University refusing disability adjustments after enrolment

Short answer

No, not simply on those grounds. A university in England and Wales cannot lawfully refuse reasonable adjustments purely because you did not disclose your disability before enrolling or because you have not formally registered with its disability service. The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 does not depend on you having disclosed at any particular time or having gone through an internal registration process. What matters is whether you meet the legal definition of a disabled person and whether the university knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that you were disabled and disadvantaged. Non-disclosure and non-registration can affect what the university reasonably could have done and when, but they are not a legitimate blanket reason to refuse.

The legal framework

Universities are covered by Part 6 of the Equality Act 2010. Section 91 imposes a duty on the responsible body of a higher education institution not to discriminate against students, and this includes the duty to make reasonable adjustments. The detail of the adjustment duty for education is set out in section 20 and Schedule 13.

The adjustment duty has three limbs: adjusting provisions, criteria or practices that put disabled students at a substantial disadvantage; taking reasonable steps to remove or alter physical features that cause disadvantage; and providing auxiliary aids and services where reasonable.

You are disabled for these purposes if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. That is a legal test. It does not require any formal diagnosis to have been recorded by the university, and it does not require you to have told the university at any particular point.

The anticipatory duty

A crucial and often misunderstood point is that for education providers the reasonable adjustments duty is anticipatory. This was emphasised by the High Court in University of Bristol v Abrahart [2024] EWHC 299 (KB). A university is expected to think ahead and put in place, in the way it designs its courses, assessments and policies, the adjustments that disabled students in general may reasonably need, without waiting for an individual disclosure or request.

This matters directly to your question. Because part of the duty is anticipatory and owed to disabled students as a group, the university cannot treat the duty as arising only once you personally have completed a disclosure or registration step. Some barriers should have been designed out already.

The role of the university’s knowledge

The individual, reactive part of the duty does interact with knowledge. In practice a university can argue it was not in breach for a past period if it genuinely did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that you were disabled and at a substantial disadvantage. This is why disclosure and registration matter in reality, even though they are not legal preconditions.

The key phrase is “could reasonably have been expected to know”. Knowledge is not limited to formal disclosure through the disability service. If tutors, module leaders, welfare staff or administrators had information suggesting you were disabled and struggling, the university may be fixed with constructive knowledge even without formal registration. Information disclosed to one part of the institution can be enough.

So the correct legal position is not “no disclosure, no duty”. It is that the reactive duty is engaged once the university knew or ought reasonably to have known. Once that threshold is crossed, the university must make the adjustments that are reasonable from that point forward.

Timing and going forward

There is an important distinction between the past and the future.

For the future, once you have now made the university aware of your disability and the barriers you face, there is no proper basis for refusing to consider and make reasonable adjustments going forward. Late disclosure is not a lawful reason to refuse adjustments for the remainder of your studies. Refusing on that basis would itself risk being a failure to comply with the duty.

For the past, if you are complaining about adjustments that were not made before you disclosed, the university’s lack of knowledge may be a partial defence for that earlier period. That is different from refusing adjustments now.

What “reasonable” means

The duty is to make adjustments that are reasonable. What is reasonable takes account of factors such as the effectiveness of the adjustment in removing the disadvantage, its practicability, cost, the resources available to the institution, and the need to maintain academic standards and competence standards. A university may lawfully decline a specific adjustment if it is genuinely not reasonable, for example if it would compromise a genuine competence standard that is a core requirement of the qualification. But that is a fact-specific judgment about the particular adjustment, not a justification for refusing all adjustments because of the timing or route of your disclosure.

There is a distinction here worth drawing. If the university is declining a particular adjustment on genuine reasonableness or competence grounds, that may be lawful. If it is refusing to engage at all, citing only that you did not disclose earlier or register through the correct channel, that is a much weaker and legally questionable position.

Missing facts that affect the answer

To assess your position properly it would help to know: the nature of your impairment and whether it meets the disability definition; whether you have any supporting evidence such as medical or diagnostic reports; what exactly the university has said and in what terms it refused; whether the refusal relates to adjustments going forward or only to a past period; whether anyone at the university already knew about your condition before you formally raised it; and what specific adjustments you are seeking and whether any touch on a competence standard.

Practical next steps

1. Put your request in writing. Set out your impairment, its effects on your studies, the specific adjustments you are seeking, and ask the university to explain the legal basis for any refusal. Reference the reasonable adjustments duty under the Equality Act 2010.

2. Provide supporting evidence. Even though a formal diagnosis is not strictly required for the legal test, medical or educational evidence greatly strengthens your case and makes it harder for the university to say it lacked knowledge.

3. Engage the disability service now. Registering does not create the duty, but it is the practical route to getting adjustments implemented quickly, and it removes any argument about the university not knowing.

4. Use the internal complaints procedure. If the university maintains a refusal, submit a formal complaint. Keep it factual and reference the anticipatory and reactive duties.

5. Escalate to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. After you have exhausted the internal process and received a Completion of Procedures letter, you can bring a complaint to the OIA for higher education in England and Wales. This is free and considers whether the university acted reasonably and in line with its obligations.

6. Consider the county court route. A disability discrimination claim against a university, including failure to make reasonable adjustments, is brought in the county court rather than an employment tribunal. There is generally a six month time limit from the act complained of, though the court has discretion to extend. If you are contemplating this, be alert to that deadline, because it is short and runs from the discriminatory act or failure.

Bottom line

Late or informal disclosure and not being registered with disability services are not lawful reasons to refuse reasonable adjustments. The duty flows from your being a disabled person and from the university’s actual or constructive knowledge, and part of it is anticipatory and owed regardless of individual disclosure. Non-disclosure may limit any complaint about the earlier period before the university knew, but it does not justify refusing adjustments for the rest of your studies.