University refusing recommended disability adjustments

Short answer

The university does not have to implement every adjustment recommended by disability services, your doctor or a Disabled Students’ Allowances (DSA) needs assessor. A recommendation is not automatically binding. However, the university is not free to refuse without proper reasons either. Under the Equality Act 2010 it has a legal duty to make adjustments that are reasonable, and refusing an adjustment while failing to explain why or failing to consider workable alternatives is a strong indicator that it has not complied with that duty.

The legal duty on the university

Universities and other higher education providers are subject to the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, as applied to education by Schedule 13. Where a provision, criterion or practice, a physical feature, or the absence of an auxiliary aid puts a disabled student at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled students, the provider must take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid that disadvantage. Failure to do so is unlawful disability discrimination.

Two features of this duty matter for your question. First, it is an anticipatory duty: providers are expected to plan ahead for disabled students generally, not merely react once an individual complains. Second, the standard is what is reasonable, judged objectively, not simply whatever the university decides it is willing to do.

Status of a recommendation from disability services, your doctor or a DSA assessor

A recommendation is evidence, not an instruction. Disability services staff, a doctor and a DSA needs assessor each recommend measures, but none of them can compel the university to adopt a particular adjustment. The DSA assessment in particular is aimed at funding equipment and support paid for through Student Finance, and it operates separately from the university’s own Equality Act duty. So it is legally accurate for a university to say a recommendation is not binding.

What the university cannot properly do is treat those recommendations as irrelevant. Professional recommendations are important evidence that a substantial disadvantage exists and that a particular adjustment would address it. If the university departs from a clear professional recommendation, it needs a rational and defensible reason for doing so.

Can it refuse without explaining why?

There is no free-standing statutory rule that says a university must give written reasons every time it declines a specific adjustment. But in practice a refusal without explanation is legally risky for the university and usually indicates a failure to comply properly with the duty, for several reasons.

The reasonableness of an adjustment is assessed objectively, so the university must be able to justify why the adjustment it refused was not reasonable, for example on grounds of cost, practicability, effect on academic or competence standards, health and safety, or the interests of other students. If it cannot articulate such a reason, a court or the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is likely to find the duty was breached.

Refusing an adjustment while offering no alternative, and giving no reasons, also suggests the university has not genuinely engaged with the individual’s needs. Although the Act does not impose a standalone duty to consult, a failure to consider the student’s situation and possible alternatives makes it far harder for the university to defend the outcome. Good practice guidance from the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and the Equality and Human Rights Commission expects providers to consider adjustments actively, keep them under review and explain decisions.

Under the Public Sector Equality Duty in section 149, most universities as public bodies must also have due regard to eliminating discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity, which reinforces the expectation of a reasoned, considered decision rather than a blank refusal.

The competence standards exception

There is one important limit. The Equality Act does not require a provider to adjust the application of a genuine competence standard, meaning a standard applied to determine whether a person has a particular level of competence or ability. So if the recommended adjustment would effectively lower an academic competence standard, the university can refuse to alter the standard itself.

However, even then the university must still consider whether a reasonable adjustment can be made to the way the standard is assessed, for example the format, timing or conditions of an assessment, rather than the standard being tested. It should also be able to demonstrate that the requirement really is a genuine competence standard and not merely a general practice dressed up as one. Refusing everything by labelling it a competence standard, without analysis, is unlikely to succeed.

What good practice and the ombudsman expect

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which handles student complaints about universities in England and Wales, expects providers to identify disadvantage, consider adjustments proactively, explain decisions and keep them under review. Where an adjustment is not implemented, the university should be able to show it considered the recommendation, formed a reasoned view, and looked at whether an alternative could achieve the same result. A flat refusal with no reasons and no alternatives is the kind of conduct the OIA regularly criticises.

Facts that would change the analysis

The right answer in your case depends on details that are not yet clear, including what the specific adjustment is, what disadvantage it is meant to address, whether it touches a genuine competence standard, what reason (if any) the university has actually given, whether any alternative was offered, and whether the recommendation was from your treating doctor, disability services or a DSA assessor. It also matters whether you have a disability within the meaning of section 6, meaning a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, because the reasonable adjustment duty is triggered by that status. If you can set out the precise adjustment and the university’s stated reasons, the position can be assessed much more concretely.

Practical next steps

1. Put your request in writing and ask the university, in writing, to confirm its decision and its reasons. Ask specifically why the recommended adjustment is said not to be reasonable and what alternative it proposes. This forces the university to articulate a defensible position and creates a paper trail.

2. Refer to the recommendations. Attach or quote the recommendations from disability services, your doctor and the DSA needs assessment, and ask the university to explain why it is departing from professional advice.

3. Ask about alternatives expressly. If the exact adjustment cannot be provided, ask what alternative achieves the same outcome, and whether the objection is genuinely about a competence standard or about cost or practicability.

4. Use the internal complaints procedure. If the response is inadequate, submit a formal complaint under the university’s student complaints procedure, framing it as a potential failure of the reasonable adjustment duty under the Equality Act 2010.

5. Escalate to the OIA. Once internal stages are exhausted and you have a Completion of Procedures letter, you can complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, which is free and can recommend that the university reconsider or provide the adjustment.

6. Consider legal advice on a discrimination claim. A disability discrimination claim about education is brought in the County Court, generally within six months of the act complained of, so keep an eye on timing if the matter is serious. The OIA route and a court claim are alternatives to weigh up, and the OIA is usually the lower-cost, lower-risk first step.

The overall position is that the university can decline a recommended adjustment, but only where it can justify that refusal as consistent with its reasonable adjustment duty, and a refusal given without reasons and without considering alternatives is a warning sign that the duty may not have been met.