Academic Appeals and Complaints Policy

1. Purpose and scope

This policy sets out how a student raises an appeal or a complaint, and how LIBT handles it. One route, one form, one set of timescales, covering both appeals and complaints. It also covers a different kind of student-raised concern at section 7: a confidential disclosure about wrongdoing affecting someone other than the student themselves. This is also a student-raised concern, and this policy is the front door for those.

This policy uses the terms defined in the Glossary (LIBT Quality Glossary). In particular, see the Glossary for the working distinction between an appeal (a request to review an academic decision) and a complaint (dissatisfaction about a service, process, or conduct that isn't a request to change an academic decision).

This policy applies to all students on LIBT-awarded, QUALIFI-awarded, and LIBT Malta-awarded programmes. Where QUALIFI's own rules on appeals differ, QUALIFI's rules take precedence for QUALIFI-awarded programmes, and this must be stated on the relevant programme specification.

2. Which route do I use?

If you want to...	Use
Challenge an assessment grade or decision on procedural grounds	Appeal
Challenge a malpractice penalty	Appeal
Challenge a Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) decision	Appeal
Challenge a refusal of reasonable adjustment or special consideration	Appeal
Raise dissatisfaction with teaching, support, administration, or staff conduct	Complaint
Raise dissatisfaction with a fee, refund, or admissions decision	Complaint
Report a genuine concern about wrongdoing affecting someone else or LIBT itself, not your own treatment	Confidential disclosure (section 7)

If you use the wrong route, LIBT will reclassify your submission and tell you it has done so. You do not need to resubmit.

3. Grounds

3.1 Valid grounds for appeal

A student may appeal a decision described in section 2 if they believe:

a. A documented procedure was not correctly followed, and this materially disadvantaged the student. b. The student was denied a fair opportunity to demonstrate competency against the relevant assessment criteria or standards. c. The decision is one that no reasonable person, properly applying the relevant policy, could have reached. Disagreement with the outcome is not, by itself, sufficient. The student must set out why the decision is unreasonable, not just unwelcome. d. Prejudice or bias by a staff member can be evidenced. e. Extenuating circumstances were not disclosed at the time for a reason the student can explain (for example, the circumstance itself prevented disclosure), and the student is now able to provide evidence of both the circumstance and the reason for non-disclosure.

3.2 Invalid grounds for appeal

The following are not grounds for appeal:

• Disagreement with academic judgement where no procedural irregularity or bias is claimed.
• The actual mark awarded, where this is a matter of academic judgement and no procedural irregularity is claimed.
• Concerns about the quality of teaching or supervision that were not raised at the time. These are a complaint matter (section 2) and should be raised as they arise, not saved for an appeal.
• Errors in calculating or recording marks that were not identified and raised by the student.

3.3 Grounds for complaint

A student may complain about a service, process, decision, or staff conduct that has fallen short of what they were reasonably entitled to expect, provided the matter is not itself a request to change an academic decision (see section 2).

4. Evidence

Every appeal and every complaint must be submitted using the Appeal/Complaint Form (Appendix). It must include supporting evidence relevant to the ground(s) claimed, for example correspondence, screenshots, medical or other third-party documentation, or a clear timeline of events. A submission with no supporting evidence will be returned to the student with a request to provide it before the matter is progressed.

5. Timescales

Stage	Action	Timescale
Submission	Student submits the form and evidence	Within 15 working days of the decision, event, or (for extenuating circumstances under 3.1(e)) the point at which disclosure became possible
Stage 1: Informal resolution	Relevant staff member (assessor, tutor, or line manager, as applicable) reviews and responds	10 working days
Stage 2: Formal review	Reviewed by the relevant Head of function (not the person whose decision is being appealed or complained about)	10 working days
Stage 3: Panel review (final internal stage)	Reviewed by the Appeals and Complaints Panel	15 working days

If a named individual required at any stage is unavailable, LIBT will substitute a suitably qualified deputy rather than delay the process. The identity of the deputy is recorded on the form.

6. Procedure

6.1 Stage 1: Informal resolution

The student raises the matter directly with the relevant staff member, who records the discussion and outcome on the form. This stage exists to resolve straightforward misunderstandings quickly. It is not a negotiation over the penalty or grade itself, and it does not require the student to accept an outcome they disagree with. If unresolved, the student moves to Stage 2. LIBT routes this referral, not the student.

6.2 Stage 2: Formal review

The relevant Head of function reviews all evidence, the record of Stage 1, and any policy or procedure said to have been breached, and issues a written decision. If unresolved, the matter proceeds to Stage 3.

6.3 Stage 3: Panel review

An Appeals and Complaints Panel considers the case. The Panel consists of a chair (a senior academic or member of the Academic Board not previously involved in the case) and two other members not previously involved. The Panel reviews whether the correct procedure was followed and whether the grounds in section 3 are made out. It does not re-mark or re-assess the underlying work. This is stated to the student in advance, so the limits of Stage 3 are clear. The student (and, for a malpractice appeal, the staff member concerned) may submit written representations and may be accompanied by a person of their choice. The Panel's decision is final within LIBT's internal process and is communicated in writing with reasons.

7. Confidential disclosure (whistleblowing)

This section is for a genuine concern that something is wrong, affecting another student, a member of staff, or LIBT itself, raised in the public interest. It is not a request to change a decision about the reporting student themselves (use sections 1–6 for that). It covers concerns such as: fraud, corruption, or bribery; a conflict of interest; a danger to health, safety, or the environment; failure to comply with a legal or statutory obligation; academic, administrative, or professional malpractice; obstruction of academic freedom; or the concealment of any of these.

7.1 How to raise a concern

A student should raise a concern as soon as possible with the Student Counsellor or a student representative. Where the matter is more serious, or neither of those feels appropriate, the student may instead raise it in writing, in confidence, with the Academic Registry. Where the concern is about the Academic Registry itself, it is raised instead with the Chair of the Academic Board. A student who wants to raise a concern without giving their name may do so. However, an anonymous disclosure is harder to investigate, and LIBT's ability to act on it, or to keep the student informed of progress, is more limited as a result.

7.2 Confidentiality and protection

A student's identity is kept confidential if they ask for this, as far as is practical and consistent with investigating the concern properly. A student who raises a genuine concern in good faith will not suffer any detriment as a result. This includes suspension or removal from studies, disciplinary action, or other unfavourable treatment connected with having raised the concern. A student later found to have made a malicious, false, or bad-faith allegation is dealt with under the Assessment Malpractice Policy or this policy's ordinary complaint route, as appropriate, rather than under this section.

7.3 Investigation

The person the concern is raised with makes an initial assessment within 14 working days and tells the student the outcome of that assessment. Where the concern is within the scope of this section, it is investigated. This may be done by the person it was raised with, or by someone else without a conflict of interest. The person or persons the concern is about are told what is alleged, and are given a chance to respond before the investigation concludes. Where the concern is genuine but falls under a different policy (for example, it's actually an ordinary complaint, or a malpractice matter), it is redirected there instead and the student is told. The student is kept informed of progress so far as confidentiality allows, and told the outcome.

7.4 If a student remains unsatisfied

A student who is not satisfied with how their disclosure was handled, because the procedure wasn't followed properly, there's evidence of bias, or genuinely new evidence has come to light, may ask for it to be reviewed by the Appeals and Complaints Panel (section 6.3). The Panel's decision on the review is final within LIBT's internal process.

8. External escalation

If a student remains dissatisfied after Stage 3 (or after a review under section 7.4), they may refer the matter to the relevant awarding or accrediting body, CMI or QUALIFI as applicable to their programme, using that body's own published contact details.

9. Recording and monitoring

All appeals and complaints are logged centrally by the Academic Registry, regardless of outcome, so that patterns (for example, repeated issues with a particular module, assessor, or process) can be identified. Equality data is collected on a confidential basis for monitoring purposes only. A confidential disclosure under section 7 is logged separately, with more restricted access, given the greater sensitivity.

10. Relationship to other policies

This policy is the single route for appeals arising under the Assessment Malpractice Policy, the Recognition of Prior Learning Policy, and the Reasonable Adjustments and Special Consideration Policies. Where any of those policies refers to "the right to appeal," it means this policy.

11. Review

This policy is reviewed annually by the Academic Board. Any change must be checked against the Cross-Reference Map.

Company information: London Institute of Business & Technology Limited (LIBT) Hillary House, Prospect Hill, Douglas, IM1 1EQ, Isle of Man, British Isles.

---

Appendix: Appeal/Complaint Form

Field
Student name
Enrolment number
Programme name/code
Route: Appeal ☐ or Complaint ☐
Decision, event, or matter being raised
Ground(s) relied on (see section 3)
Evidence attached (list)
Date of decision/event
Date submitted

Stage 1: Informal resolution Discussion summary: _______ Outcome: _______ Staff signature / date: _______ Student signature / date: _______

Stage 2: Formal review Reviewed by (Head of function): _______ Decision and reasons: _______ Signature / date: _______

Stage 3: Panel review Panel members: _______ Decision and reasons: _______ Chair signature / date: _______

Students have the right to be accompanied by a person of their choice at any stage.