Students must follow the specific deadline and submission instructions in the misconduct outcome letter.

Fitness-to-practise appeals

The University operates fitness-to-practise procedures for Medicine, Dentistry, Education and certain related professional programmes.

A fitness-to-practise appeal follows the further-stage route rather than repeating frontline resolution and the ordinary initial appeal stage.

The student must establish a valid general appeal ground involving procedure, authority, impartiality and material disadvantage.

The Appeal Panel cannot decide whether the student is fit to practise.

Where a procedural irregularity justifies the appeal, the Panel’s power is limited to referring the case for rehearing by a properly trained Fitness to Practise Committee.

A fitness-to-practise appeal may require:

• The formal outcome.
• The investigation report.
• Hearing papers.
• Professional standards.
• Health or occupational evidence.
• Placement records.
• Witness statements.
• Reasonable adjustment information.
• Evidence of procedural irregularity.
• A chronology.
• The requested rehearing remedy.

What happens after the University’s internal process ends?

When the University’s internal academic appeal process ends, the student may ask the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, commonly called the SPSO, to review the University’s handling of the case.

The University of Aberdeen is in Scotland. Therefore, the external body is the SPSO rather than the Office of the Independent Adjudicator used for many universities in England and Wales.

The SPSO can consider matters such as:

• Whether a reasonable procedure existed.
• Whether the University followed it.
• Whether the student received a fair opportunity to respond.
• Whether relevant evidence was considered.
• Whether the University gave adequate reasons.
• Whether there was service failure.
• Whether there was maladministration.
• Whether reasonable adjustments were considered.
• Whether the appeal was handled impartially.

The SPSO cannot question pure academic judgement, remark work or decide the academic standard of a thesis or assessment.

SPSO deadline

The SPSO will normally expect the student to have completed the University’s internal complaints or academic appeals procedure first.

It will also normally require the complaint to be made within 12 months of the student first becoming aware of the issue. The matter must not be before, or already have been decided by, a court.

The 12-month period does not necessarily restart when the University issues its final letter.

Students should therefore monitor the SPSO deadline while the internal process continues and avoid unnecessary delay.

How Ginkgo Advisory can assist

Initial case assessment

We review:

• The formal decision.
• The date the issue became known.
• The relevant deadline.
• The available appeal grounds.
• The potential material disadvantage.
• The evidence.
• The applicable Aberdeen procedure.
• The outcome sought.

We then identify whether the matter is more suitable for:

• Frontline resolution.
• A Part A academic appeal.
• A Part C further-stage appeal.
• A class-certificate appeal.
• An Undergraduate Students’ Progress Committee appeal.
• A postgraduate research appeal.
• A student complaint.
• An academic misconduct response.
• An academic misconduct appeal.
• A fitness-to-practise appeal.
• An SPSO complaint.

Appeal-ground analysis

We assess whether the case supports:

• Failure to follow procedure.
• Lack of decision-making authority.
• Lack of impartiality.
• A conflict of interest.
• Discrimination or prejudice.
• A material disadvantage.
• A satisfactory explanation for late evidence.
• A challenge to the handling of mitigating circumstances.

Weak, repetitive or purely academic-judgement arguments can be removed before submission.

Evidence review

We can assess:

• Whether medical evidence covers the relevant dates.
• Whether it explains functional impact.
• Whether late disclosure has independent support.
• Whether the correct decision-maker acted.
• Whether the University followed the regulation.
• Whether reasonable adjustments were implemented.
• Whether the mark calculation appears correct.
• Whether the chronology is consistent.
• Which documents should enter the appeal bundle.
• Which documents may weaken the case.
• Whether a professional translation is required.

Drafting

We can prepare or review:

• Frontline-resolution correspondence.
• Part A of the Appeals and Complaints Form.
• Late-appeal explanations.
• Procedural-error appeals.
• Lack-of-authority appeals.
• Impartiality and conflict-of-interest appeals.
• Mitigating-circumstances explanations.
• Part C submissions.
• Requested-remedy statements.
• Class-certificate appeals.
• Students’ Progress Committee appeals.
• Postgraduate research appeals.
• Thesis and viva appeals.
• Formal student complaints.
• Stage Two complaints.
• Plagiarism and collusion responses.
• Contract-cheating responses.
• AI and ChatGPT allegation responses.
• Preliminary Investigation statements.
• Discipline Hearing submissions.
• Academic misconduct appeals.
• Fitness-to-practise appeals.
• SPSO complaints.
• Evidence schedules and chronologies.

Head of School and Appeal Panel preparation

We can prepare students for:

• A Head of School meeting.
• An Appeal Panel hearing.
• A postgraduate research appeal.
• A Preliminary Investigation.
• A Discipline Hearing.
• A fitness-to-practise appeal hearing.
• A complaint investigation meeting.

Preparation may include:

• An opening statement.
• Likely questions.
• Clear oral answers.
• Questions for University staff or witnesses.
• A closing statement.
• Procedural objections.
• An available remedy.
• A strategy for adverse evidence.

Representation where permitted

The Student Appeals Policy allows a third-party representative at the Head of School meeting and Appeal Panel.

The publicly linked Academic Discipline Code also permits one representative of the student’s choice.

Subject to the University’s directions and advance notification, we can consider providing representation in those procedures.

Common mistakes in University of Aberdeen academic appeals

Appealing only because the mark is too low

Disagreement with a CGS mark is a challenge to academic judgement.

The student must identify procedure, authority or impartiality grounds and material disadvantage.

Appealing an unconfirmed mark

An assessment appeal normally requires the final CGS course mark released through Student Hub.

Missing the 10-working-day period

Students should raise the issue immediately.

Waiting for evidence or informal advice does not automatically extend the deadline.

Missing the five-working-day Part A deadline

After unsuccessful frontline resolution, Part A should normally be submitted within five working days.

Failing to explain why frontline resolution was bypassed

A student may proceed directly to Part A, but the form should explain why local resolution was unsuitable.

Treating mitigating circumstances as an automatic appeal ground

Late circumstances do not replace the formal grounds.

The student must provide a satisfactory explanation for the delayed disclosure.

Providing only a diagnosis

Medical evidence should also explain dates, severity, duration, academic impact and the ability to use the University procedure.

Failing to prove material disadvantage

A technical error is not enough.

The appeal should explain its practical effect on progression, assessment, an award or another formal position.

Making an unsupported allegation of bias

A difficult academic relationship or negative feedback does not automatically prove partiality.

Specific evidence is required.

Submitting evidence without explaining it

Each document should be connected to a fact, ground and material consequence.

Waiting until Part C to introduce the main case

Part A should set out the principal grounds and evidence.

Part C should explain why Part B did not resolve them.

Asking the Appeal Panel to remark the work

The Panel cannot substitute its own academic judgement.

An academic remedy normally returns the matter to the examiners.

Assuming reconsideration can only improve the result

When examiners reconsider an academic decision, they may leave it unchanged, increase it or reduce it.

Failing to prepare for the Head of School meeting

The student or representative may make opening and closing statements and ask questions.

Preparation can materially affect the presentation of the case.

Missing the Part C deadline

Part C normally has a five-working-day deadline after receipt of Part B.

Treating a complaint as a second academic appeal

The complaints process cannot reconsider the merits of an academic decision simply because the student dislikes the appeal outcome.

Deleting drafts after an AI allegation

Drafts, prompts, outputs and version histories may provide important authorship evidence.

Attending a Preliminary Investigation without preparation

The student’s initial explanation may determine whether the matter ends locally or proceeds to a Discipline Hearing.

Assuming the University provides a lawyer

The University does not provide legal representation.

Students may obtain AUSA support or instruct an external adviser privately.

Waiting until the internal process ends before considering SPSO time

The SPSO deadline normally runs from awareness of the underlying issue, not from the final University letter.

Frequently asked questions

What is the University of Aberdeen academic appeal deadline?

The issue should normally be raised at the frontline within 10 working days of arising or becoming known.

If frontline resolution fails, Part A should normally be submitted within a further five working days.

How do I submit a University of Aberdeen academic appeal?

Raise the issue first with the relevant School or Service.

If it remains unresolved, complete Part A of the Appeals and Complaints Form and submit it with the evidence to Academic Services.

What is the Academic Services email address?

The current Student Appeals Policy identifies:

academicservices@abdn.ac.uk

Students should still check the current form and official webpage before submission.

Can I bypass frontline resolution?

Exceptionally, yes.

However, Part A should explain why the student did not consider frontline resolution appropriate.

Can I appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

An assessment appeal normally requires the final CGS course mark released through Student Hub.

Can I appeal because I disagree with my CGS mark?

Not on that basis alone.

The University will not normally consider an appeal that only challenges academic judgement.

What are the three University of Aberdeen appeal grounds?

The student must show that:

• The University did not follow its procedure; or
• The person or body lacked authority; or
• The person or body did not act impartially;

and that material disadvantage resulted or could result.

What is material disadvantage?

It is a real and verifiable disadvantage caused by the procedural, authority or impartiality problem.

Examples may include loss of Honours progression or an adverse effect on degree classification.

Can mitigating circumstances support an appeal?

Yes, but late circumstances require a satisfactory explanation for not reporting them within the proper period.

They do not operate as a standalone fourth appeal ground.

What happens after I submit Part A?

A Competency Panel normally reviews the case for timeliness and competency within five working days.

An eligible case then proceeds to a Head of School or Service investigation.

What happens at the Head of School meeting?

The student or representative may make an opening statement, answer questions, put questions to relevant staff and make a closing statement.

The outcome is recorded in Part B.

What is Part B?

Part B is the Head of School or Service response.

It records the investigation, decision, response to the appeal points and any proposed remedy.

What is the Part C deadline?

The student normally has five working days after receiving Part B.

What is the Grounds to Proceed Panel?

It decides whether Part C establishes a basis for further investigation or a formal Appeal Panel hearing.

How long does an Appeal Panel take?

Where a hearing is required, it should normally take place within 20 working days of the Grounds to Proceed decision.

Can a solicitor attend the Appeal Panel?

The policy allows the student to be accompanied by one person of their choice or represented by a third party.

A solicitor may therefore be possible, subject to confirmation and the University’s directions.

Can a solicitor speak for the student?

The published hearing procedure allows a representative to make submissions, respond to questions, question witnesses and make the concluding statement.

The precise arrangements should still be confirmed with Academic Services.

Can a solicitor submit a student complaint?

Yes, where the student provides written authority or a signed mandate.

Does the original academic decision pause during the appeal?

The student’s status will generally not be affected merely by submitting an appeal.

However, the student should confirm registration, reassessment, progression and visa arrangements with the University.

Can I register while an appeal is pending?

A student who is otherwise qualified may register.

Where registration depends on the appeal, the University may permit temporary registration.

Can I appeal a class-certificate decision?

Yes.

The student should act immediately because C7 and attendance decisions can have urgent progression consequences.

Can a PhD student appeal?

Yes.

The general grounds apply to postgraduate researchers, including formal decisions involving progression, candidature, assessment and research-degree awards.

Can a PhD student appeal because they disagree with the examiners?

Not on that basis alone.

Disagreement with academic judgement is insufficient.

Can I complain about inadequate PhD supervision?

Yes.

Supervision and research-support concerns normally fall under the Complaints Handling Procedure and should be raised promptly.

What is the student complaint deadline?

Normally six months from first becoming aware of the problem.

How long does a Stage One complaint take?

Normally five working days, with a maximum of 10 working days where an extension is justified.

How long does a Stage Two complaint take?

The University should acknowledge it within three working days and normally provide a full response within 20 working days.

Can I defend a plagiarism allegation?

Yes.

The response should examine the disputed passages, sources, citations, drafts, version history and the University’s interpretation of the evidence.

Can I defend a ChatGPT or AI allegation?

Yes.

The response should address:

• The assessment instructions.
• Whether AI use was permitted.
• Whether acknowledgment was required.
• How the work developed.
• The prompts and outputs.
• The student’s edits.
• Drafts and version history.
• The evidence relied on by the University.

Can a solicitor attend a Discipline Hearing?

The publicly linked code allows one person of the student’s choice to accompany or represent them.

The speaking role and notification arrangements should be confirmed in advance.

What is the academic misconduct standard of proof?

The University uses the balance of probabilities.

It asks whether the alleged conduct was more likely than not to have occurred.

What is the academic misconduct appeal deadline?

Normally 10 working days under the general Student Appeals Policy, but the student must follow the deadline in the formal outcome letter.

Can a fitness-to-practise decision be appealed?

Yes, where a valid general ground exists.

The Appeal Panel may refer the matter for rehearing because of procedural irregularity, but it cannot decide fitness to practise itself.

Can a University of Aberdeen case go to the OIA?

Normally not.

The University is in Scotland, so the external review body is the SPSO.

What is the SPSO deadline?

Normally 12 months from when the student first became aware of the issue.

Can the SPSO change my mark?

No.

The SPSO cannot question academic judgement or remark academic work. It may review whether the University followed a fair and reasonable procedure.

Request a confidential case assessment

A University of Aberdeen academic appeal may affect progression, reassessment, Honours entry, graduation, degree classification, postgraduate research, professional registration, 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 each case.

Support can begin with an initial assessment and continue through Part A, the Head of School meeting, Part C, the Appeal Panel and an SPSO complaint.

Where the University’s procedure permits third-party representation, we can also consider acting for the student at the meeting or hearing.

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

Independent-service disclaimer

Ginkgo Advisory is independent from the University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen University Students’ Union and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

This article provides general information only.

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

The University may update its regulations, forms, disciplinary codes, AI guidance and submission arrangements.

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