University of Bath Academic Appeal: Procedure, Grounds, Deadlines and Solicitor-Led Support

A University of Bath academic appeal asks the University to reconsider a formal Board of Studies decision concerning marks, progression, continued registration, degree classification, a final award or a research-degree outcome.

A student must normally submit a Stage 1 academic appeal within 14 calendar days of receiving the formal decision. The appeal must satisfy at least one ground recognised by Regulation 17. It should also contain the material facts, available evidence and requested remedy from the outset.

A student cannot appeal simply because they disagree with a mark, feedback, degree classification or an examiner’s properly exercised academic judgement. Instead, a valid case will usually need to establish previously undisclosed circumstances, a material procedural irregularity, prejudice, bias or inadequate assessment. Postgraduate researchers may also rely on a specific ground involving previously unapparent differences in philosophical approach or research paradigm.

This guide principally reflects the University’s published 2026–27 Regulations for Students, including Regulation 17 and Regulation 19. Regulation 17 is dated 1 August 2026. A student challenging a decision made under the 2025–26 rules should also check the version that applied when the University made the decision.

Solicitor-led academic appeals, complaints and misconduct defence

Ginkgo Advisory provides strategic advice, drafting and procedural support for students at the University of Bath and other UK universities.

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

Assistance can begin with an initial assessment and continue through Stage 1, Stage 2, an appeal hearing, an academic misconduct investigation, a student complaint, a fitness-to-practise appeal or an OIA complaint.

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

• Assessing the available grounds, deadline and prospects.
• Reviewing results, formal decisions and applicable regulations.
• Analysing medical, academic, digital and procedural evidence.
• Drafting or revising a Stage 1 Academic Appeal Form.
• Preparing a Stage 2 Review request.
• Addressing why Individual Mitigating Circumstances were not disclosed in time.
• Analysing mark-calculation, mark-recording and assessment-process errors.
• Assessing whether approved reasonable adjustments were implemented.
• Preparing arguments concerning examiner bias, conflicts of interest or inadequate assessment.
• Advising undergraduate, taught postgraduate and doctoral students.
• Preparing doctoral progression, thesis and viva appeals.
• Drafting student complaints and Stage 3 complaint appeals.
• Responding to plagiarism, collusion and contract-cheating allegations.
• Defending allegations involving ChatGPT and other generative AI tools.
• Preparing a student for a Presentation of Learning or Board of Inquiry.
• Advising on fitness-to-practise, student-conduct and support-for-study appeals.
• Drafting an OIA complaint.
• Providing hearing support or representation where the applicable procedure permits it.

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

Can a solicitor attend a University of Bath academic appeal hearing?

Regulation 17 allows a student at a Stage 1 appeal hearing to:

• Attend personally.
• Be accompanied by one friend or adviser.
• Be represented in their absence by one friend or adviser.
• Present written and oral evidence through the student, friend, adviser or representative.
• Answer questions from the Appeal Sub-Committee.
• Ask questions of the Appeal Sub-Committee.
• Make a closing statement.

The regulation does not define an adviser as only a Students’ Union adviser. Nor does it expressly exclude an external solicitor. On the wording of the regulation, a solicitor may potentially act as an adviser or representative. Nevertheless, this does not create an unrestricted right to conduct the meeting like court litigation. The student should identify the proposed representative in the appeal and confirm the speaking and questioning arrangements with the relevant Board of Studies in advance.

Where a case reaches the Student Academic Appeals Committee, the student may also attend with, or be represented by, a friend or adviser. The student or representative will normally begin by explaining the grounds of appeal and may introduce witnesses. The Committee will usually hold the hearing within 30 days of deciding that sufficient grounds exist, provide at least seven days’ notice and communicate the written decision within 14 working days after the hearing.

Different rules may apply to academic misconduct, student complaints and fitness-to-practise proceedings. Ginkgo Advisory therefore confirms the representative’s permitted role under the specific procedure before any hearing.

University of Bath academic appeal deadlines

Procedure	Normal deadline or timeframe
Stage 1 academic appeal	Within 14 calendar days of notification of the final Board of Studies decision
Stage 1 Chair’s decision	Normally within 35 calendar days of receiving the appeal
Notification that a Stage 1 hearing will be held	Normally within 28 calendar days of receiving the appeal
Stage 1 hearing notice	Normally at least 7 calendar days
Additional written statement for Stage 1 hearing	At least 3 calendar days before the hearing
Written Stage 1 hearing outcome	Normally within 5 working days after the hearing
Stage 2 Review request	Within 14 calendar days of the Stage 1 outcome
Stage 2 Review outcome	Normally within 28 calendar days of receipt
Student Academic Appeals Committee hearing	Normally within 30 days after sufficient grounds are confirmed
Student Academic Appeals Committee notice	At least 7 days
Committee’s written decision	Normally within 14 working days after the hearing
IMC claim for an examination outside an Assessment Period	No later than 3 working days after the affected deadline
IMC claim for other assessments	No later than 3 working days after the affected deadline
Formal academic misconduct response	Within 14 calendar days of the written allegation
Presentation of Learning notice	At least 7 calendar days
Board of Inquiry notice	At least 7 calendar days
Board of Inquiry attendance, written submission or companion notice	At least 4 calendar days before the meeting
Academic misconduct review	Within 14 calendar days of the written outcome
General student-complaint deadline	Normally within 6 months of the initial issue
Stage 1 informal-complaint response	Initial update normally within 5 working days
Stage 2 formal complaint	Normally within 10 working days of the informal outcome
Stage 2 acknowledgment	Normally within 5 working days
Stage 2 complaint outcome	Normally within 60 calendar days of formal submission
Stage 3 complaint appeal	Within 10 working days of the Stage 2 outcome
Stage 3 complaint outcome	Normally within 30 calendar days
Fitness-to-practise, conduct and related appeals	Within 10 working days of the outcome
OIA complaint	Within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter

Assessment-period examinations have specific IMC dates published for each academic year. Students should check the current deadline for their own examination period rather than assume that the general three-working-day rule applies.

What is a University of Bath academic appeal?

A University of Bath academic appeal is a request for reconsideration of a final academic decision made by a Board of Studies.

Boards of Examiners assess students’ marks and academic records. The relevant Board of Studies then makes or confirms formal decisions concerning progression, continued study and awards.

An appeal may concern:

• Progression from one stage of a programme to the next.
• Whether the student may remain on the programme.
• Examination or coursework marks.
• Unit results.
• Reassessment arrangements.
• Degree classification.
• A degree, diploma or certificate.
• Doctoral progress.
• A doctoral thesis result.
• A viva outcome.
• A research-degree award.

Regulation 17 applies only to final Board of Studies decisions. A concern about an unconfirmed result should first go to the Director of Studies.

Can a student appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

A student can normally appeal only after the Board of Studies has approved the result and the University has formally notified the student.

Where a mark remains provisional, the student should ask the Director of Studies whether:

• The mark was entered correctly.
• The total was calculated correctly.
• An assessment component was omitted.
• Required marking or moderation took place.
• The correct programme regulation was used.
• The result has become final.

However, waiting for a departmental response does not automatically stop the 14-calendar-day deadline once the final Board of Studies decision has been notified.

What is academic judgement?

Academic judgement means a professional academic evaluation made by an examiner, marker or academic decision-making body.

It may include:

• The academic quality of an essay.
• Whether an argument is sufficiently persuasive.
• Whether the student achieved the learning outcomes.
• The academic standard of a dissertation or thesis.
• Whether a research method was appropriate.
• The mark awarded.
• The degree classification.

The following arguments will not normally support an academic appeal by themselves:

• “My work deserved a higher mark.”
• “The marker misunderstood my argument.”
• “The feedback was too harsh.”
• “I spent a great deal of time on the assessment.”
• “Another student received a better result.”
• “My average was only slightly below the next classification.”
• “A different marker might have awarded more.”
• “My supervisor thought the thesis would pass.”

Regulation 17 expressly states that dissatisfaction with marks, or with another aspect of properly exercised academic judgement, is not in itself a valid appeal ground.

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

For example, a potential appeal may arise where:

• The University applied the wrong regulation.
• A mark was calculated incorrectly.
• A required assessment result was omitted.
• Required second marking did not take place.
• Required moderation was not completed.
• Approved reasonable adjustments were not implemented.
• The Board received inaccurate information.
• A conflict of interest affected the assessment.
• An examiner acted with bias.
• The assessment was inadequate.

What are the University of Bath academic appeal grounds?

For both taught and research degrees, Regulation 17 recognises three principal grounds:

1. Circumstances affected the student’s performance, but the Board of Examiners was not aware of them, and the student could not reasonably have been expected to disclose them at the appropriate time.
2. A procedural irregularity, including an administrative error, occurred in an examination or formal assessment and creates reasonable doubt about whether the Board of Examiners would otherwise have reached the same decision.
3. Positive evidence shows prejudice, bias or inadequate assessment by one or more examiners.

Research-degree students may also use a fourth ground:

4. Genuine academic differences in philosophical approach or paradigms existed but were not apparent when the examiners were appointed.

A student may rely on more than one ground. However, the submission should explain separately how the facts and evidence satisfy each ground.

Ground One: previously undisclosed circumstances

A student may rely on serious medical, mental-health or personal circumstances that affected academic performance but were unknown to the Board of Examiners.

Relevant circumstances may include:

• Serious physical illness.
• An acute mental-health crisis.
• Hospital admission or emergency treatment.
• Bereavement.
• A family emergency.
• Trauma.
• Being a victim of crime.
• A serious accommodation crisis.
• Unexpected caring responsibilities.
• A sudden deterioration in a disability or long-term condition.
• Another significant and unforeseen event outside the student’s control.

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

The student must also show that they could not reasonably have been expected to disclose the circumstances through the IMC process, to the Director of Studies or, for a doctoral student, at the time of assessment.

What is a sufficient reason for not disclosing circumstances in time?

The appeal should explain why the student could not reasonably notify the University earlier.

Relevant questions may include:

• Did the symptoms impair communication?
• Could the student make decisions?
• Could the student manage administrative tasks?
• Could they use email or University systems?
• Were they receiving emergency treatment?
• Did they understand that an IMC claim was required?
• Did a disability affect their ability to use the process?
• How long did the inability to act continue?
• When did the student become able to manage the matter?
• Which independent documents support the explanation?

A medical letter may confirm that the student experienced depression. However, that document may not explain why the student could not contact their Director of Studies or submit an IMC claim.

More useful evidence will normally address:

• The affected dates.
• The severity of the symptoms.
• The practical functional impact.
• The student’s ability to act at the time.
• The relationship between the health problem and delayed disclosure.

The following explanations may be weak when used alone:

• The student did not know about the IMC procedure.
• The student did not want to disclose private matters.
• The student felt embarrassed.
• The student wanted to wait for the result.
• The student believed they would still pass.
• The student realised only afterwards that their performance had been affected.
• The student was busy with other assessments.

Ground Two: a procedural irregularity in assessment

A procedural irregularity arises where the University did not follow the correct regulation or published process for an examination, coursework assessment or other formal assessment.

Possible examples include:

• The University entered the wrong mark.
• A calculation omitted an assessment component.
• The Board of Examiners applied the wrong regulation.
• A first attempt was wrongly recorded as a reassessment.
• Required second marking did not occur.
• Required moderation was not completed.
• Approved reasonable adjustments were not implemented.
• Examination arrangements differed from the formal notice.
• The student completed the wrong assessment format because of incorrect instructions.
• A late-submission penalty was applied incorrectly.
• The Board did not receive an approved IMC outcome.
• The decision relied on incomplete or incorrect information.
• The relevant body was not properly constituted.
• A conflict of interest was not managed.

A strong procedural appeal should answer four questions:

1. Which regulation or procedure applied?
2. What should the University have done?
3. What happened instead?
4. Why does the error create reasonable doubt about whether the Board would have reached the same decision?

The required test is more than the existence of a minor clerical mistake. The irregularity must be significant enough to cast reasonable doubt on the outcome.

Ground Three: prejudice, bias or inadequate assessment

A student may appeal where positive evidence shows prejudice, bias, unfair treatment or inadequate assessment by one or more examiners.

Relevant evidence may include:

• Emails showing that an examiner had prejudged the outcome.
• An unmanaged conflict of interest.
• Direct involvement by an examiner in an earlier dispute with the student.
• Inappropriate comments unrelated to academic quality.
• Discriminatory remarks about the student’s background.
• Adverse treatment after the student made a complaint.
• Materially different treatment without an academic justification.
• Failure by an examiner to undertake the required assessment.
• Failure to review material that the examiner was required to assess.
• Failure to provide the required level of independent examination.

Critical feedback does not itself prove bias.

Likewise, a strained relationship between a student and academic does not automatically establish unfairness.

The appeal should identify:

• The person involved.
• The particular conduct.
• The date.
• The supporting evidence.
• The person’s role in the assessment.
• How the conduct may have affected the formal decision.

Research-degree ground: philosophical or paradigm differences

A postgraduate researcher may rely on a specific ground that does not apply to taught students.

The ground concerns genuine differences in philosophical approach or research paradigms that were not apparent when the University appointed the examiners.

This does not mean that a doctoral student can appeal whenever an examiner disagrees with the thesis.

The student will normally need to show that:

• The disagreement concerns a fundamental philosophical, methodological or paradigmatic difference.
• The issue was not apparent when the examiners were appointed.
• The difference affected the fairness or adequacy of the examination.
• The dispute goes beyond ordinary academic judgement.
• The issue had a material effect on the thesis or viva outcome.

Relevant material may include:

• The examiners’ research backgrounds.
• The theoretical framework used in the thesis.
• Examiner reports.
• The viva record.
• Independent explanations of the disciplinary or methodological divide.
• Procedural evidence concerning the appointment of examiners.

University of Bath Individual Mitigating Circumstances

Individual Mitigating Circumstances, commonly called IMCs, are significant circumstances that temporarily prevent a student from taking an assessment or materially affect assessment performance.

The circumstances should normally be unexpected, significant, unavoidable and outside the student’s control. Potentially relevant examples include serious illness, a mental-health crisis, bereavement, a major accommodation problem or another significant external event.

Matters that will not normally qualify include:

• Minor illness.
• Ordinary examination stress.
• Holiday arrangements.
• Predictable internet problems.
• Poor time management.
• Failure to check a deadline.
• A heavy assessment schedule.
• Uploading the wrong file.
• Inadequate preparation.

IMC or coursework extension?

Where a coursework deadline has not yet passed, the student should normally consider a coursework extension first.

However, an extension may not resolve every problem. A student may still submit an IMC claim whether or not an extension was granted and whether or not they submitted the assessment.

Relevant questions include:

• Is there still time to apply for an extension?
• Would extra time adequately address the circumstances?
• Has the student already completed the assessment?
• Have the circumstances already affected the quality of the work?
• Does the student also need to preserve an IMC claim?

IMC deadline

Students should submit an IMC claim as soon as possible.

For examinations held during a formal Assessment Period, the University publishes specific deadlines for each semester and supplementary assessment period.

For examinations outside an Assessment Period, and for other assessments, the ordinary deadline is no later than three working days after the affected deadline.

A late claim may receive exceptional consideration where the student could not reasonably have been expected to submit it in time.

Students should not wait for results before deciding whether to submit an IMC claim.

What should IMC evidence explain?

IMC evidence should focus on:

• What happened.
• When it happened.
• How long it lasted.
• Which assessment was affected.
• How the circumstances affected performance or attendance.
• Why the event was unexpected or unavoidable.

The evidence does not always need to take the form of a conventional medical certificate. Depending on the circumstances, contemporaneous emails, appointment records, medication records, support-service correspondence or other dated material may help.

A larger number of documents does not automatically create a stronger claim. The evidence should be relevant and clearly connected to the affected assessment.

Can an IMC claim directly increase a mark?

Normally, no.

An IMC procedure is not designed to award hypothetical marks based on what the student might have achieved without the circumstances.

The available outcome will depend on the assessment regulations, the type of assessment and the student’s academic record. It may involve deferred assessment, another assessment opportunity or consideration of the circumstances in a progression or award decision.

What evidence should accompany a University of Bath academic appeal?

The Stage 1 submission should include all documentary evidence available to the student.

The University’s guidance warns that students will not normally receive another opportunity to add details or expand the case beyond the appeal form and evidence initially submitted.

Potential evidence may include:

• The formal Board of Studies decision.
• The formal results notification.
• GP records.
• Hospital or specialist reports.
• Mental-health service records.
• Counselling or therapy records.
• Hospital admission and discharge documents.
• Police or court records.
• Bereavement documents.
• Emails to the Director of Studies or department.
• An IMC claim and outcome.
• Disability-support records.
• Reasonable-adjustment documents.
• Assessment submission receipts.
• Examination arrangements.
• Mark calculations.
• Unit and programme handbooks.
• Assessment briefs.
• Marking and moderation requirements.
• Meeting records.
• File version histories.
• System screenshots.
• Witness statements.
• A dated chronology.

What should medical evidence explain?

Medical evidence should do more than name a diagnosis.

A useful report will normally address:

• When the symptoms began.
• Their severity.
• Their duration.
• Which assessments were affected.
• The effect on concentration and memory.
• The effect on communication and decision-making.
• Whether the student could manage administrative tasks.
• Whether the student could contact the University.
• Why the student could not use the IMC procedure in time.
• The basis for any retrospective medical opinion.

A healthcare professional does not need to state that the appeal “should succeed”. Their role is to explain the health condition and its practical impact. The University decides whether the evidence satisfies Regulation 17.

Evidence of a procedural irregularity

A procedural appeal may rely on:

• Regulation 17.
• The relevant undergraduate or postgraduate assessment regulations.
• The unit specification.
• The assessment instructions.
• Marking criteria.
• Second-marking requirements.
• Moderation rules.
• Examination notices.
• Mark calculations.
• Reasonable-adjustment documents.
• An IMC decision.
• Departmental emails.
• Board of Examiners or Board of Studies records.
• Evidence showing that the student raised the issue promptly.

The written appeal should compare:

1. The required procedure.
2. The procedure actually followed.
3. The difference between them.
4. The likely effect on the outcome.

Evidence not written in English

Where evidence is not in English, the student should normally provide:

• The original document.
• A complete English translation.

A reliable translation should ideally:

• Be prepared by an independent professional.
• Identify the translator and their qualifications.
• Confirm that the translation is complete and accurate.
• Preserve the original dates and reference numbers.
• Accompany the original document.

The student’s own English summary may help explain the evidence, but it should not replace the source document and a reliable translation.

Can appeal evidence be submitted later?

Students should provide all available evidence within the 14-calendar-day appeal period.

Where a document is temporarily unavailable for reasons outside the student’s control, the appeal should identify:

• The outstanding document.
• Why it cannot yet be obtained.
• The steps already taken.
• The expected delivery date.
• Its relevance to the appeal ground.

The University’s guidance permits a student to explain why evidence will follow. However, the student should not assume that late evidence will automatically be accepted.

Waiting until every medical document is available may make the entire appeal late.

How should the evidence be organised?

A clear evidence schedule makes the submission easier to review.

For example:

• Exhibit A1: formal Board of Studies decision.
• Exhibit A2: medical evidence.
• Exhibit A3: email to the Director of Studies.
• Exhibit A4: IMC claim.
• Exhibit A5: relevant assessment regulation.
• Exhibit A6: reasonable-adjustment document.
• Exhibit A7: chronology.
• Exhibit A8: requested remedy.

The appeal should refer to each exhibit where it becomes relevant.

For example:

The medical report confirms that I developed severe symptoms ten days before the examination and that those symptoms affected my ability to communicate with the University and submit an IMC claim. Please see Exhibit A2.

A large bundle of unexplained material may obscure the central appeal ground rather than strengthen it.

How to draft a University of Bath academic appeal

An effective University of Bath academic appeal should remain clear, focused and evidence-based.

1. Identify the formal decision

State:

• The programme.
• The unit or assessment.
• The formal decision.
• The notification date.
• The Board of Studies concerned.
• When the student received the decision.

2. Identify the precise appeal ground

Do not write only:

I disagree with the University’s decision.

A clearer procedural formulation might be:

This appeal relies on Regulation 17.12(c)(ii). The Board of Examiners did not receive my approved reasonable-adjustment information before deciding my progression outcome. This irregularity creates reasonable doubt about whether the Board would have reached the same decision if it had considered the correct information.

A previously undisclosed-circumstances formulation might say:

This appeal relies on Regulation 17.12(c)(i). Acute mental-health symptoms materially affected my examination performance and also impaired my ability to communicate, make decisions and use the IMC procedure at the relevant time.

3. Present the facts in date order

Use short paragraphs to explain:

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

A separate chronology may assist in a complex case.

4. Connect the facts to the formal ground

Do not simply describe a difficult period.

The submission should explain:

• Why the facts satisfy the selected Regulation 17 ground.
• Why a procedural error was material.
• Why the circumstances could not have been disclosed earlier.
• Why an allegation of bias rests on objective evidence.
• Why the original decision may have been different.

5. Explain the academic effect

State how the issue affected:

• An examination mark.
• A coursework result.
• A unit result.
• Reassessment rights.
• Progression.
• Continued registration.
• Degree classification.
• The final award.
• A thesis or viva outcome.

6. Address late disclosure separately

Where the student did not submit an IMC claim in time, use a separate heading.

Explain:

• When the inability to act began.
• Why the student could not report the circumstances.
• How long the problem lasted.
• When the student recovered the ability to act.
• Why the delay was not a personal choice.
• Which evidence supports the explanation.

7. Cite the relevant regulation

A procedural submission may refer to:

• Regulation 17.
• Regulation 15 or Regulation 16.
• Applicable undergraduate or postgraduate assessment regulations.
• QA requirements for assessment, marking and feedback.
• The unit specification.
• The programme handbook.
• Reasonable-adjustment documents.
• IMC guidance.
• Formal University correspondence.

8. Request a remedy that the University can provide

Depending on the case, a student may request:

• Reconsideration by the Board of Studies.
• Correction of a mark-recording or calculation error.
• Reconsideration by the Board of Examiners using the complete information.
• A new assessment opportunity.
• Treatment of a further assessment as a first attempt.
• Removal of an incorrectly applied mark cap.
• Reconsideration of progression.
• Reconsideration of continued registration.
• Reconsideration of degree classification under the correct regulations.
• A fresh process without a conflicted decision-maker.
• A new doctoral examination or viva process.
• Appointment of appropriate new examiners.

The requested outcome must be permitted by the assessment regulations governing the programme. Regulation 17 cannot create an academic outcome that those regulations do not allow.

How to submit a Stage 1 academic appeal

A student must complete the Stage 1 Academic Appeal Form and send it, with the supporting evidence, to the relevant Faculty, School or Doctoral College.

Faculty of Engineering & Design

engdesign-academicappeals@bath.ac.uk

Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences

This address also covers IMML students:

hss-chair-of-bos@bath.ac.uk

School of Management

acadreviews@management.bath.ac.uk

Faculty of Science

scienceappeals@bath.ac.uk

Doctoral College

For doctoral and postgraduate research students:

doctoralcollege@bath.ac.uk

Before sending the form, check:

• Every required section is complete.
• The correct appeal ground has been selected.
• The decision date is accurate.
• The remedy is clearly stated.
• The attachments open correctly.
• The evidence is legible.
• The chronology is internally consistent.
• Any late-disclosure explanation is included.

Stage 1 initial consideration

The Chair of the relevant Board of Studies will initially consider the Stage 1 appeal.

The Chair may consult staff to confirm the student’s academic position and the factual background.

Where the student relies on previously undisclosed circumstances, the Chair may also consult the relevant IMC Panel about:

• Whether the student could reasonably have been expected to disclose the circumstances earlier.
• Whether those circumstances would normally qualify as an IMC claim.

The Chair may then decide:

1. The appeal is successful and Executive Action will be taken.
2. An appeal hearing is necessary.
3. The appeal is unsuccessful and no action will be taken.

What is Executive Action?

Executive Action allows the Chair of the Board of Studies to uphold an appeal and arrange an appropriate outcome without a full hearing.

The Chair may consult the Director of Studies and internal examiners about:

• Whether the requested remedy is permitted.
• Whether another remedy would be more appropriate.
• The student’s overall academic profile.
• Whether the Board of Examiners should reconsider the case.
• Whether an obvious procedural error can be corrected.

Where the decision concerns conferment of an award, the Chair must undertake additional consultation and report the decision to the Board of Studies and Senate.

Stage 1 academic appeal hearing

Where the Chair considers that the written material is insufficient, the matter may proceed to a Board of Studies Appeal Sub-Committee.

The student should normally receive at least seven calendar days’ written notice, including:

• The hearing date.
• The time and place.
• Attendance arrangements.
• Written witness evidence already received.
• Information about the friend, adviser or representative.

The student may:

• Attend personally.
• Bring one friend or adviser.
• Be represented in their absence by one friend or adviser.
• Submit an additional written statement at least three calendar days before the hearing.
• Present oral and written evidence.
• Answer questions.
• Ask questions.
• Make a closing statement.

Written evidence submitted less than three calendar days before the hearing will normally not be considered.

Possible Stage 1 hearing outcomes

The Appeal Sub-Committee may:

• Reject the appeal.
• Uphold it in full.
• Uphold it in part.
• Require a remedy permitted by the assessment regulations.
• Refer the matter back to the relevant academic body.
• Require further assessment or reconsideration.
• Correct a procedural error.

The University will normally communicate the result immediately after the hearing and confirm it in writing within five working days.

A successful appeal does not guarantee every remedy requested. Any action must comply with the programme regulations and the student’s academic record.

How to request a Stage 2 Review

A student who remains dissatisfied may submit a Stage 2 Review request within 14 calendar days of receiving the Stage 1 outcome.

Stage 2 is not a complete rehearing.

The student must rely on at least one of these grounds:

1. A material procedural irregularity occurred at Stage 1.
2. Material new evidence exists that the student could not reasonably have been expected to provide at Stage 1.
3. The Stage 1 outcome was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented.

The submission must include:

• A completed Stage 2 Review Form.
• The materials submitted at Stage 1.
• The Stage 1 outcome.
• Evidence supporting the Stage 2 ground.
• Any qualifying new evidence.
• An explanation of why that evidence could not be submitted earlier.

The current submission address is:

stage-2-appeals@bath.ac.uk

How does the University decide a Stage 2 Review?

The Director of Academic Registry should normally complete the review within 28 calendar days.

Possible outcomes are:

1. No further action, followed by a Completion of Procedures Letter.
2. Referral back to Stage 1 for reconsideration.
3. Referral to the Secretary to Senate to convene a Student Academic Appeals Committee.

Where the case returns to Stage 1, the new Stage 1 decision is final. The student cannot make another Stage 2 request concerning that reconsidered decision.

Student Academic Appeals Committee

The Student Academic Appeals Committee considers cases referred following Stage 2.

A hearing will normally take place within 30 days after sufficient grounds have been identified. The student should receive at least seven days’ notice.

The student may:

• Attend.
• Be accompanied by a friend or adviser.
• Be represented by a friend or adviser.
• Present written and oral evidence.
• Ask the Committee to obtain relevant records.
• Introduce witnesses.
• Answer questions.
• Explain the grounds of appeal.

The Committee’s decision is normally final. Where the decision would alter a degree classification, the Committee makes a recommendation to Senate for approval.

Written notification will normally follow within 14 working days after the hearing.

Does the original academic decision pause during the appeal?

No automatic suspension applies.

The original Board of Studies decision remains in effect unless and until the appeal results in a formal change.

Students should not assume that submitting an appeal automatically:

• Permits progression.
• Restores registration.
• Cancels reassessment.
• Reverses withdrawal.
• Changes the degree classification.
• Suspends Student visa consequences.
• Allows entry to a stage for which the student is not otherwise qualified.

Where the appeal will remain unresolved after teaching begins for the next stage, the Chair of the Board of Studies and the Director of Academic Registry will decide whether the student may attend classes.

Students should continue to:

• Prepare for existing reassessments.
• Follow current academic requirements.
• Monitor University email.
• Confirm registration status.
• Obtain immigration advice promptly where necessary.

Can students submit a group academic appeal?

Yes.

Several students affected by the same issue may submit a group appeal.

The Chair of the Board of Studies will decide:

• Whether group treatment is appropriate.
• Whether separate individual appeals are required.
• Whether one student should act as representative.
• Whether the outcome should apply to all group members.
• Whether a collective hearing is appropriate.

Where individual medical, disability or other sensitive circumstances differ, the University may require separate submissions.

University of Bath doctoral and postgraduate research appeals

Doctoral and other postgraduate research students also use Regulation 17.

Potentially appealable decisions may concern:

• Research progression.
• Continued registration.
• A formal progress review.
• Registration status.
• Transfer between research degrees.
• Doctoral thesis examination.
• Viva outcome.
• Research-degree award.
• Another final Board of Studies decision.

A doctoral student will normally need to submit the Stage 1 appeal within 14 calendar days to:

doctoralcollege@bath.ac.uk

In addition to the three grounds shared with taught students, a research student may rely on the specific philosophical-approach or research-paradigm ground.

Evidence for a doctoral thesis or viva appeal

A research-degree appeal may require:

• The formal examination outcome.
• Examiner reports.
• The viva notice.
• A viva record.
• The thesis.
• Records of required corrections or amendments.
• Research-progress reports.
• Supervision records.
• Medical evidence.
• Reasonable-adjustment documents.
• Examiner-appointment information.
• Relevant research-degree regulations.
• A detailed chronology.

The submission should distinguish carefully between:

• Procedural error.
• Examiner bias.
• Inadequate assessment.
• A genuine paradigm conflict.
• Disagreement with academic judgement.

A statement that the thesis deserved a doctorate will not, by itself, establish an appeal ground.

Is inadequate doctoral supervision an appeal or a complaint?

Inadequate supervision will normally be a student complaint rather than a standalone academic appeal ground.

Potential supervision complaints may include:

• Long periods without supervision meetings.
• Persistent delays in feedback.
• Conflicting supervisory advice.
• Failure to appoint a replacement supervisor.
• Failure to provide agreed research support.
• Inadequate research resources.
• Failure to follow doctoral-supervision arrangements.
• Failure to address research-progress concerns promptly.

Where the supervision problem later contributes to a formal procedural defect in a research-degree decision, the student may need:

• A complaint about the supervision service.
• A separate academic appeal against the formal decision.

The two procedures should address distinct issues.

Academic misconduct involving doctoral research

Regulation 19 applies to taught elements of doctoral programmes.

It does not govern alleged misconduct in doctoral research submitted for examination. Research allegations involving a thesis, research data or formal research output follow the separate Procedure for Inquiring into Allegations of Misconduct in Research and Scholarship.

A postgraduate researcher who receives an allegation should first confirm:

• Whether the allegation concerns a taught assessment or research output.
• Whether Regulation 19 or the research-misconduct procedure applies.
• The response deadline.
• The identity of the investigator.
• Whether the allegation may affect thesis examination.
• Whether parallel procedures may arise.

Academic appeal or student complaint?

An academic appeal challenges a formal academic decision.

A student complaint concerns an action, omission or standard of service.

An academic appeal may concern:

• Marks.
• Progression.
• Continued study.
• Reassessment.
• Degree classification.
• A final award.
• Doctoral progression.
• A thesis or viva outcome.

A student complaint may concern:

• Teaching quality.
• Supervision.
• Programme delivery.
• Delayed feedback.
• Administrative errors.
• Communication failures.
• Facilities or resources.
• Failure to provide promised support.
• Staff conduct.
• Unreasonable delay.
• Another aspect of the student experience.

The University defines a complaint as dissatisfaction with its conduct, omissions or standard of service.

University of Bath student complaints procedure

The complaints procedure has up to three stages:

1. Stage 1: Informal Resolution.
2. Stage 2: Formal Resolution.
3. Stage 3: Review by the Student Appeals Panel.

A complaint should normally be raised within six months of the initial issue. The University may accept a later complaint where evidence supports an exceptional reason for extending the deadline.

Stage 1: Informal Resolution

The student should first raise the matter with the member of staff, department or service closest to the issue.

Staff should normally respond within five working days to explain:

• What steps will be taken.
• The likely timescale.
• Whether the issue can be resolved quickly.
• Whether it should move to the formal stage.

Possible informal outcomes include:

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

Stage 2: Formal Resolution

Where informal resolution does not resolve the issue, or where the matter is too serious or complex for informal handling, the student may submit a Student Complaint Form.

The current submission address is:

student-complaints@bath.ac.uk

Where Stage 1 has taken place, the student should normally submit the formal complaint within 10 working days of the informal outcome.

The Student Casework Team should acknowledge the complaint within five working days. The investigation report should normally reach the student within 60 calendar days of formal submission.

A formal complaint may be:

• Upheld.
• Partly upheld.
• Not upheld.

The University may offer financial or non-financial remedies where appropriate.

Can a solicitor attend a formal complaint meeting?

The student may bring a friend, family member, adviser or another support person.

The complaints procedure describes the support person’s primary role as providing emotional support and helping the student understand the meeting. However, the Stage 2 investigation provisions also allow the student to present the complaint with assistance from a representative where necessary.

A solicitor may therefore assist by:

• Drafting the complaint.
• Organising evidence.
• Preparing a chronology.
• Preparing the student for the meeting.
• Analysing the investigation report.
• Drafting a Stage 3 appeal.

Attendance and speaking rights should be confirmed with the Student Casework Team before the meeting.

Stage 3: complaint appeal

A student who remains dissatisfied with the Stage 2 outcome may appeal within 10 working days.

The appeal proceeds under the Student Appeals Policy.

The available grounds are:

• A procedural error that may cast doubt on the outcome.
• Important new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided earlier.
• Bias that may cast doubt on the outcome.
• A disproportionate sanction or outcome.

The current submission address is:

student-appeals@bath.ac.uk

The University will normally communicate the final appeal outcome within 30 calendar days of submission.

University of Bath academic misconduct procedure

Regulation 19 governs academic misconduct in summative assessment by undergraduate and taught postgraduate students, students taking Study Abroad units and doctoral students completing taught elements.

Doctoral research submitted for examination follows the separate research-misconduct process.

Academic misconduct includes conduct that:

• Gives or may give a student an unfair assessment advantage.
• Helps someone else gain an unfair advantage.
• Undermines the integrity required for scholarship or research.

The University uses the civil standard of proof, meaning the allegation must be shown to be more likely than not on the evidence. A student’s intention does not determine whether misconduct occurred, although intention can affect severity. Mitigating factors may affect the penalty.

What conduct may amount to academic misconduct?

Regulation 19 identifies:

• Plagiarism.
• Self-plagiarism.
• Collusion.
• Taking another student’s work without permission.
• Fabrication of references, data, evidence or experimental results.
• Contract cheating.
• Acquiring unauthorised examination questions or answers.
• Arranging impersonation in an examination.
• Breaching examination regulations.

The University does not classify unethical or unauthorised use of generative AI as a separate form of misconduct. Instead, AI may be the means through which plagiarism, collusion, fabrication or contract cheating occurs.

What is Poor Academic Practice?

Poor Academic Practice is a minor or technical problem that is likely to result from limited understanding.

It may include limited evidence of:

• Plagiarism or self-plagiarism, such as poor referencing.
• Paraphrasing without adequate attribution.
• Collusion resulting from misunderstanding the required individual contribution to group work.

Contract cheating, impersonation and fabrication cannot be treated as Poor Academic Practice.

Where the University finds Poor Academic Practice:

• The work is marked normally.
• No additional academic penalty is applied.
• The student must retake an Academic Integrity Test.
• The student receives feedback intended to prevent recurrence.

Moderate and Severe Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct may be classified as Moderate where:

• The student has no previous Moderate or Severe finding.
• The undetected conduct would have produced a substantial unfair advantage.

A case may be Severe where:

• The student has a previous Moderate or Severe finding.
• Clear evidence shows an intention to deceive.
• The case involves extensive plagiarism or collusion.
• Contract cheating occurred.
• The student arranged for another person to impersonate them in an examination.

How does a formal academic misconduct investigation begin?

Where a Director of Studies starts a formal investigation, the student should receive:

• A clear written description of the suspected misconduct.
• Relevant evidence.
• Any report from University-licensed similarity-checking software.
• Information about the investigation process.

The student has 14 calendar days to respond. The written response becomes part of the evidence. The Director of Studies should also consider any reasonable adjustments needed by the student.

Formal investigation meeting

The Director of Studies will normally offer to meet with the student.

The meeting focuses on:

• The allegation.
• The evidence.
• The investigation process.
• The possible penalties.
• The student’s factual explanation.

The student may choose not to attend. The University must not draw an adverse inference merely because the student declined the meeting.

The student may consult an adviser before attending.

What is a Presentation of Learning?

A Director of Studies may invite the student to a Presentation of Learning.

This process involves questions about the assessed work and gives the student an opportunity to demonstrate that the work is their own.

Questions may cover:

• How the topic was selected.
• Which sources were used.
• How the argument developed.
• How a passage was written.
• How data was obtained.
• How code operates.
• Why a particular method was used.
• Whether AI was used.
• What purpose the AI served.
• Whether drafts and version records exist.

The University should provide at least seven calendar days’ notice.

A student may choose not to participate, and the University must not draw a negative inference solely from that decision. The student may consult an adviser beforehand.

Does the University of Bath use AI-detection software?

Regulation 19 states that Directors of Studies do not upload assessed work to any AI-detection programme.

The University may use institutionally licensed similarity-checking software. However, a similarity report is evidence to which staff must apply academic judgement. A high similarity score does not automatically establish misconduct.

An AI allegation should therefore not be treated as established merely because an external detector produced a percentage.

The University should assess:

• The work itself.
• The assessment instructions.
• The academic evidence.
• The student’s explanation.
• Drafts and version histories.
• Any Presentation of Learning.
• Other relevant material.

University of Bath generative AI rules for 2026–27

From 2026–27, the University uses a Two-Lane Approach to generative AI in assessment:

• Closed Lane: students must not use generative AI.
• Open Lane: generative AI use is optional or, in some cases, integral to the assessment.

Assessments operating under 2025–26 documentation may still use the earlier A, B and C categories during the transition:

• Type A: AI use is not permitted.
• Type B: AI may be used as an assistive tool for specified processes.
• Type C: AI has an integral and mandatory role.

In every category, the student remains responsible for the work and must follow the specific assessment instructions.

Students should check for each assessment:

• Whether it is Open Lane or Closed Lane.
• Whether the assessment still uses an A, B or C label.
• Whether AI may support research.
• Whether AI may generate an outline.
• Whether AI-assisted rewriting is permitted.
• Whether disclosure is required.
• Whether AI content must be cited.
• Whether prompts and outputs must be retained.

Evidence to preserve in an AI or ChatGPT case

A student should preserve:

• The assessment brief.
• The Open or Closed Lane classification.
• Any A, B or C category information.
• AI instructions from the unit convenor.
• Early outlines.
• Handwritten or electronic notes.
• Reading 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 amendments to those outputs.
• Any AI-use statement submitted.
• Earlier work showing a consistent writing style.

After receiving an allegation, the student should not:

• Delete prompts.
• Alter original files.
• Manufacture drafts.
• Fabricate a version history.
• Recreate research records that never existed.
• Submit false medical evidence.

Creating false evidence may lead to a more serious academic misconduct or student-conduct issue.

Board of Inquiry into Academic Misconduct

A suspected Severe Academic Misconduct case may proceed to a Board of Inquiry.

The student should normally receive at least seven calendar days’ notice, together with:

• The specific allegation.
• The meeting date.
• The evidence.
• Written witness material.
• Any similarity report.
• Information about companions.

The student must normally notify the Secretary at least four calendar days before the meeting if they intend to attend, submit written representations or bring a friend or adviser.

A friend or adviser cannot attend in place of a student who chooses not to attend. However, where the student attends, the regulation refers to a representative, friend or adviser participating in the presentation of evidence and questions. The role of an external solicitor should therefore be confirmed with the Secretary beforehand.

The Board should normally communicate the written outcome within seven calendar days after the meeting.

What penalties can academic misconduct attract?

For Moderate or Severe Academic Misconduct, Regulation 19 permits penalties including:

1. Uncapped resubmission, treated as the same attempt.
2. A reduction of 10 marks, without reducing the result below the minimum pass mark.
3. Reduction of the assessment mark to the minimum pass mark.
4. Resubmission capped at the minimum pass mark.
5. A mark of zero or Fail for the assessment.
6. The minimum pass mark for the unit.
7. A mark of zero or Fail for the unit.
8. Reduction of the degree classification.
9. Reduction to a lesser award.
10. Termination of the programme and withdrawal.

Every student found to have engaged in misconduct, including Poor Academic Practice, must normally retake the Academic Integrity Test.

When selecting the penalty, the University may consider:

• Intention.
• Mitigating circumstances.
• The scope of the conduct.
• Previous findings.
• The weight of the assessment.
• Evidence of deception.
• The effect on academic integrity.

How to request an academic misconduct review

A student may request review of a Moderate Academic Misconduct finding or penalty within 14 calendar days of the Head of Department’s written decision.

The Chair of the Board of Studies reviews the case on one or more of these grounds:

• A material procedural irregularity occurred.
• Material new evidence exists that the student could not reasonably have provided earlier.
• The decision was unreasonable on the evidence.
• Positive evidence shows prejudice or bias by the Head of Department.

The Chair should normally complete the review within 14 days and cannot impose a more severe penalty than the original one.

A student may also request review of a Board of Inquiry decision within 14 calendar days.

The Director of Academic Registry considers the same broad grounds and should normally complete the review within 14 days. The Director may reject the request or return the case to the Board of Inquiry for reconsideration. The reconsidered decision is final internally.

Fitness-to-practise and other student-procedure appeals

The separate Student Appeals Policy applies to outcomes under:

• Health, Wellbeing and Support for Study procedures.
• Fitness to Practise procedures.
• Student Conduct procedures.
• Student Complaints procedures.
• Precautionary Measures procedures.

A student normally has 10 working days from the outcome to submit an appeal to:

student-appeals@bath.ac.uk

The grounds are:

• Procedural error.
• Important new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided earlier.
• Bias.
• A disproportionate sanction or outcome.

Where grounds exist, the University convenes a three-person Appeals Panel. At least one member will be a University staff member, and at least one will be external. For a fitness-to-practise appeal, a practitioner from the relevant discipline advises the panel.

The student should normally receive at least five working days’ notice.

They may bring an adviser, family member or friend. The Chair decides whether the companion may speak, and the companion will not normally cross-examine witnesses. The student must normally provide the companion’s name at least three working days before the hearing.

The original outcome or sanction will normally remain in force during the appeal. The final appeal decision should usually be communicated within 30 calendar days of submission and within 14 calendar days of any panel hearing.

What happens after the University’s internal process ends?

Once all available internal procedures have concluded, the University should issue a Completion of Procedures Letter.

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

The OIA must receive the complaint within 12 months of the date of the Completion of Procedures Letter. It encourages students to submit earlier because delay may make review and practical remedies more difficult.

The OIA may consider whether the University:

• Followed its published procedure.
• Considered the evidence fairly.
• Gave the student a reasonable opportunity to respond.
• Provided adequate reasons.
• Reached a reasonable decision.
• Managed conflicts of interest.
• Implemented reasonable adjustments.
• Applied a proportionate penalty.
• Offered an appropriate remedy.

The OIA does not act as another Board of Examiners.

It will not replace academic judgement merely because the student disagrees with a mark. However, where a procedure was defective, it may recommend reconsideration, a fresh process, a new assessment opportunity or another practical remedy.

How Ginkgo Advisory can assist with a University of Bath academic appeal

Initial case assessment

We review:

• The formal decision.
• The notification date.
• The 14-calendar-day deadline.
• The available appeal grounds.
• Whether the student submitted an IMC claim.
• The existing evidence.
• The applicable University procedure.
• The requested outcome.

We then identify whether the matter is more suitable for:

• A Stage 1 academic appeal.
• A Stage 2 Review.
• An IMC claim.
• A student complaint.
• A doctoral appeal.
• An academic misconduct response.
• An academic misconduct review.
• A fitness-to-practise appeal.
• An OIA complaint.

Appeal-ground analysis

We assess whether the facts support:

• Previously undisclosed circumstances.
• A reason why disclosure could not reasonably have occurred earlier.
• A material procedural irregularity.
• An administrative error.
• Examiner bias.
• Inadequate assessment.
• A genuine research-paradigm difference.
• A procedural error at Stage 1.
• An unreasonable Stage 1 outcome.
• Material new evidence.

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

Evidence review

We can analyse:

• Whether medical evidence covers the correct dates.
• Whether it explains functional impact.
• Whether late disclosure has independent support.
• Whether the University followed the applicable regulation.
• Whether reasonable adjustments were implemented.
• Whether mark calculations appear correct.
• Whether the chronology is internally consistent.
• Which documents should enter the evidence bundle.
• Which materials may weaken the case.
• Whether a professional translation is required.
• Whether prompts, drafts and version histories support authorship.

Drafting

We can prepare or review:

• A Stage 1 Academic Appeal Form.
• A late-appeal explanation.
• An appeal involving undisclosed circumstances.
• A procedural-irregularity appeal.
• A mark-calculation appeal.
• A bias or inadequate-assessment appeal.
• A Stage 2 Review Form.
• A group appeal.
• A doctoral progression appeal.
• A thesis or viva appeal.
• A formal student complaint.
• A Stage 3 complaint appeal.
• A plagiarism or collusion response.
• A contract-cheating response.
• An AI or ChatGPT allegation response.
• Presentation of Learning preparation documents.
• A Board of Inquiry submission.
• An academic misconduct review.
• A fitness-to-practise appeal.
• An OIA complaint.
• An evidence schedule and chronology.

Hearing and meeting preparation

We can prepare students for:

• A Board of Studies Appeal Sub-Committee.
• A Student Academic Appeals Committee.
• A Presentation of Learning.
• A Board of Inquiry into Academic Misconduct.
• A Student Appeals Panel.
• A fitness-to-practise appeal panel.
• A student-complaint meeting.
• The OIA’s written process.

Preparation may include:

• Likely questions.
• Difficult evidence.
• Clear oral answers.
• An explanation of the work’s development.
• An opening statement.
• Procedural objections.
• A questioning plan.
• A closing statement.
• A realistic remedy.
• A strategy for adverse evidence.

Representation where permitted

Regulation 17 allows a friend or adviser to accompany or represent a student in an academic appeal hearing.

Regulation 19 also gives a representative, friend or adviser a potential role during a Board of Inquiry where the student attends.

However, the precise role of an external solicitor can vary by procedure.

At the beginning of each case, we therefore confirm:

• Whether the solicitor may attend.
• Whether the solicitor may speak.
• Whether questions may be asked.
• Whether the student must attend.
• Whether written authority is required.
• The deadline for notifying the University.

Common mistakes in University of Bath academic appeals

Appealing only because the mark is too low

Disagreement with a mark is a matter of academic judgement.

The student must establish a recognised Regulation 17 ground.

Appealing a provisional result

A student can normally appeal only a final Board of Studies decision.

Missing the 14-calendar-day deadline

Contacting the Director of Studies does not automatically pause the deadline.

The student should protect the formal appeal period while seeking clarification.

Failing to identify the regulatory ground

“The University treated me unfairly” is not a complete appeal ground.

The submission should identify the relevant part of Regulation 17.12(c).

Describing illness without addressing late disclosure

Evidence of illness does not automatically explain why the student could not submit an IMC claim.

Both matters require evidence.

Providing only a diagnosis

Medical evidence should also address:

• Dates.
• Severity.
• Duration.
• Academic impact.
• Communication and decision-making.
• The ability to use University procedures.

Waiting for every document before submitting

Where evidence remains outstanding, the student should submit in time and explain when the document is expected.

Uploading evidence without explaining it

Every document should connect to a fact and a formal appeal ground.

Asking the University simply to add marks

A remedy must comply with the assessment regulations.

Reconsideration or a fresh assessment opportunity may be more realistic.

Repeating Stage 1 at Stage 2

Stage 2 must address:

• A Stage 1 procedural irregularity.
• Material new evidence.
• An unreasonable Stage 1 outcome.

Introducing a completely new academic decision at Stage 2

Stage 2 reviews the decision identified in the original Stage 1 appeal.

Failing to prepare for an existing reassessment

The original decision remains in force unless the appeal succeeds.

Using inadequate supervision as a standalone doctoral appeal ground

Supervision concerns will usually require a student complaint.

Attending a Presentation of Learning without preparation

The student’s explanation of research, writing, data, code and AI use may affect the whole case.

Treating an AI-detector result as conclusive

The University does not upload work to AI-detection software.

It must assess the actual evidence.

Deleting prompts or drafts

Prompts, outputs, drafts and version histories may be important authorship evidence.

Manufacturing a draft or version history

False evidence may lead to a more serious misconduct finding.

Assuming a solicitor can automatically conduct every meeting

The rules differ between academic appeals, academic misconduct, complaints and fitness-to-practise cases.

The representative’s role should be confirmed beforehand.

Frequently asked questions

What is the University of Bath academic appeal deadline?

A student must normally submit a Stage 1 appeal within 14 calendar days of receiving the final Board of Studies decision.

How do I submit a University of Bath academic appeal?

Complete the Stage 1 Academic Appeal Form and send it, with the evidence, to the designated Faculty, School or Doctoral College email address.

Can I appeal a provisional mark?

Usually not.

The decision must normally have been formally approved by the Board of Studies.

Can I appeal because I disagree with my mark?

Not on that basis alone.

A student cannot appeal academic judgement by itself.

What are the three main University of Bath academic appeal grounds?

The grounds are:

• Previously undisclosed circumstances that the student could not reasonably have been expected to disclose earlier.
• A material irregularity in an examination or formal assessment.
• Positive evidence of prejudice, bias or inadequate assessment.

Do doctoral students have another appeal ground?

Yes.

A research student may rely on genuine differences in philosophical approach or research paradigms that were not apparent when the examiners were appointed.

What if I did not submit an IMC claim?

An academic appeal may still be possible.

However, the student must show that the circumstances affected performance and that they could not reasonably have been expected to use the IMC process or another University channel at the time.

What is the IMC deadline?

For examinations outside an Assessment Period and for other assessments, the ordinary deadline is three working days after the affected deadline.

Formal Assessment Period examinations have separately published dates.

Can an IMC claim directly increase my mark?

Normally not.

An IMC may affect reassessment, deferral, progression or award treatment, but it does not ordinarily produce hypothetical extra marks.

How long does Stage 1 take?

The Chair should normally reach a decision within 35 calendar days.

Where a hearing will be held, the University should normally notify the student within 28 calendar days of receiving the appeal.

Can a solicitor attend a Stage 1 appeal hearing?

Regulation 17 allows a friend or adviser to accompany or represent the student and does not expressly exclude a solicitor.

The student should confirm the solicitor’s precise role with the University before the hearing.

What is the Stage 2 deadline?

Normally 14 calendar days after notification of the Stage 1 outcome.

What are the Stage 2 grounds?

The grounds are:

• A material procedural irregularity at Stage 1.
• Material new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided at Stage 1.
• An unreasonable Stage 1 outcome on the evidence.

How long does Stage 2 take?

The Director of Academic Registry should normally complete the review within 28 calendar days.

Does the original decision pause during the appeal?

No automatic suspension applies.

The student should continue to comply with current assessment and registration requirements.

Can students submit a group appeal?

Yes.

The Chair of the Board of Studies decides whether the case is suitable for group treatment.

What is the doctoral academic appeal deadline?

A postgraduate researcher will also normally have 14 calendar days after the final decision.

Can I complain about inadequate doctoral supervision?

Yes.

Supervision and research-support concerns will normally fall under the student complaints procedure.

What is the student-complaint deadline?

A complaint should normally be raised within six months of the initial issue.

How long does a formal student complaint take?

The Stage 2 investigation report should normally be issued within 60 calendar days.

Where Stage 3 is used, the total process will normally extend by a further 30 calendar days.

Can a solicitor draft a student complaint?

Yes.

A solicitor can assess the case, draft the complaint, organise evidence and prepare the student for the meeting.

Attendance and speaking rights should be confirmed with the University.

How long does a student have to respond to an academic misconduct allegation?

The formal written response deadline is normally 14 calendar days.

What is a Presentation of Learning?

It is a process in which the University asks questions about the assessed work so that the student can demonstrate their authorship and understanding.

Does the University of Bath use AI-detection software?

The University does not upload assessed work to an AI-detection programme.

It may use institutionally licensed similarity-checking software.

Can students use ChatGPT in 2026–27?

It depends on whether the assessment is Open Lane or Closed Lane and on the specific assessment instructions.

Open Lane permits AI use within the stated boundaries. Closed Lane does not permit it.

Can a student defend a ChatGPT or AI allegation?

Yes.

The response should address:

• The assessment instructions.
• Whether AI use was permitted.
• Whether disclosure was required.
• How AI was actually used.
• Prompts and outputs.
• Drafts and version histories.
• The University’s evidence.

What is the academic misconduct review deadline?

Normally 14 calendar days after the written Moderate Academic Misconduct or Board of Inquiry outcome.

What is the fitness-to-practise appeal deadline?

Normally 10 working days after the outcome.

Where can a student complain after the internal process ends?

An eligible student may complain to the OIA.

What is the OIA deadline?

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

Can the OIA change a student’s mark?

The OIA does not carry out academic marking.

However, where the procedure was defective, it may recommend reconsideration, reassessment or another fresh process.

Request a confidential case assessment

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

Early professional advice can help the student identify the correct procedure, protect 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 individual case.

Assistance can begin with an initial assessment and continue through Stage 1, Stage 2, a doctoral appeal, an academic misconduct investigation, a fitness-to-practise appeal or an OIA complaint.

Where the University’s procedure permits a friend, adviser or representative to participate, we can also consider providing hearing support or representation.

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

Independent-service disclaimer

Ginkgo Advisory is independent from the University of Bath, The SU Bath 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.

The University may update its regulations, forms, assessment framework, AI guidance and submission routes.

Students should check the official documents, programme handbook, assessment instructions and outcome letter that apply to their own academic year and decision.