How to submit an 'outside regulation' request to the Quality and Standards Committee

This section of the Quality Manual sets out the process for requesting approval to take an action that falls outside the University’s standard regulations, where applying the regulations would have a disproportional impact on a specific student or group of students.  The purpose of this procedure is to:

• provide a clear, consistent process for submitting and considering outside regulation requests;
• ensure that all requests are considered fairly and in line with university governance;
• safeguard parity of treatment across campuses (UK, China and Malaysia);
• permit actions outside of regulations only when they are justified, proportionate, and supported by appropriate evidence.

2.1 The following principles underpin how outside regulation requests are considered:

• The Quality Manual provides the regulatory framework governing education and the student experience at the University of Nottingham, and its provisions have regulatory force. Faculties, Schools, Departments and students across all campuses are required to comply with these regulations.
• In exceptional circumstances, a School or Professional Services team may need to seek approval for an action outside of the regulations.
• Requests from all campuses (UNUK, UNM, UNNC) must be considered in a way that ensures parity of treatment across campuses.
• Each request will be considered on its own merit, based on the specific circumstances.
• A decision to accept or refuse a request does not set a precedent for future requests.
• Outside regulation action must not be taken without permission being granted through this procedure

2.2 Retrospective requests are not normally permitted

Requests should be handled proactively to minimise the need for retrospective action.

• Retrospective requests can only be made in cases of severe and compelling circumstances; ordinary delays (e.g., forgetting to submit paperwork in a timely manner) are not sufficient.
• Retrospective requests must be justified with a clear explanation and appropriate supporting evidence.
• Students are expected to meet submission requirements; only severe and evidenced delays justify retrospective consideration.
• It is not possible to wait to see if (for example) extra time is needed following circumstances to then submit a retrospective request.
• Where errors are due to university processes or staff, appropriate corrective actions must be implemented, with evidence of the actions taken and senior sign-off provided.

3.1 Schools

• May seek advice from QSMS (ss-qsc-cases@nottingham.ac.uk) if they believe a proposed action could fall outside the Quality Manual regulations. If advice is sought, it must be obtained from QSMS only.
• If a School decides that an action outside of regulations is necessary, the School is responsible for preparing and submitting the request using the QSC Request Form.
• Requests must be submitted by a nominated representative of the Head of School (e.g. Director of Operations, Exams Officer, Programme Director, Director of ESE, or equivalent). The nominated representative must be notified to QSMS.
• All requests must be approved by the Director of ESE/Director of Teaching and Learning (taught requests) or PGR Director or equivalent (PGR requests) before submission

3.2 Professional Services Teams 

• Where a Professional Services team identifies that a School’s proposed action is outside regulations, the team must advise the School to prepare an outside regulation request.
• Where the issue arises from administrative error or delay within a Professional Services team, then that team is responsible for preparing and submitting the request (not the School).

3.3 The person submitting the outside of regulations request

• The submitter is responsible for ensuring that any request is complete, appropriately checked, and considers all regulatory implications. Detailed guidance on preparation, evidence, and submission requirements is provided in the Procedure section. Requests that are incomplete or lack sufficient supporting evidence may be returned for further information or denied.
• Submitters must remember that the person(s) reviewing the request may not be familiar with the School or course, so sufficient context and information must be included in the documentation.
• Submitters may liaise with QSMS for case-specific advice on how a request should be presented.
• The submitter should liaise with relevant professional services for expert advice (for example, regarding fees or immigration status), and evidence of this consultation must be included with the request.
• The submitter is responsible for ensuring that if additional requests for information are made, relevant stakeholders are informed of the delay and the reasons.

3.4 Quality and Student Management Systems (QSMS)

• The only authorised source of advice on whether an action complies with University regulations.
• Has responsibility for assisting Schools, Departments, RAA, and other professional service teams across all three campuses to interpret the Quality Manual and provide advice on whether a particular action is in accordance with the Quality Manual regulations.
• On receipt of an outside regulation request, QSMS will:
  • acknowledge receipt,
  • triage the request, and
  • where appropriate, arrange for it to be considered by or on behalf of QSC.

4.1 Preparing a Request

• A request must be submitted using the QSC Request Form (see link in Section 5).
• Requests must include:
  • The specific regulation(s) being set aside.
  • The reason(s) for the request.
  • If the reason includes administrative errors, include details of the error, how it occurred, and what steps have been taken to prevent recurrence.
  • Timelines relevant to the request (student start date, dates relating to the request, dates when things were meant to have happened, planned dates if the request is approved).
  • What a standard student journey on the programme would look like and how the request deviates from it.
  • Any necessary support for the student (e.g., during periods away from the university or to catch up on teaching/assessment).
  • Proposed action if the request is approved, including how the student will be supported, and how this differs from the within-regulation action.
  • A summary of the impact of the request on fees, funding, or immigration status, with evidence of consultation with relevant professional services provided.
  • Any curriculum implications for the student.
  • Measures being taken to avoid similar issues in the future.
  • Relevant supporting evidence (see Standard of Evidence regulation), including for example, original Voluntary Interruption of Study forms, requests to transfer taught courses forms, EC, complaint, or appeal outcome letters, or medical evidence. This list is not exhaustive.

• Requests must not be presented as email chains; the form must provide a complete, coherent account.
• Requests must stick to the facts; subjective comments (e.g. the attitude of the student or behaviour of others) are only included if factual and material.
• All regulatory implications must be checked before submission (e.g., impact on maximum registration period, progression rules).
• Full information must be provided at the time of submission to enable timely consideration.

4.2 Submission

• As part of the submission process, a school-based request will require approval from the appropriate Director of ESE/Director of Teaching and Learning (taught requests) or PGR Director of equivalent (PGR requests).
• A requests must be submitted using the QSC Request Form (see link in Section 5).
• QSMS will acknowledge receipt and triage the request.

4.3 Consideration

Depending on the request, consideration may involve:

• Approval by QSMS (or other RAA colleagues) under delegated authority.
• Consideration by an individual QSC member.
• Consideration by a panel of QSC members, who meet regularly to consider submitted requests.
• Chair’s action (Chair or Deputy Chair of QSC), typically for requests relating to multiple/cohort of students.
• In exceptional cases, referral to the full QSC.

4.4 Timeframes

• Requests will normally be forwarded to the appropriate person/team for consideration within 3 working days of receipt.
• For delegated authority, individual QSC member or Chair consideration: a response will normally be sent to QSMS within 5 working days of the request being forwarded to the person/team for review.
• For panel or full committee consideration: Requests must be submitted in time to be included for consideration at a scheduled meeting. Requests received too close to a meeting may be held over for the next scheduled meeting. A response will normally be sent to QSMS within 2 working days of the meeting. 
• If an urgent response is required, it is possible to request expedited consideration. The teams will aim to respond within 2 working days of receipt, depending on the nature of the request and the completeness of the request.
• Responses will be one of the outcomes listed in section 4.5 below.

4.5 Outcomes

• There are three possible outcomes for a request: approval, decline, or sometimes an alternative suggestion is made.
• If a request is incomplete or lacks sufficient justification or evidence, it may be declined. Advice will be provided detailing what additional information is required and subsequently a completely new request would need to be submitted.
• Decisions are based on the specific circumstances of each request. Approval or refusal does not set a precedent for future requests.

4.6 Any questions?

Any questions regarding this process must be sent to the QSMS team ss-qsc-cases@nottingham.ac.uk

Standards of evidence regulation

QSC case request form (UG and PGT)

QSC case request form (PGR)

How to propose changes to the Quality Manual