COVID-19 update

We are currently operating under hybrid working arrangements. For details on how you can access our service, please read our information for customers and organisations

Decision Report 201500709

  • Case ref:
  • Date:
    December 2015
  • Body:
    University of Glasgow
  • Sector:
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    academic appeal/exam results/degree classification


Mr C complained that the university did not follow their guidelines when considering his view that his health problems should be taken into account when awarding a grade for his project. Mr C also said the university did not tell him why his health problems did not count as a case of 'good cause'. According to the university's regulations, 'good cause' means illness or other adverse personal circumstances affecting an individual and resulting in that individual either missing an examination, failing to submit coursework on time, or clearly prejudicing their performance in the assessment. In addition, Mr C complained that the university did not follow their guidelines on the discretion to promote his degree classification.

We found that the university had followed their guidelines on 'good cause'. Mr C wanted the university to tell him what else he could have done to show that his health problems were a case of 'good cause'. The university said that the various doctors' letters Mr C provided did not alter the initial conclusion reached by a board of examiners, which was that he did not have 'good cause'. We were satisfied that the university told Mr C why his submission of 'good cause' was dismissed. We also found that the university followed their guidelines when they decided not to promote Mr C's degree classification.

Mr C did not accept the university's position and disagreed with it. However, these were decisions the university were entitled to reach after considering the relevant evidence. We explained to Mr C that disagreement with the university's decisions or with their interpretation of matters was not evidence of an administrative failing on their part. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Updated: March 13, 2018