The voice of Ceana, a student at King’s College London, resonates with frustration as she embarks on legal action against the university, claiming that the procedures surrounding her degree classification were unjust. Just days before her graduation, she learned that her first-class degree had been downgraded to a 2:1 due to a miscalculation involving a peer-reviewed assignment that she could not access.
Ceana, who has deferred her graduation, expressed her discontent with the university’s handling of her case, stating, „I want people to understand this isn’t even about the grade – it’s about the process and it’s been unjust. I’m doing this for the students before me and after me – I don’t want it to happen to anyone else.“ Her determination to seek justice stems from her belief that the university failed to follow proper procedures in assessing her academic performance.
Background of the Dispute
Ceana began her studies in business management at King’s College London in September 2021, becoming the first in her family to attend university. Throughout her academic journey, she was dedicated to achieving a first-class degree, often sacrificing social events to focus on her studies. In May 2024, she logged into the university’s online portal and calculated her grades, believing she had successfully achieved a first-class classification.
A first-class degree in the UK is awarded to students who achieve an overall average of 70% or higher. Ceana felt that her hard work and late nights had paid off, stating, „I thought getting a first from King’s would open a lot of doors for me.“ However, her optimism was short-lived. On July 9, 2024, she discovered that her grade had been incorrectly recorded as 67, resulting in a downgrade to a 2:1.
Miscommunication and Appeals Process
Upon noticing the discrepancy, Ceana reached out to university staff, who initially confirmed that her c-score had been miscalculated and assured her that it would be corrected. However, as the graduation ceremony approached, she received conflicting information. On July 29, just three days before her graduation, the program manager informed her that her grade for a key module was actually 68, not 70, and that the higher score did not account for peer review contributions.
Ceana was perplexed, as she had been unable to access the peer review portal, which accounted for 25% of the final mark for the module. „It felt so unfair – first, they tell me it was an error, then I find out others have been able to score me,“ she remarked. This led her to defer her graduation, feeling that accepting a degree she believed was inaccurately assessed would not be authentic.
Legal Action and Institutional Response
On September 2, 2024, Ceana submitted an academic appeal to the university, expecting a timely response in accordance with university guidelines. However, the university’s reply arrived eight working days late, ultimately denying her appeal on the grounds that she was challenging academic judgment rather than procedural fairness. Ceana argued that her complaint was rooted in the university’s failure to follow proper procedures.
Following the rejection of her initial appeal, she submitted a stage two appeal on November 6, 2024, but received a response 50 working days later, again denying her appeal. Frustrated by the delays and lack of transparency, she noted, „If I filed something late as a student, they wouldn’t even accept it. It’s like they’re able to do whatever they want to do and don’t have to follow their own procedures and timelines.“
Continued Struggles and Future Steps
In July 2025, Ceana received confirmation from a university staff member that the peer review link had not been visible on her account due to updates made to the portal. By September 2025, she finally gained access to the peer review portal, only to find that her name appeared as having completed the peer review, but without a timestamp to verify when this was submitted.
Ceana also submitted subject access requests to uncover any withheld information, but faced significant delays in receiving responses. In November 2025, she contacted the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, only to be informed in March 2026 that her complaint was not justified, although not all elements of her case were considered.
Judicial Review and Ongoing Legal Proceedings
Determined to seek justice, Ceana has decided to pursue a judicial review through the administrative court, a specialized court within the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. She has opted to represent herself, citing the high cost of legal representation, estimated at approximately £25,000. To assist with potential legal fees, she has set up a GoFundMe page.
In May 2026, Ceana sent a letter before claim to King’s College London, which was met with a response indicating that the university did not see a basis for settlement but was open to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). However, the university later withdrew this offer, stating that they did not consider ADR productive at this stage.
Ceana is set to graduate in July 2026, and with the timeline pressing, she hopes to resolve her case before the ceremony. A spokesperson for King’s College London stated, „We take all matters relating to student grades and academic appeals very seriously to ensure fairness for all of our students and we have sincerely apologised for the error in email correspondence that occurred. However, this error is separate from and does not affect the outcome of investigations.“ They expressed confidence in the thoroughness of their investigation and the conclusions reached.
As Ceana navigates this challenging process, she remains committed to advocating for herself and future students facing similar issues, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in academic assessments.
Quellen: uk.news.yahoo
