Academic Appeals Guidance Document
YOU SHOULD READ THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE SUBMITTING AN ACADEMIC APPEAL
This document should be read alongside the Academic Appeal (Formal Stage) form and
Academic Appeal (Review Stage) form and is intended to aid students who are submitting an
academic appeal at the University of York. Please read this document carefully.
Section A is for Formal Stage appeals only, i.e. an appeal against a decision of a Board of
Studies, Board of Examiners or a Mitigating Circumstances Committee.
Section B is only relevant to students who wish to request a Review of an Academic
Appeal Formal Stage decision.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE APPEAL
PROCESS
SECTION A –
FORMAL
STAGE APPEAL
SECTION B –
APPEAL
REVIEW
Outline and information on decision-makers
2
Evidence – general guidance
What can be appealed against?
The Appeal Summary
Grounds for appeal:
 General guidance
 Procedural Irregularity
 Mitigating Circumstances
Appealing against a decision of a Mitigating Circumstances
Committee
Appeal outcomes
Additional Information
Formal Stage appeal flowchart
What happens once your appeal is received
3
4-5
5
General overview
What can be appealed against
Completing the form: Procedural Irregularity
Completing the form: New Evidence
Completing the form: Reasonableness of Formal stage
decision
What happens once your Review stage appeal is received
Appeal outcomes
Review Stage flowchart
16
16
17
18
5
6
7
10
10
12
13
14
19
20
20
21
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
THE APPEAL PROCESS
The Special Cases Committee, which is a subcommittee of the University’s Senate,
considers academic appeals. Students who wish to appeal against a decision of a Board of
Studies, Board of Examiners or Mitigating Circumstances Committee must follow the
Academic Appeal process. This process consists of an initial Formal stage and an optional
Review stage which gives students the right to have the Formal stage decision reviewed.
Students have 28 calendar days to appeal to the Formal stage. Once the outcome of the
formal stage has been decided, and the appellant has been notified of the outcome, students
then have 10 calendar days if they wish to appeal against that outcome to the Review stage.
The whole process, from submitting the Formal stage appeal to being informed of the final
outcome of the Review stage, should usually take no longer than 90 calendar days. In some
cases the process can take longer than 90 calendar days. You will be informed if this is likely
to be the case.
Decision-makers
Appeals are initially assessed at the Formal stage by the Special Cases Administrators (for
taught students) or the Research Student Co-ordinators (for research students). They act as
case officers for the duration of the appeal process and have authority to reject appeals if
they do not meet some basic submission criteria. (See page 14 for information on the
submission criteria). They will write your appeal outcome letter and will update you on the
progress of your appeal if there are delays in its consideration. You should contact them if
you have queries about your appeal.
The Appeals Chairs are members of the Special Cases Committee. Appeals Chairs act in
consultation with an Ordinary member of the Committee and make decisions about Formal
Stage appeals. They are not involved at the Appeal Review stage (unless an appeal is referred
back to the Formal Stage – see page 20 in Section B of this Guidance document).
The Chair and Deputy Chairs of the Special Cases Committee make decisions on
Review Stage Appeals in consultation with an Ordinary member. The Chair and Deputies
are the most senior members of the Special Cases Committee and are not involved at the
Formal Appeal stage.
Ordinary Members of the Special Cases Committee consider cases alongside the Appeals
Chairs at the Formal Appeal Stage, and the Chair and Deputy Chairs at the Review Stage.
They are involved in both stages of the appeals process as they attend meetings on a rota
basis, although if your appeal goes through both stages it will be considered by different
Ordinary members at each stage.
At no point in the appeals process will a member of Special Cases Committee be involved in
the decision-making process if they are from your academic department(s).
2
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
SECTION A – FORMAL STAGE APPEAL
Evidence – general guidance
What can be appealed against?
The Appeal Summary
Grounds for appeal:
 General guidance
SECTION A –
 Procedural Irregularity
FORMAL STAGE
 Mitigating Circumstances
APPEAL
Appealing against a decision of a Mitigating Circumstances
Committee
Appeal outcomes
Additional Information
Formal Stage appeal flowchart
What happens once your appeal is received
3
4-5
5
5
6
7
10
10
12
13
14
Appeals against a decision of a Board of Studies, Board of Examiners or Mitigating
Circumstances Committee should be submitted to the Formal stage.
Evidence
Before you start completing the form, it is very important that you are aware that all
appeals must be submitted with supporting documentation that evidences the
circumstances you have outlined in your appeal.
 If your appeal is submitted without evidence and without an explanation
for the lack of evidence it will be rejected at the Administrative Sifting
level.
 Appeals submitted without evidence are very rarely upheld even with an
explanation, since you must be able to prove the circumstances you raise in your
appeal.
 If you submit your appeal with inadequate or irrelevant evidence, it will be
considered on the basis of what you submit.
 You will not normally be contacted with suggestions to provide additional
evidence once your appeal has been submitted.
 If you indicate on your form that evidence will be provided ‘if required’, you will not
be contacted and asked to provide that evidence. You should assume that evidence
is required.
 It is your responsibility to ensure that your appeal has been submitted
with appropriate evidence.
 Evidence must be submitted in English. If the original evidence has been
written in a different language, an official translation must be provided along with the
original evidence, i.e. from a professional translation company or accredited
translator. If you are unable to secure an official translation within the 28 day appeal
deadline, you should submit your original evidence and submit the translation as
soon as possible. Your case will not be considered until the translation is received.
For guidance on appropriate evidence for each type of appeal see:


Procedural Irregularity appeals – page 6
Mitigating Circumstances appeals – page 9
3
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
You should contact YUSU and the GSA for advice on evidence. YUSU can be contacted at
asc@yusu.org. The GSA can be contacted at advice@yorkgsa.org. You may also consult
with the Special Cases Administrators (for taught students) or Research Student
Administration Team (for research students) if you are unsure of what sort of evidence
would be appropriate, in both cases by emailing appeals@york.ac.uk.
Completing the appeals form
This Section of the Guidance document takes you step by step through the Formal Stage
Academic Appeal Form, to assist you in understanding it and completing it.
Please note that the appeal form should be typed rather than hand-written. If you have a
specific reason for hand-writing the form and you are unable to fit your writing into the text
boxes, you should attach an additional sheet, but clearly label each section you are
responding to when you do so. You should ensure you have read this guidance
document before completing the form, and are strongly advised to consult with YUSU
or the GSA for assistance. Contact details for YUSU and the GSA can be found on page 1
of the Formal Stage appeal form.
What can be appealed against?
The decisions against which you may appeal are listed on page 2 of the Formal
Stage Appeal form. Whilst most are self-explanatory, you should bear in mind
the following points:

Academic judgement – students may not appeal against the academic judgement of the
examiners, as set out in Regulation 6.7.1(d). This means that if you disagree with the
examiners’ assessment of your work, their interpretation of the mark scheme, comments
they make in feedback or a viva voce, or the mark awarded, this is not in itself something
you can appeal against.

Teaching Quality or Supervision - students may not appeal on the basis of quality of
teaching or supervision. If you have concerns about the quality of teaching or supervision
you received, you should initially raise these with your academic department. If you remain
dissatisfied after doing so, you may submit a formal complaint to the Registrar. Further
details on Complaints can be found at: https://www.york.ac.uk/students/help/appeals/ .

Degree classification appeals (This ground is relevant to undergraduates and taught
postgraduates only) – please note that if you are appealing against your degree classification,
even if you have grounds for appeal, you will only be in a position to succeed if your final
mark is near a classification borderline, i.e. near the boundary between degree
classifications 1 . This is because Special Cases Committee is not empowered to alter
individual marks. If your circumstances affected the third year of your programme, one
remedy might be to void your final degree award and offer you sits ‘as if for the first time’ of
your third year assessments. If your circumstances affect a stage other than the final stage of
See Point 23.1 VIII of the Guide to Assessment, Standards, Marking and Feedback at
http://www.york.ac.uk/about/departments/support-and-admin/registry-services/guide/
1
4
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
your programme (for example the second year of a three-year programme), this will not be
possible, and the only remedy available will be to adjust the weighting of different years of
your programme. There are very specific weightings available to SCC. For three-year
programmes, for example, SCC can weight your second and third years to a 1:3 ratio in
certain circumstances.
You must also be able to demonstrate that a procedural irregularity occurred, or that you
had valid mitigating circumstances and good reason for failing to declare these at the
appropriate time. Being close to the borderline between classifications is not, in itself,
grounds for appeal.
If you are appealing against your degree classification, your graduation will be unaffected
since degree classifications are not announced at the graduation ceremony. Should your
degree classification later be amended you will be issued with a new degree certificate.

The category ‘processing of a mark’ refers solely to administrative errors in the way in
which your mark was recorded. Your disagreement with the mark you have been
awarded does not, in itself, constitute a procedural error.
* If you are a PhD student, you should tick "Failure of my programme of study" if you are
appealing against any of the following: Your thesis has been failed following examination;
your thesis has been downgraded following examination; your registration has been
terminated following failure of confirmation; your registration has been downgraded
following failure of confirmation.
The Appeal Summary
This summary should set out, as concisely as possible, the key points of your appeal. The
summary must not exceed 250 words. The summary, along with other information in
your appeal, may be forwarded to relevant individuals or groups (e.g. the Board of Studies
or Mitigating Circumstances Committee [MCC] in your Department) to enable them to
respond to your appeal. It may also be the first part of your appeal that is read by the
members of Special Cases Committee considering your appeal, to assist them in grasping
the key points of your appeal before moving on to the detail of your appeal, which you
should set out in the remainder of the form. You are recommended to complete this
summary after completing every other section on the form, as Sections 3A and 3B will guide
you to provide that information which is most relevant.
Grounds for Appeal
You can only appeal on the basis of one or more of the following:
 Procedural Irregularity;
 Mitigating circumstances which could not reasonably have been declared
sooner.
You may appeal on one or both of the above grounds within a single appeal. You do not
need to complete a separate appeal form for each ground.
5
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
The following sections of this guidance document provide more information on each of the
possible areas of appeal.
3A - Procedural Irregularity
If you are appealing on this basis, complete Section 3A of the form. If you are appealing
on this basis against a Mitigating Circumstances Committee decision, you
should also read the guidance below on page 10.
A procedural irregularity or unfair/improper conduct of an assessment refers to an
error or mistake in the way that an assessment has been carried out.
If you believe that the examiners have not given you the mark you deserve, or you disagree
with their opinion of some aspect of your work or the feedback you have received, this
does not qualify as a procedural irregularity as it would be an appeal against the academic
judgement of the examiners or of the members of a thesis advisory panel, which is not
permitted under University Regulations 2.8.1(b) for research students, and 6.7.1(d) for
taught students. If you are dissatisfied with the feedback you have received, this would most
appropriately be addressed via the Complaints Process (for further information see the
guidance on complaints at: https://www.york.ac.uk/students/help/appeals/).
If, by way of example, you were: given insufficient time for an exam or you had evidence
that the correct marking procedures had been breached, you might be able to appeal on this
basis.
Questions on the form:

What is the nature of the irregularity?
When setting out the nature of the irregularity, try as clearly and concisely as you
can to explain what you believe went wrong, and why this affected you. For example,
‘I was given only two hours to complete a three-hour exam paper’.

When
Set out dates here as clearly and precisely as possible.

Which assessments were affected?
Please ensure you list all affected assessments and set out the date they were
taken/submitted. For example ‘I was not granted enough time for the ‘Atmospheric
Science I’ examination, taken on 22 May 2015’. Make sure you are clear which attempt
at the assessment you are referring to, i.e. the first attempt, or the resit, or both,
and provide dates for each. If you miss out an assessment, it may not be considered
for a remedy if your appeal is upheld.
Evidence
Evidence to support a procedural irregularity will vary depending on the nature of the
alleged irregularity. However, appropriate evidence to support a procedural irregularity
claim might include copies of email correspondence between yourself and your department
demonstrating your efforts to clarify whether an error has occurred.
6
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
If you are able to, it may be helpful to quote the relevant sections of the University’s
Regulations or Procedures, indicating which you believe have been breached. Otherwise,
you should simply explain the issue which you are appealing about as clearly as possible. You
can find the Regulations and the Guide to Assessment, Standards, Marking and Feedback on the
University
webpages
at
the
following
links:
http://www.york.ac.uk/about/departments/support-and-admin/registry-services/guide/
and
http://www.york.ac.uk/about/organisation/governance/governance-documents/ordinancesand-regulations/ .
If you are unsure what evidence might be appropriate you may contact the Special Cases
Administrators (taught students), Research Student Co-ordinators (research students),
YUSU or the GSA. YUSU can be contacted at asc@yusu.org. The GSA can be contacted at
advice@yorkgsa.org. The Special Cases Administrators (for taught students) or Research
Student Co-ordinators (for research students) can both be contacted by emailing
appeals@york.ac.uk.
3B - Mitigating Circumstances
If you are appealing on this basis, complete Section 3B of the form. If you are appealing on
the basis of mitigating circumstances, you must show that:
1. You had mitigating circumstances (and you have evidence of this) AND;
2. That you had good reason for not submitting a mitigating circumstances
claim form with evidence at the appropriate time, AND
3. That those circumstances had an impact on the decision against which you are
appealing.
For example, if you were in an accident the day before an exam and were in hospital, unable
to communicate, you could appeal on the basis that you had mitigating circumstances, that
you could not have disclosed them since you were incapacitated, and that this affected your
ability to sit the exam. You can find more information on mitigating circumstances at:
https://www.york.ac.uk/students/support/academic/mitigation/
Note that each time you are affected by mitigating circumstances, you must
submit a new claim – the University cannot simply assume that your
circumstances are ongoing or that they apply to future assessments. An appeal
on the basis that you intended a claim made in relation to assessment(s) to
apply to future assessments without you submitting further claims, is unlikely to
be upheld.
If you are appealing against a decision of a Mitigating Circumstances Committee, you should
complete Section 3B of the Formal Stage Appeal form.
Questions on the form:
What are your mitigating circumstances?
7
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
Set out here the nature of the circumstances, e.g. your illness and symptoms and how these
affected your ability to work, or the loss of a close relative, or a difficult family situation and
how it affected you.
When did these affect you?
Set out here when each circumstance affected you. For example, the date you became ill
and when you were fully recovered, or the date of death of a relative. For example, ‘I was
admitted to hospital on 14 May 2015, was discharged on 26 May 2015, and declared fit to
study by my GP on 18 June 2015’.
Which assessments were affected by each circumstance?
You should make clear which assessments were affected, for example, ‘I was unable to take
the Social Policy Exams 1 and II, on 25 May 2015, because I was in hospital’. Make sure you
are clear which attempt at the assessment you are referring to, i.e. the first attempt, or the resit, or
both, and provide dates for each. If you miss out an assessment, it may not be considered for a
remedy if your appeal is upheld.
Why did you not raise these at the time? – This is a very important question. If
you do not have good reason for failing to disclose your circumstances at the
time, you will not have grounds for appeal on the basis of mitigating
circumstances.
What is a ‘good reason’ for not submitting your mitigating circumstances earlier?
Examples of ‘good reasons’ (which must also be clearly evidenced):
 A genuine medical emergency which would have clearly prevented you from
submitting a mitigating circumstances claim, such as hospitalisation;
 Severe issues outside your control which meant you were unavoidably prevented
from submitting a mitigating circumstances claim.
Examples of reasons which are not considered to be ‘good reasons’:
 A belief that the University would not take your concerns seriously;
 Ignorance of the mitigating circumstances procedures;
 Believing or hoping that you would do well enough in the assessments not to need
mitigating circumstances;
 General embarrassment / a reluctance to disclose your circumstances.
 Wanting or hoping to succeed in your assessments/examinations without relying on
the mitigating circumstances procedures;
 Deciding not to disclose your circumstances because you wanted to demonstrate
that you could succeed without help.
 That you belong to or grew up in a culture in which problems are not openly
discussed or disclosed to others. This is not accepted as a good reason for nondisclosure of mitigating circumstances because it would be unjust to accept claims from
some students but not others on the basis of assumptions about cultural norms based on a
student’s nationality, ethnicity or religious faith. The University does not discriminate
against students on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, faith or any other protected
characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
8
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
If you make a conscious decision not to submit a mitigating circumstances claim at the appropriate
time, you have chosen to accept the risk of failure or poorer performance. The University will expect
you to accept the responsibility for having taken that risk and to accept the consequences, as
demonstrated by the examples in the boxes outlined above.
Many appeals are rejected on the basis that the student does not have good reason
for failing to have submitted a mitigating circumstances claim to their department at
the time of the assessment they now believe has been affected. If you do not have
good reason for failing to submit a claim at the appropriate time, it is highly unlikely
that your appeal will be upheld. You may therefore wish to consider whether or not
you still wish to continue with the appeal process.
If you have ever submitted a mitigating circumstances form during your current programme,
please set out: when you submitted the form(s), what circumstances you sought to rely
on and the outcome:
For example,
When: In the second term of my first year, on 12 January 2012.
What Circumstances: I submitted a mitigating circumstances claim in relation to my
Social Policy Research II assessment, on the basis of a broken arm.
Outcome: The claim was upheld, and I was granted a two-week extension.
Evidence
Further guidance on evidence can be found in the University’s Mitigating Circumstances
Procedures, under section 23.3. The Mitigating Circumstances Procedures can be accessed
on the University webpages in the Guide to Assessment, Standards, Marking and Feedback,
available to view at http://www.york.ac.uk/about/departments/support-and-admin/registryservices/guide/
It is not possible to anticipate every circumstance that students may be affected by or every
kind of relevant evidence, but broadly speaking you should provide evidence which is:
 Relevant to the circumstance e.g. bereavement should be supported by a death certificate,
illness supported by a letter from a doctor, and crime against you by a police report &
incident number.
 Contemporaneous with the circumstances, e.g. evidence from a doctor which is either
written at the time of your circumstances or which indicates that the doctor saw you at
the time of your circumstances.
 From an official source such as a hospital, doctor’s surgery, therapist, employer.
 From an independent source (i.e. not from a relative or a friend). Whilst you can submit
evidence from friends or relatives if you wish, this is useful only to provide context, and is
not considered to be independent third-party evidence, given the close links between the
author of the evidence and you.
 Clear that the circumstances resulted in medical, psychological or other difficulties, which
had a serious impact on your ability to study. This is most relevant where you cite
circumstances which would not normally be accepted, such as a relationship breakdown,
9
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
or where the circumstances relate to someone else, such as the illness of a relative or
friend.
Please note: It is your responsibility to obtain the evidence – this will not be
done for you by the University.
Appealing against a decision of a Mitigating Circumstances
Committee
If you are a taught student, i.e. an undergraduate student or taught postgraduate student,
you can appeal against a decision of a Mitigating Circumstances Committee.
Appeals against a decision of a Mitigating Circumstances Committee can only be made on
the basis of procedural irregularity in the decision making or because you have evidence that
you could not have provided at the appropriate time, and that you believe may alter the
outcome of your claim.
Additional points to consider when submitting a claim against a decision of a
Mitigating Circumstances Committee:
You should set out the date(s) of the mitigating circumstances claim that is the subject of
your appeal, and the date of the email or letter you have received that explains the
Mitigating Circumstances Committee decision relating to that claim.
You must submit copies of the claim, evidence and outcome letter. If you did not retain
copies of these when you submitted it, it is your responsibility to contact the Mitigating
Circumstances Committee and request copies for your appeal.
If you are appealing on the basis of procedural irregularity you must complete Section 3A.
You must refer to the Mitigating Circumstances Policy and indicate which
element(s) have been breached. Whilst you may disagree with the decision of the
Mitigating Circumstances Committee, it is not sufficient to explain your disagreement –
you must demonstrate, with reference to the mitigating circumstances policy, that there has
been a breach of procedure. You can read the mitigating circumstances procedures in the
Guide
to
Assessment,
Standards,
Marking
and
Feedback
at
http://www.york.ac.uk/about/departments/support-and-admin/registry-services/guide/ .
If you are appealing on the basis that you have new evidence which you could not have
submitted before your mitigating circumstances claim was considered, you must complete
Section 3B. If you have provided new evidence which was not submitted with your
mitigating circumstances claim, you should explain why you were unable to
provide that evidence at the appropriate time. Set out here what the evidence is,
why it should result in a change in the decision of the Mitigating Circumstances Committee,
and why you were unable to provide that evidence to the Mitigating Circumstances
Committee.
Appeal Outcomes
10
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
In Section 4 of the appeals form you should explain if you have any particular request for
your appeal outcome. For example, you could say that you would like to return to the
University as soon as possible, or that you would like to take leave of absence until you are
recovered before returning. However, you should be aware that there are a number of
rules surrounding student progression which limit the options available to Special Cases
Committee in deciding your appeal outcome. In particular you should note:

You cannot progress to the next year of a Taught programme until you have
successfully met the progression requirements of the previous year. If you are an
undergraduate student submitting an appeal after receiving your marks at the end of the
Summer term, it is very rarely possible to resolve your appeal in time for the August
assessment period.

It is often the case that successful appellants need to take a year’s leave of absence, during
which they may be required to retake any failed assessments during the next suitable
assessment period, before progressing to the next year of their programme the following
academic year if they meet the progression requirements.

If you appeal against failure in August/September it will not normally be possible for you to
return to your studies at the start of the forthcoming academic year.

Special Cases Committee cannot alter marks. Possible appeal outcomes include being
permitted to resubmit work, to submit work or take examinations ‘as if for the first time’,
being permitted an element of repeat study or, where you have completed your programme
and a year other than the final year has been affected, having your degree classification
recalculated using the alternate ratios available to the Committee (see page 1 of this
document).

Most appeals should be fully resolved within 90 calendar days. You will be informed in
advance if there is a reason why this may not be possible. If you have been granted extra
time to submit evidence this may result in your appeal taking longer than 90 calendar days
to resolve. In cases where an appeal and complaint have been submitted simultaneously, one
process may be paused whilst the other is resolved – this may also result in the appeals
process taking longer than 90 calendar days.
In the 2013/14 academic year, approximately 70% of appeals were not upheld. Whilst all
appeals are considered on their own merits, you should prepare for the possibility that your
appeal will not be successful.
You should not take on any financial obligations or forgo any potential sources
of income on the basis of assumptions about what your appeal outcome may be.
If you are unsure of the possible outcomes after reading this guidance document, you should
contact YUSU, the GSA, the Special Cases Administrators (for taught students) or the
Research Student Co-ordinators (for research students). If you have any financial worries
11
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
or concerns, you may contact the Student Advisers by emailing welfareinfo@york.ac.uk or
calling 01904 324140.
If you have failed your programme, or failed to progress to the next stage, and
are appealing against that failure, submitting an academic appeal does not in
itself permit you to continue as a student. You are not permitted to progress,
nor are you enrolled as a student, unless the outcome of the appeals process
results in a change in your status.
Additional Information on the Form
Section 5 – additional information
Enter here anything important that you cannot fit into the other sections.
If you are submitting your appeal out of time (more than 28 days after the decision), you
must set out your reasons for appealing late in this section.
If you have also submitted a complaint, please indicate this here as well. You should
complete Section 3A or 3B before entering information into this section, since the
information requested in those sections is required for your appeal to be considered.
You should then enter your name and address, date and mark the form (typing your name
will suffice) and indicate whether or not you have consulted with YUSU or the GSA and
would be happy for your appeal outcome to be shared with them. You should also name the
YUSU/GSA member(s) you have consulted with. Finally, you should go through the provided
checklist and ensure you haven’t missed anything. If you have left your Appeal Summary to
the end, you should check you have completed it before submitting the form with your
supporting evidence to appeals@york.ac.uk .
If you leave a relevant section of the form blank, your appeal might be rejected
at the submission criteria filter. If it is not rejected, it will be considered on the
basis of what you have submitted. You should not assume that Special Cases
Committee is familiar with the full detail of every interaction you have had with
the University of York. It is therefore very important that you fully complete the
form since Special Cases Committee will not be able to infer information that
you have not provided.
12
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
13
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
What happens once your appeal is received
Submission criteria
When your appeal is received by the administrators, they will first assess whether your
appeal meets the submission criteria. These criteria are set out on the front of the appeal
form and are:
a) That the form has been completed;
b) That you have provided evidence OR explained clearly why not and set an
estimated date for providing it;
c) That the form is submitted within the 28-day deadline or, if not, that you have
provided an explanation as to why it is late;
d) That your appeal falls within the permissible appeal grounds (see Section 1 of
the Formal Stage appeal form);
e) That the issues you raise are eligible for consideration under the appeals procedure
rather than, for example, the Complaints Procedure.
If you make a minor error in completing the form then your appeal will not be rejected – it
is only if there are significant omissions that your appeal may be rejected at this stage.
If your appeal submission does not meet the above criteria, the administrators will either:
a) Contact you and suggest you submit a revised form / evidence. This will only happen
if you submit your appeal well in advance of the 28-day deadline;
b) Refer you to the Complaints Procedure if this is more appropriate;
c) Reject your appeal. If your appeal is rejected you will be advised of your right to
appeal against that rejection.
1) Prima Facie consideration
If your appeal meets the submission criteria, the administrators will then consider whether
your appeal has prima facie grounds2. If the administrators believe it does, they will contact
your department to investigate the issues raised in your appeal. If they do not believe you
have prima facie grounds, they will ask an Appeals Chair, acting alongside an Ordinary
member of the Special Cases Committee (SCC), to decide whether you have prima facie
grounds for appeal. If the Appeals Chair decides that you do not have prima facie grounds,
your appeal will be rejected and you will be issued with an appeal outcome letter. If the
Appeals Chair decides that you do have prima facie grounds, the administrators will then
contact your department and investigate the issues raised in the appeal.
2) Full consideration by an Appeal Chairs – Grounds for Appeal?
Once your appeal has been investigated, all appeal documentation and information from
your department will then be considered by an Appeals Chair, acting alongside an Ordinary
member of SCC. The Appeals Chair will then decide whether or not you have established
2
Prima facie means ‘on the face of it’, i.e. solely on the basis of what you have submitted, whether you have raised issues which merit
further investigation and which could, potentially, result in your appeal being upheld.
14
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
grounds for appeal, and you will be informed of the appeal outcome. You will have the right
to appeal against this decision if you are dissatisfied with it.
Students do not have the right to attend meetings of the Special Cases Committee. In some
exceptional cases a full hearing of the Committee may be held, to which you will be invited.
Very few cases are heard at a full hearing.
3) The outcome of your appeal
You will be informed of the outcome of your appeal to the Formal Stage in a Formal Stage
Appeal Outcome letter, which will be both posted and emailed to you. This letter will set
out the reasons for decision and explain your right of appeal to the Review Stage including
the steps you need to follow to submit an appeal to the Review Stage. You will have 10
calendar days to submit a request for review to the Review Stage should you wish to do
so.
If you wish to appeal to the Review Stage you should read Section B of this
document (which starts on page 16).
4) Timescale
The full appeals procedure, including the Formal Stage appeal process, the 10 calendar days
you have to draft an appeal review application, and the Appeal Review Stage process, should
normally take no longer than 90 calendar days to complete. If your appeal is
particularly complex or there are other exceptional circumstances, you will be advised that
your appeal will not be resolved within this timeframe and an explanation will be provided.
You can find further information on procedure in the Procedures for Academic Appeals for
Students
on
Taught
Programmes
available
at:
https://www.york.ac.uk/students/support/academic/appeals-procedure/ .
You are also advised to read the information about appeals in University Regulation 6.7 (if
you are on a taught programme of study) or Regulation 2.8 (if you are a research student).3
3
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/aso/ordreg/r6_new.htm#appeals
http://www.york.ac.uk/about/organisation/governance/governance-documents/ordinances-and-regulations/regulation-2/#2.8
15
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
SECTION B –
APPEAL
REVIEW
SECTION B – APPEAL REVIEW STAGE
General overview
What can be appealed against
Completing the form: Procedural Irregularity
Completing the form: New Evidence
Completing the form: Reasonableness of Formal Stage
decision
What happens once your Review Stage appeal is received
Appeal outcomes
Review Stage flowchart
16
16
17
18
19
20
20
21
Overview
The appeal Review Stage gives students the opportunity to request a review of a Formal
Stage Appeal decision. Their request for review will be considered by the Chair or Deputy
Chair of the Special Cases Committee, acting alongside an Ordinary member of the Special
Cases Committee. The request is presented to the Chair by an administrator: one of the
Special Cases Administrators (for taught students) or the Research Student Co-ordinators
(for research students).
If your request for review is against a decision of an Administrator or Co-ordinator, one of
the other administrators will present your case to the Chair or Deputy Chair of SCC. If
your request for review is against a decision of an Appeals Chair acting alongside an
Ordinary member, that Ordinary member will not be the Ordinary member who considers
your review request with the Chair or Deputy Chair of SCC. At no point in the appeals
process will a member of Special Cases Committee be involved in the decision-making
process if they are from your academic department.
To summarise, no administrator or academic will be involved in reviewing a decision which
they themselves made, nor will any academic hear an appeal against their own academic
department. This is to ensure that there is no perceived or actual conflict of interest.
What can be appealed against?
The appeal Review Stage process is only for requesting a review of a decision reached at
the Formal Appeal Stage. This means that you may only request a review on the basis that:
1) Your appeal was rejected by an administrator because it did not meet the submission
criteria;
2) Your appeal was rejected on the basis that it did not have prima facie grounds;
3) Your appeal was investigated but it was decided that you did not have grounds for
appeal;
4) Your appeal was upheld but you are dissatisfied with the appeal remedy offered.
If you have not received a Formal Stage Appeal Outcome letter by post and/or email, setting
out your right to submit an appeal to the Review Stage, you will not be eligible to submit an
appeal to the Review Stage. The Appeal Review Stage process is not for appealing against
the outcome of a formal complaint, the decision of a Board of Studies, Mitigating
Circumstances Committee, Board of Examiners or any other University body.
16
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
Completing the Form
Each ground for Review is set out below, with illustrative case studies to explain the various
grounds. The case studies are not based on real cases and have been created for illustrative
purposes only.
Completing the Form: Procedural Irregularity
Requests for review on this basis must relate to a Procedural Irregularity in the way in
which your Formal Stage appeal was dealt with. As a result you should set out in
what way your Formal Stage appeal was not handled according to the published Academic
Appeals Procedures. You should explain:
1) Which of the Academic Appeals Procedures have been breached - you should quote
from the Appeal Outcome letter wherever possible, as well as quoting from the
Academic Appeals procedures.
2) Why this breach has materially affected the outcome of your appeal. If there is a
minor breach of protocol which would not have had any impact on the outcome of
your appeal, then your request for Review will not be upheld.
If, for example, you failed 6 modules and SCC wrongly failed to notice that you might
otherwise have had a resit opportunity in just one module, this would have no
bearing on your appeal outcome since passing one module out of six would still
result in the failure of your programme.
You should not re-state your Formal Stage appeal details here, since the Chair of SCC will
have access to the content of your Formal Stage appeal.
Case Studies : Request for Review on the basis of Procedural Irregularity
Case Study 1) – Unsuccessful request for Review:
T submitted a Formal Stage appeal against her degree classification on the basis of
procedural irregularity. She had achieved an overall mark of 63 in her second year but had
struggled academically in her final year and had been awarded a mark of 47. This left her
with an overall programme mark of 53 and a lower-second class degree classification (2:2).
T wanted to be awarded a 2:1-class degree as she felt that the degree classification rules
were unfair and should use the marks from the best of the two years.
T’s appeal was rejected as having no prima facie grounds for appeal by an Appeals Chair, on
the basis that the degree classification rules had been correctly applied in her case.
T submitted a request a Review Stage appeal against the outcome of her Formal Stage
appeal on the basis that her appeal should have been fully investigated rather than being
rejected at the Prima Facie stage.
The Chair of SCC did not uphold Review Stage appeal since T had not established Prima
17
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
Facie grounds for appeal, and there was no procedural irregularity in the manner in which
her appeal had been considered.
Case Study 2) – Successful request for Review:
Y submitted a Formal Stage appeal against failure on the basis of procedural irregularity. She
indicated that she had been granted only 2 hours for an examination but the rest of her
cohort had been granted 3 hours, and that this was because of an error. She provided
correspondence which showed that her academic Department and the Examinations Office
agreed an error had occurred and attached this to her appeal when she submitted it.
Y’s Formal Stage appeal was rejected by the administrators on the basis that no evidence
had been provided with the appeal. Y then submitted a request for Review, forwarding on
her original email as evidence to show that she had provided evidence with her Formal
Stage appeal. The Chair of SCC upheld her Review Stage appeal on the basis that an error
had occurred in handling her appeal at the Formal Appeal stage.
Completing the Form: New Evidence
If you have come into the possession of new evidence which was not available at the time of
your Formal Stage appeal, you should set out:

What the item(s) of evidence is/are and which circumstance or matter they
specifically relate to. You should be as specific as possible here. Do not assume that
the Special Cases Committee will always be able to work out why the evidence is
relevant. You should be as clear as possible in explaining what it relates to;

Set out why you think the evidence should change the decision made at the Formal
Stage of your appeal. Be clear here on why the Formal Stage decision would not
have been reached if this new evidence had been available with your Formal Stage
appeal;

Explain why you could not have provided this evidence at the time of the Formal
Stage Appeal.
Case Study : Request for Review on the basis of new evidence
J submitted a Formal Stage appeal against failure on the basis of undisclosed mitigating
circumstances. He indicated that he could not have submitted a mitigating circumstances
claim at the time as he was badly injured and in a coma in hospital during his exam. He was
therefore unable to contact the University. His Formal Stage appeal was submitted without
any evidence and he had not explained why this evidence was not provided. His appeal was
rejected by an administrator under the submission criteria because it lacked evidence and
lacked an explanation.
J then submitted a Review Stage appeal against the outcome of his Formal Stage appeal on
the basis that he had new evidence. He provided a letter from his doctor, explaining that he
had been in a coma in hospital during his exam and that his injuries had left him medically
incapable of rationally considering the appeals process. In his Review Stage appeal J
explained that this new evidence should change the original decision because:
18
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
1) He had now provided evidence to support his appeal;
2) He had a good reason, supported by a medical professional, for his earlier failure to
provide evidence.
J’s request for Review was upheld by the Chair of SCC, who referred the appeal back to the
Formal Stage of the process for full investigation.
Completing the Form: That a Formal Stage Appeal decision
was manifestly unreasonable in the circumstances
In order for a Review Stage appeal to be successful on this basis, you will need to
demonstrate that the decision made at the Formal Stage was an entirely unreasonable one.
Simply disagreeing with the decision does not mean that it was manifestly
unreasonable in the circumstances. You should follow these points when drafting a
request on this ground:
1) When setting out an appeal on this basis, you should write your appeal as clearly and
concisely as possible, focussing very specifically on the aspect of the Formal Stage
appeal decision which you feel was manifestly unreasonable.
2) You should focus on the Formal Stage decision itself, rather than repeating issues
you previously covered in your Formal Stage appeal.
3) You should quote your Appeal Outcome letter when writing your statement.
Case Study : Review Stage Appeal on the basis that the decision of the Formal Stage was
manifestly unreasonable in the circumstances
X submitted a Formal Stage appeal against failure on the basis of procedural irregularity. Her
circumstances were that she had suffered from severe anxiety attacks and that she needed
extra time in examinations. Disability Services had recommended to her department that
she be offered 25% extra time and her department had agreed, but this had not been
implemented in three of her summer examinations.
X’s appeal was upheld and she was granted permission by an Appeals Chair to retake three
examinations, but without the 25% extra time. X requested a Review of the decision on the
basis that this was manifestly unreasonable in the circumstances.
The Chair of SCC agreed that the decision was manifestly unreasonable since X had
established the right to be offered 25% extra time. The Review Stage appeal was upheld
and permission to retake the three examinations in question, with 25% extra time, was
granted.
19
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
What happens once your review request is received?
The Special Cases Administrators (for taught students) or the Research Student Coordinators (for research students) may consult with your academic department if you have
raised any new issues that require investigation. They will then present your Review Stage
appeal to the Chair or Deputy Chair of the Special Cases Committee. Acting alongside
another member of SCC (who will be different to any Ordinary member who may have
considered your Formal Stage appeal), they will consider your Review Stage appeal and will
make a decision on whether or not to uphold it. This process is paper-based and neither
academic departments nor students are permitted to attend these meetings. In rare
instances a full hearing of the Committee may be called by the Chair or Deputy Chair, to
which you and representatives from your department would be invited, but in almost all
cases your request would be considered solely on the basis of the paperwork.
Appeal outcomes
If the Chair or Deputy Chair upholds the Formal Stage Appeal decision and your Review
Stage appeal is unsuccessful, you will be sent a Completion of Procedures letter advising
you that the internal Academic Appeals procedures of the University of York have
completed. The reasons for the decision will be provided and your options will be explained
to you.
If your Review Stage appeal is upheld, one of two things will happen, depending on the
nature of the Formal Stage Appeal decision you have appealed against:
1) If you are requesting a review of a decision that an administrator rejected your
appeal on the basis of the submission criteria or that a Appeals Chair found no prima
facie grounds for appeal, then your appeal will be referred back to the Formal Stage.
You will be informed of this referral. The issues raised in your original Formal Stage
appeal will then be investigated along with any additional points or evidence provided
at the Review Stage. The administrator or Appeals Chair who made the original
Formal Stage decision will not be involved in considering your case again. Once your
case has been reconsidered the Formal Stage, you will receive a new Formal Stage
Appeal Outcome letter explaining the new outcome from the Formal Stage.
2) If your appeal had already been investigated at the Formal Stage but a Appeals Chair
decided not to uphold your appeal, the Chair or Deputy Chair of the SCC will
decide on a new remedy without referring it back for investigation again at the
Formal Stage. You will be informed of this remedy in a Review Stage Appeal
Outcome letter.
For further information on appeal outcomes, you should consider: Section 4 of the Appeal
Form – Formal Stage; Section 4 of the Appeal Outcome – Review Stage; and page 10 of this
document (Section A).
20
Academic Appeal Guidance document version B2 – last updated 28 September 2015
21