Appeals and complaints

An appeal is about an eligible academic decision. It asks whether the decision about your progress, upgrade or examination was reached fairly, in accordance with the relevant procedures, and on the basis of the information that should properly have been considered. 

A complaint is about something you are dissatisfied with in your experience at LSE. This may include concerns about supervision, teaching, facilities, student services, communication, support arrangements or the way a service has been provided. 

The same set of circumstances may sometimes include both appeal issues and complaint issues. For example, you may wish to appeal a progression decision and also raise concerns about supervision or communication. Where this happens, the School may need to decide which issues should be considered under which procedure, and whether one process should be completed before another continues. 

An appeal is a request for the School to review whether a decision about your progress, upgrade or examination was reached fairly and in accordance with the relevant procedures. 

Appeals can only be considered on specific grounds set out in the Appeals Regulations for Research Students. The purpose of an appeal is not to obtain a second academic opinion, but to determine whether there is evidence that the process leading to a decision was flawed or that important information was unavailable when the decision was made. 

A complaint is appropriate where you have concerns about supervision, teaching, facilities, student services, communication, support arrangements or another aspect of your experience at LSE. 

Complaints are considered through the Student Complaints Procedure rather than the appeals process. 

No. The appeals process cannot be used to challenge academic judgement. 

Academic judgement refers to the expert academic assessment made by supervisors, review panels, upgrade panels and examiners when evaluating academic work and research progress. This means that you cannot appeal simply because you believe your work deserved a different outcome or because you disagree with the academic conclusions reached by the people who assessed it. 

The appeals process is designed to be accessible to students and you are expected to submit your own appeal. 

However, many students find it helpful to discuss their circumstances with an independent adviser before deciding whether to appeal. An adviser may be able to help you understand the grounds for appeal, identify relevant evidence and think about how best to present your case. 

The Students’ Union Advice Service provides independent advice and guidance to LSE students. The service is independent of academic departments, the PhD Academy and the decision-makers involved in the appeals process. 

You are also welcome to contact the PhD Academy for guidance on the appeals process itself. PhD Academy staff administer the appeals process and can explain the relevant regulations, timescales and procedures. However, they cannot advise students whether they should appeal, comment on the merits of a case, or predict the outcome of an appeal. 

Seeking advice does not commit you to submitting an appeal. Some students seek advice because they are unsure whether they have grounds for appeal or because they would like help understanding the options available to them. 

You can appeal against a departmental decision that you have not met the progression requirements of your programme and that: 

• your continued registration should be subject to conditions; 

• you should continue only as an MPhil candidate; or 

• your registration should be terminated. 

You can appeal against a departmental decision that you have not met the requirements for upgrade to PhD registration. 

This applies whether the decision was made following your first or second upgrade attempt. 

You can appeal against an examiners’ decision that: 

•  you must revise and resubmit your thesis for re-examination; 

• you must undertake a further oral examination; 

• you should be awarded an MPhil rather than a PhD; or 

• you should not be awarded either an MPhil or a PhD. 

A procedural error occurs where the correct process was not followed and there is reasonable doubt that this may have affected the outcome. 

Example that may support an appeal 

A department’s published progress review procedure states that the annual review panel must include at least one academic member of staff who is not part of the student’s supervisory team. Following a progress review, a student is informed that their registration will continue only subject to conditions. When reviewing the paperwork afterwards, the student discovers that the review meeting was conducted entirely by their two supervisors and that no independent academic participated in the decision. The student submits an appeal explaining that the department’s published procedure was not followed. The concern is not that the student disagrees with the feedback they received. The concern is that the decision may have been reached through a process that did not comply with the requirements set out in the regulations. In these circumstances, the appeal may be upheld because there is evidence that a procedural error occurred. 

Example that is unlikely to support an appeal 

A student attends their annual progress review and receives extensive feedback on their research design, methodology and timetable for completion. The panel concludes that progress has not been sufficient and requires the student to satisfy a number of conditions before the next review. The student believes that the panel placed too much emphasis on one aspect of the project and not enough emphasis on another. They submit an appeal arguing that the panel should have reached a different conclusion. However, the review was conducted in accordance with the department’s published procedures and there is no evidence that the process itself was flawed. In these circumstances, the appeal is unlikely to succeed because the student is challenging academic judgement rather than identifying a procedural error. 

This ground applies where there is evidence that a decision was affected by bias, prejudice or a failure to assess the work appropriately. 

Example that may support an appeal 

A student receives an unsuccessful outcome following their second upgrade attempt and is informed that they will not be upgraded to PhD status. During the appeal process, evidence emerges that one member of the upgrade panel had previously been involved in a significant dispute with the student and had made comments suggesting that the student should leave the programme before the assessment took place. The existence of a disagreement does not automatically demonstrate bias. However, if there is evidence that the panel member’s prior views affected their ability to participate fairly in the assessment, the School may conclude that the integrity of the process has been compromised. In these circumstances, the appeal may be upheld and the upgrade process may need to be conducted again with a different panel. 

Example that is unlikely to support an appeal 

A student submits an upgrade portfolio and attends the oral component of the upgrade process. The panel concludes that the written work does not yet provide a sufficiently developed framework for the research and that the timetable for completion lacks sufficient detail. The student strongly disagrees with that assessment and believes the panel underestimated the quality of the work. The panel’s feedback is detailed, evidence-based and clearly linked to the published upgrade criteria. The student can point to no evidence of prejudice, personal bias or failure to assess the work. In these circumstances, the appeal is unlikely to succeed because disagreement with an academic assessment does not constitute evidence of bias or inadequate assessment. 

This ground applies where exceptional circumstances affected a student’s performance and could not reasonably have been disclosed before the assessment took place. 

Example that may support an appeal 

A student is due to attend an upgrade assessment that includes both written work and an oral defence. Two days before the assessment, the student experiences a serious medical emergency and is admitted unexpectedly to hospital. The student is unable to contact the department before the assessment takes place and remains unable to communicate for several days afterwards. The upgrade panel reaches its decision without knowledge of the circumstances. Once the student is able to do so, they submit medical evidence explaining both the circumstances and why disclosure was impossible at the time. The evidence demonstrates that the situation was serious, unexpected and likely to have affected the student’s performance. In these circumstances, the appeal may be upheld. 

Example that is unlikely to support an appeal 

A student experiences pressure and anxiety during the months leading up to an upgrade assessment. They attend the assessment as planned and do not raise any concerns with their supervisors, Doctoral Programme Director or department before the assessment takes place. After receiving an unsuccessful outcome, the student submits an appeal stating that they found the process stressful and believes this affected their performance. While the School recognises that assessments can be demanding, the student has not identified exceptional circumstances that prevented earlier disclosure and has not provided evidence that circumstances outside their control affected the assessment. In these circumstances, the appeal is unlikely to succeed. 

The most effective appeals usually focus clearly on the grounds permitted by the Appeals Regulations. 

You should explain: 

•  the decision you are appealing; 

• the ground or grounds of appeal on which you are relying; 

• the evidence that supports those grounds; and 

• any information you believe is relevant to understanding your case. 

It is usually more helpful to explain clearly why you believe the appeal falls within the permitted grounds than to provide a detailed account of every aspect of your doctoral experience. Investigators will focus on the issues that are relevant to the appeal.

Many students are uncertain which appeal ground is most relevant to their circumstances. 

You do not need to use legal or technical language when describing your concerns. However, you should explain clearly what happened, why you believe the decision should be reconsidered, and provide any evidence you believe is relevant. 

The investigator will consider the grounds you identify in your submission. If you are unsure how the regulations apply to your circumstances, you may wish to seek advice before submitting your appeal. 

Yes. 

You may explain what outcome you are seeking and why you believe it would be appropriate. 

However, investigators are required to make decisions in accordance with the Appeals Regulations. This means that the outcome sought by a student will not necessarily be the outcome reached by the investigator. 

Where an appeal is upheld, the investigator will determine the appropriate next steps under the regulations. This will normally involve the relevant decision-making process being reconsidered rather than the academic decision being replaced with a different one

Normally, you should provide all grounds for appeal and all supporting evidence when you submit your appeal. 

The regulations do not normally permit new grounds for appeal to be introduced later in the process. 

Yes. 

You may withdraw your appeal at any stage by notifying the PhD Academy in writing. 

If you are considering withdrawing an appeal, you may wish to seek advice before doing so, particularly if the appeal relates to progression, registration status or examination outcomes. 

Students should be aware that withdrawing an appeal does not automatically preserve a right to submit a new appeal at a later date. Any subsequent submission will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with the Appeals Regulations, including any applicable deadlines and requirements relating to the submission of evidence and grounds for appeal. 

For this reason, students should not assume that withdrawing and re-submitting an appeal will be treated as a continuation of the original appeal or that additional time will be granted to develop new arguments or obtain further evidence. 

The School is committed to ensuring that students are able to participate fully in the appeals process. 

If you have a disability, long-term health condition, mental health condition or another circumstance that may affect your ability to engage with the process, you should let the PhD Academy know as early as possible. 

Examples might include needing additional time to provide information, requiring information in an alternative format, or needing adjustments to any meeting that forms part of the investigation. 

The School will consider requests on a case-by-case basis and will seek to make reasonable adjustments where appropriate. 

Appeals are considered by members of the Research Degrees Sub-Committee who were not involved in the original decision-making process. 

Before accepting responsibility for an appeal, potential decision-makers are asked to confirm that they have sufficient capacity to consider the case within the required timescale and that they do not have a conflict of interest. 

Examples of conflicts of interest may include previous membership of the student’s supervisory team, previous involvement in the student’s progress review or upgrade process, previous involvement in an earlier appeal by the same student, or direct involvement in a complaint involving the student. 

Where a conflict of interest exists, or could reasonably be perceived to exist, the appeal will normally be assigned to a different decision-maker. This helps to ensure that appeals are considered independently and that decision-making is, and is seen to be, fair. 

Many research students feel concerned about the potential impact of submitting an appeal. Doctoral study is often conducted within relatively small academic communities, and students may worry about how an appeal could affect relationships with supervisors, other academic staff, professional services colleagues or fellow students. 

The School recognises that deciding whether to submit an appeal can be difficult. Students sometimes feel uncomfortable raising concerns about decisions made by individuals with whom they may continue to work during their programme. Others may be concerned about how they will be perceived if they choose to challenge a decision through a formal process. 

The purpose of the appeals process is to allow concerns about academic decisions to be considered fairly and independently within an established regulatory framework. The existence of an appeals process reflects the School’s commitment to procedural fairness and good decision-making. Students should not be discouraged from using the process where they believe they have grounds to do so. 

Investigators and decision-makers are expected to approach appeals professionally and objectively. The fact that a student has submitted an appeal does not, in itself, indicate that anyone has acted improperly, nor does it imply that the appeal will ultimately be upheld or rejected. The purpose of the investigation is to establish whether there are grounds to intervene under the appeals regulations. 

Appeals investigations are treated confidentially. Those involved are asked only to share information about the fact of the appeal, or the substance of the appeal, where this is strictly necessary. Students should nevertheless recognise that appeals are not anonymous processes. Depending on the issues raised, it may be necessary for academic staff or others involved in the original decision to be informed that an appeal has been submitted and to be given an opportunity to respond. The investigator will decide what information needs to be shared in order to conduct a fair investigation. 

If you have concerns about the potential impact of an appeal on your relationships within the School, you may wish to seek independent advice before deciding how to proceed. The Students’ Union Advice Service may be able to help you understand the process and consider the options available to you. 

You may be, but this is not always necessary. 

Many appeals can be considered on the basis of the written submission, supporting evidence and information already held by the School. 

However, an investigator may decide that it would be helpful to speak to you, members of academic staff or other individuals involved in the case. This may happen where there are factual disputes, where clarification is needed, or where a discussion would assist understanding of the issues raised. 

If you are asked to attend a meeting, you are entitled to ask for permission for someone to attend with you to provide support. They will not be allowed to represent you, but they can be present and you will be entitled to talk to them during the meeting, privately if necessary. 

Any meeting held as part of an appeal investigation is intended to help the investigator understand the issues. It is not a disciplinary hearing and it is not a second assessment, progress review, upgrade or viva examination. If a meeting takes place, the investigator may make a written note of the discussion and take it into account when reaching their decision. This will not be a verbatim transcript and will reflect the investigator’s own understanding of the meeting. 

Students are welcome to take notes at meetings and retain them for their records.

If you are invited to attend a meeting as part of an appeal investigation, you may ask for permission for another person to attend with you in a supportive capacity. This may include, for example, a fellow student, a friend, a family member, a Students’ Union adviser or a trade union representative. 

The purpose of any accompanying person is normally to provide support rather than to represent you or answer questions on your behalf. The investigator may determine the arrangements that will apply to a particular meeting, including the extent to which an accompanying person may participate. 

Students should not assume that appeal meetings operate in the same way as employment, disciplinary or legal proceedings. The appeals process is an academic procedure governed by the Appeals Regulations for Research Students, rather than an employment process. 

If you wish to be accompanied at a meeting, you should discuss this with the PhD Academy as early as possible so that appropriate arrangements can be considered.

Meetings held as part of an appeal investigation must not be audio- or video-recorded without the knowledge and agreement of all those present. 

Students are welcome to take written notes during meetings and retain them for their own records. Any recording made with the agreement of those present should be treated as confidential and must not be shared beyond those entitled to receive it without appropriate permission. 

The School may take action where recordings are made, retained or shared inappropriately. 

They may do. 

Depending on the issues raised, an investigator may seek information from members of your department, your supervisors, members of a progress review or upgrade panel, your examiners, or other members of staff involved in the original decision. 

The investigator will decide what information is required to consider the appeal fairly. In some cases, the written record may be sufficient. In other cases, further clarification may be required from those involved in the original process. 

The investigator’s role is not to defend the original decision or to advocate for any individual. Their role is to consider the evidence and determine whether the appeal should be upheld under the Appeals Regulations. 

Appeals cannot normally be investigated without sharing some information with other people. 

You should expect that the information you provide may be shared with, or summarised for, individuals who need to understand and respond to the issues you have raised. This may include academic staff, members of review or upgrade panels, examiners, departmental staff and relevant members of the School’s administration. 

The investigator will decide what information needs to be shared in order to investigate the appeal fairly. Information will not normally be circulated more widely than is necessary for the purposes of the investigation. 

The School recognises that appeal submissions often contain personal or sensitive information. Investigators will seek to handle such information appropriately while ensuring that individuals who are asked to respond understand the issues raised and have a fair opportunity to comment where necessary.

The investigator will consider the information you provide in support of your appeal. However, they are not limited to considering only the material submitted by you. 

Depending on the issues raised, the investigator may also consider relevant information already held by the School, information provided by academic or professional services staff, documentation relating to the original decision-making process, and information obtained during the course of the investigation. 

For example, this might include correspondence, progress review or upgrade records, examination reports, notes of meetings, or responses to enquiries made by the investigator. 

The investigator will decide what information is relevant to the appeal and what weight should be given to it. Their role is to establish whether there are grounds to uphold the appeal under the Appeals Regulations, rather than simply to assess the information provided by one party or another. 

You may explain if there is information that you consider particularly sensitive and why you are concerned about it being shared. 

However, complete confidentiality cannot always be guaranteed within an appeals process. In some cases, information may need to be shared, or its substance summarised, in order for the School to investigate the appeal properly and allow relevant individuals to respond. 

The investigator will make their own judgement about what information needs to be disclosed as part of a fair investigation. Where possible, concerns about confidentiality will be taken into account when deciding how information is handled. 

You should normally submit your appeal within the required deadline, even if you are still waiting for information that you have requested from the School. 

For example, if you have submitted a Subject Access Request or requested documents from your department that have not yet been provided, you should submit the appeal using the information currently available to you, and explain in your appeal submission which additional information you have requested, when you requested it and why you believe it is relevant to your appeal. You may also ask the investigator to consider obtaining the information directly from the relevant department or service. 

The Appeals Regulations contain a number of indicative timescales which are intended to help ensure that appeals are considered promptly. Many appeals are concluded within these timescales. However, every appeal is different and some cases require additional investigation before a fair decision can be reached.

Additional time may be needed where, for example: 

• the appeal raises multiple grounds of appeal;a large volume of documentation needs to be reviewed; 
• information is required from several departments or individuals; 
• key individuals are unavailable; 
• the appeal overlaps with another School procedure; or 
• further enquiries are required before the investigator can reach a properly informed decision. 

Students should therefore view the published timescales as an indication of the School’s normal expectations rather than as a guarantee that every appeal will be concluded within a fixed period. Where an appeal is likely to take longer than expected, the PhD Academy will normally keep you informed of progress and provide updated timescales where possible. 

The Appeals Regulations also allow a short period between a decision being reached and the formal outcome being communicated to you. This period is used to allow the School to implement the decision appropriately, communicate with relevant departments or examiners, prepare the outcome letter and consider whether any support or practical arrangements may be required. 

Students should not make assumptions about the outcome of an appeal based on the time taken to communicate a decision. A delay does not indicate that an appeal has been upheld, that it has been rejected, or that there is a problem with the investigation. In most cases, it reflects the practical work required to implement the decision and communicate it clearly. 

Outcome letters normally explain: 

• the grounds of appeal that were considered; 
• the evidence that was taken into account; 
• the decision reached; and 
• the reasons for that decision. 

The level of detail will vary depending on the nature and complexity of the appeal. 

The purpose of the outcome letter is to explain how the decision was reached and to help you understand the reasons for the outcome. Where relevant, the letter will also explain any further options available to you under the Appeals Regulations. 

The investigator will consider the appeal submission, supporting evidence, information held by the School and any additional information obtained during the investigation. The investigator will then determine whether the appeal falls within the permitted grounds set out in the Appeals Regulations and whether there is sufficient evidence to uphold the appeal. 

The investigator’s role is not to decide whether they would personally have reached the same academic judgement as the original decision-makers. Their role is to determine whether the appeal should be upheld under the grounds available in the regulations.

When your appeal is received, it is reviewed by a member of the Research Degrees Sub-Committee. 

The Stage 1 decision-maker will not have participated in the original decision-making process. They will first determine whether your appeal falls within the permitted grounds set out in the regulations. Appeals that do not fall within those grounds may be dismissed at this stage. 

Where an appeal does fall within the permitted grounds, the decision-maker will consider the evidence in full before reaching a decision. 

The Stage 1 decision-maker may conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the appeal and uphold the original decision. 

Alternatively, they may conclude that the appeal should be upheld. In those circumstances, they may require the relevant process to be reconsidered. 

For example, a department may be required to conduct a new progress review or upgrade assessment. In examination cases, the original examiners may be asked to reconsider their decision, or a new examination panel may be appointed. 

An upheld appeal does not automatically result in a student being upgraded, awarded a PhD or awarded a different examination outcome. Instead, it normally results in the relevant decision-making process being reconsidered in accordance with the appeal outcome.

Not necessarily. 

An appeal may be upheld because the School concludes that a procedural issue, previously unavailable information or another factor requires the original decision-making process to be reconsidered. 

The purpose of the appeals process is not to determine whether the original decision-makers acted in bad faith or reached the wrong academic judgement. Rather, it is to determine whether there are grounds under the Appeals Regulations for intervention. 

Where an appeal is upheld, the appropriate response will depend on the circumstances of the case and the issues identified during the investigation. 

Not necessarily. 

Where an appeal is upheld, the investigator will determine what action is required under the Appeals Regulations. In some cases, this may involve a decision being reconsidered by the original decision-makers. In other cases, it may be appropriate for a new panel or different examiners to be appointed. 

The appropriate response will depend on the nature of the appeal and the issues identified during the investigation. For example, where an appeal identifies a procedural error, it may be possible for the original decision-makers to reconsider the matter through a corrected process. In other cases, the investigator may conclude that a fresh decision-making body is required. 

Students should not assume that a successful appeal will automatically result in a new panel or new examiners being appointed. Equally, students should not assume that the original decision-makers will always remain involved. 

The School’s objective is to ensure that any reconsideration is fair, independent and appropriate to the circumstances of the case. This may involve the original decision-makers, different decision-makers, or a combination of both, depending on what is required to address the issues identified in the appeal.

No. 

The Appeals Regulations provide a process through which students may appeal eligible decisions. They do not provide a corresponding right for departments, supervisors, review panels or examiners to appeal against the outcome of a successful student appeal. 

Departments, supervisors and examiners may be asked to provide information during an appeal investigation and may be consulted where implementation of an appeal outcome requires further action. However, they do not have a separate right of appeal against the investigator’s decision. 

In very exceptional circumstances, the School may need to consider issues identified after a decision has been reached. For example, this might arise if a material factual error, procedural issue or other significant concern comes to light which appears capable of affecting the outcome of the appeal. 

Such situations are expected to be exceptionally rare. They do not amount to a right of appeal by the department or any other party. Rather, they reflect the School’s responsibility to ensure that decisions are implemented fairly, accurately and in accordance with the relevant regulations and procedures. 

The effect of an appeal on a student’s registration, progression or academic status will depend on the circumstances of the case and the decision being appealed. 

As a general principle, the original decision remains in effect unless the appeal process determines otherwise. Students do not need to accept the original decision, or the outcome of an appeal, before the School gives effect to it. Accordingly, where a decision changes a student’s registration status, progression status or conditions of registration, that decision normally remains in effect unless and until it is changed through the appeal process, or unless the School explicitly confirms that its effect has been paused. Students should continue to comply with any requirements, deadlines or conditions that apply to them – including those which stem from the decision being appealed – unless they are told otherwise by the School. This includes submitting PhD Log records relating to supervisory interactions. 

In some exceptional cases, specific arrangements may be put in place while the appeal is ongoing. 

If you are unsure how an appeal may affect your individual circumstances, or would like to ask for the effect of a decision to be paused pending the outcome of your appeal, you should state this clearly in your appeal. The School will consider any such request in accordance with the relevant regulations and procedures.

If your appeal is not upheld at Stage 1, you may be able to submit a Stage 2 appeal. 

Stage 2 is not a second opportunity to argue the same case or to seek a different academic judgement. Instead, it is a review of the Stage 1 appeal decision itself. 

A Stage 2 appeal can only be submitted on limited grounds. These include a procedural flaw in the Stage 1 process, significant new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided earlier, or a belief that the Stage 1 decision was unreasonable or disproportionate.

Some appeals raise issues that overlap with other School procedures. For example, an appeal may include concerns about the conduct of a member of staff, the quality of supervision, alleged bullying or harassment, disciplinary matters, fitness to study issues, or other matters that may fall within a different procedure. Where this happens, the School will consider how the different processes should be managed. 

In some cases, it may be appropriate for the appeal and another procedure to be considered separately but at the same time. In other cases, it may be appropriate for one procedure to be considered first before work continues on the other. 

There is no single approach that applies in every case. The School will decide how best to proceed based on the specific circumstances, including the issues raised, the evidence available, the extent to which the matters overlap and the need to ensure that all relevant issues can be considered fairly. 

Where a decision is made to pause part of an appeal or another procedure, the School will normally explain this and keep the student informed about what will happen next. 

Students should be aware that the existence of another procedure does not necessarily mean that an appeal will be paused. Equally, raising an issue within an appeal does not necessarily mean that it will be considered as part of the appeal process. Some matters may need to be considered through a different procedure that is specifically designed to address those concerns. 

A student submits a Stage 1 appeal and provides several pieces of documentary evidence. The outcome letter refers to some of the evidence but appears not to address a key document that was directly relevant to one of the appeal grounds. The student submits a Stage 2 appeal explaining why they believe the omission may have affected the outcome.

The Stage 2 appeal raises concerns about the appeal process itself rather than simply repeating the original arguments. The Stage 2 appeal may therefore proceed.

A student remains disappointed with the outcome of their Stage 1 appeal. They submit a Stage 2 appeal repeating exactly the same arguments and evidence that have already been considered. They do not identify any concerns about how the Stage 1 appeal was conducted and do not provide any new evidence. The student simply believes that a different person should reach a different conclusion.

While that disappointment is understandable, Stage 2 is not designed to provide a second opportunity to argue the same case. In these circumstances, the Stage 2 appeal is unlikely to proceed. 

A Completion of Procedures letter confirms that the School’s internal procedures have been exhausted and that there are no further internal appeal stages available. 

The letter explains the outcome of your appeal and confirms that the School’s internal processes have been completed. 

If you remain dissatisfied after receiving a Completion of Procedures letter, you may be able to ask the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) to review your case. 

The OIA is independent of the School and considers complaints and appeals from students who have completed their provider’s internal procedures. 

Normally, no. You should usually complete the School’s internal complaints or appeals procedure before asking the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education to review your case. 

The OIA normally expects students to have received a Completion of Procedures letter before submitting a complaint to the OIA. This letter confirms that the School’s internal procedures have been completed and that there are no further internal stages available. 

In exceptional circumstances, the OIA may decide to review a case where a student has not completed the provider’s internal procedures or does not have a Completion of Procedures letter. This is unusual and will depend on the OIA’s own rules.  

If you are considering contacting the OIA before the School’s internal process is complete, you may wish to seek independent advice from the Students’ Union Advice Service first. You should also read the OIA’s guidance carefully.