In this section

If you are unsuccessful in your Stage Two Complaint, you can request a review of this decision if you meet the grounds of review. You need to do this within 10 working days (approximately two weeks) of the date of the Proctors decision. The University's working days are Monday-Friday excluding bank holiday and university closure days.

This advice applies to any complaints made under the University of Oxford Student Complaints Procedure. If you are wishing to request a review of another complaint outcome, then read our Advice Agreement and Contact Us and we'd be happy to help

The grounds of review are:

  • There was a procedural irregularity or error in the Proctor's investigation
  • The Proctor's decision was unreasonable (you must identify which aspects of the Proctor's decision you consider to be objectively unreasonable and explain why)
  • You were not provide with clear reasons for the Proctor's decision
  • You have material evidence which the Proctor has not yet seen which you have valid reasons for not having provided earlier 

You should submit this via the form, ideally digitally (you can use a digital/typed signature too). You can find a copy of the form here: https://www.proctors.ox.ac.uk/forms. Here's some guidance on how to fill it out:

Section 1: About you

This is factual information as to your current academic situation. Status on course refers to whether you are currently studying, suspended or completed your course. If you are a non-matriculated student, you can write non-matriculated in the 'course' section. Ensure you have included an alternative email to your university email in case your university IT account closes down before your appeal is able to be concluded, as all communication with you will be done via email.

Section 2: Review Summary

Is this a review request for a complaint or academic appeal? Select Complaint

What is the date of the Proctors decision letter sent to you under Stage 2 of the appeals/complaints procedure?Give the date you received the outcome of your initial complaint to the Proctors.

If your review request is about a decision communicated to you over 10 working days ago, please confirm your reason for lateness. If you are within the time period, you can leave this blank or write n/a. If you are not submitting your appeal in the deadline give a brief explanation e.g. you were waiting to hear back from a Subject Access Request or you were in hospital. You should attach evidence of whatever your reason for lateness to the appeal.

What ground(s) are you appealing under? Select which grounds you are appealing under (see below for advice). You can appeal under multiple grounds if they apply. If your review request does not fall under these grounds, you will not be able to appeal.

Are there any time-critical factors that the Proctors should be aware of? [max 150 words]. Explain any reasons why the Proctors may need to consider your appeal as a priority, for example if this is impacting your ability to progress into the next year of your studies.

Section 3: Review Details (stage 3)

What are the key points of your appeal? Explain under the ground(s) of appeal you selected in the appeal summary, your reason for your appeal. You can write up to 700 words in each section, so be clear and concise yet polite in your explanation. Ideally, use the parts the proctors have laid out as sub-headings to help direct the Proctors to your point. Here's some specific guidance for each of the grounds:

  • Procedural Irregularity or error in the Proctor's investigation

This ground is used when you believe that there was an error in the way in which your initial appeal was considered by the Proctors. It's important to note that this is focussed on how your Stage Two Complaint was considered, rather than repeating the information on any procedural irregularities which led to the initial appeal. The Proctors are seeking to understand:

(i) What the procedural irregularity or error is? - explain clearly what error you are challenging. For example, did they not consider one of your pieces of evidence?

(ii) Any underlying facts, including key events and dates - list in chronological order any key information you feel is helpful for the Proctors to understand what's happened. The Proctor's considering this will not have had any role in deciding your initial appeal, and can only make the decision on the information you provide, so ensure you include everything.

(iii) The evidence that supports this? - direct the Proctors to specific pieces of evidence which prove this (for example, write: see annex C) and explain how the evidence proves this. This might be evidence you have gotten from the stage two outcome or from a subject access request.

(iv) The impact you have faced as a result of this

What has been the impact on you? For example, by the evidence not being considered, your appeal was unsuccessful. You need to demonstrate that if the procedural irregularity/error had not occurred, there would have been a different outcome, thus the impact was more than minimal or trivial.

  • Decision was unreasonable

This ground is used when you are confident that the Proctor's have considered all the evidence, but do not believe they came to the right conclusion when they considered it. The Proctors are seeking to understand:

(i) What aspects of the Proctor's decision you consider to be objectively unreasonable (please identify the relevant paragraphs in the Proctor's decision letter)- here the Proctor's are looking for specific examples of an unreasonable decision taking into account all of the information presented to them.

(ii) Any underlying facts, including key events and dates - list in chronological order any key information you feel is helpful for the Proctors to understand what's happened. The Proctor's considering this will not have had any role in deciding your initial appeal, and can only make the decision on the information you provide, so ensure you include everything.

(iii) The evidence that supports this? - direct the Proctors to specific pieces of evidence which prove this (for example, write: see annex C) and explain how the evidence proves this. This might be evidence you have gotten from the stage two outcome or from a subject access request.

(iv) The impact you have faced as a result of this

What has been the impact on you? For example, by unreasonable decision, your appeal was unsuccessful. You need to demonstrate that if the unreasonable decision had not occurred, there would have been a different outcome, thus the impact was more than minimal or trivial.

  • No clear reasons provided

This ground is used where you are unsure of how the Proctor's came to their decision, and therefore cannot be sure if there was a procedural irregularity/error or the decision was unreasonable. The Proctors are seeking to understand:

(i) What aspects of the Proctor's decision do you not consider were supported with reasons or were unclear (please identify the relevant paragraphs in the Proctor's decision letter)- here the Proctor's are looking for specific examples of an unclear decision or where the Proctor's do not seem to have given a clear reason

(ii) Any underlying facts, including key events and dates - list in chronological order any key information you feel is helpful for the Proctors to understand what's happened. The Proctor's considering this will not have had any role in deciding your initial appeal, and can only make the decision on the information you provide, so ensure you include everything.

(iii) The evidence that supports this? - direct the Proctors to specific pieces of evidence which prove this (for example, write: see annex C) and explain how the evidence proves this. This might be evidence you have gotten from the stage two outcome or from a subject access request.

(iv) The impact you have faced as a result of this

What has been the impact on you? For example, by an unclear decision being made your complaint was not upheld. You need to demonstrate that if this point had been considered fully, there would have been a different outcome, thus the impact was more than minimal or trivial.

  • New material evidence

This ground is used where you have new evidence which could have helped to prove your initial complaint had it been presented earlier, but you were unable to. The Proctors are seeking to understand:

(i) What the new evidence is?- here the Proctor's are wanting a succinct explanation of what the evidence shows. Your stage two complaint outcome can sometimes highlight the types of evidence which the Proctor's would have wanted to see in order to uphold the complaint.

(ii) Why you consider it relevant - explain how it helps to prove your initial complaint. You may want to review our advice on stage two complaints to show how to make your case for your complaint.

(iii) Why you have not provided it earlier - You should provide a clear rationale for why you were unable to provide this sooner, ideally with evidence to support why the evidence is late. For example, this may be due to your own ill health and thus inability to present it sooner, or, the evidence only being available now. Generally, the Proctor's expect you to present all your evidence at the stage two complaint stage, and therefore are unlikely to accept an explanation that you did not want to provide the evidence sooner.

  • Evidence

What evidence are you submitting as part of your complaint?

Evidence is really important, as the Proctors will only determine your appeal outcome based on the statement and evidence you put forward. They won't do any investigation themselves to find additional evidence to support your appeal.

For each piece of evidence, you should rename it as the Annex number it is, and a brief description. E.g. Annex A, email from DGS. On the form, for each piece of evidence you are providing you should give a brief description, explain who authored it (e.g. yourself, your doctor, your DGS), the date it was created and how it is relevant to your complaint. For example, does it show a process wasn't followed correctly?

To make it as easy as possible for the Proctors to understand the relevance of each of your pieces of evidence, in your main statement when you are explaining something which is evidence, you should write (see: annex xyz).

If you have more than five pieces of evidence, then you can add additional rows. However, be careful to ensure that every piece of evidence is complete, relevant and proportionate. Therefore, be concise in what you are presenting whilst ensuring the whole picture is showcased.

  • Outcome

What outcome would you like to see as a result of the complaint?

Whilst the Proctors cannot guarantee any particular outcome, it is helpful for them to have an understanding of what would feel like a good outcome for you. Generally, the outcomes fall into any (or all) of the following:

  • - An apology
  • - An policy change
  • - An revisiting of a previous decision (note: this doesn't include academic decisions, the complaints process cannot be used to challenge an academic decision such as your final grade, this would need to be done via the academic appeals process)
  • - Compensation

    The University of Oxford subscribes to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, who are an ombudsman of Higher Education institutions. If you go through all of the Universities processes without a satisfactory resolution, you can complain to them for a final decision. Therefore, the University looks to their guidelines in how to satisfactorily resolve situations. Their guide to 'Putting things right' is therefore a helpful place to get suggestions on different types of remedies available.

Section 5: Declaration & Submit

Have a read through each of the statements, and check you agree with them all. Then, sign (its ok to just write your name in the box) and date it.

 

You can submit your review request by emailing it, alongside your correctly formatted evidence to casework@proctors.ox.ac.uk. They will confirm they've received it within five working days of this date, and aim to get back to you with an outcome within 30 working days.

If you are unhappy with the outcome of your appeal review, you can request a review of the Universities final decision by the external adjudicator the OIA. 

OIA Review 

 

If you have a question not answered by the above or would like your draft review request/evidence checked over by a member of our team, then read our Advice Agreement and Contact Us and we'd be happy to help.