University refusing reasonable adjustment

Short answer

Sometimes, but not usually just because the university asserts one of those reasons. Under the Equality Act 2010, a university (a “responsible body” for a higher education institution) owes a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled students. Cost, difficulty, and fairness to other students can all be relevant to what is “reasonable”, but the university cannot simply refuse an adjustment because it says it is expensive, inconvenient or unfair. Whether the refusal is lawful depends on an objective assessment of all the circumstances, not on the university’s own say-so.

The legal framework

The relevant law is the Equality Act 2010, in particular section 91 (which prohibits discrimination by higher education institutions) and Schedule 13, which sets out how the reasonable adjustments duty applies to education providers. The duty is triggered 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 students who are not disabled. In that situation the university must take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.

Two features of this duty matter here.

First, it is an anticipatory duty. Universities are expected to think ahead and plan for disabled students generally, not just react when an individual asks. A university that has failed to plan cannot easily rely on the resulting cost or difficulty as a reason to refuse.

Second, the cost of an adjustment falls on the university. It is unlawful under the Equality Act for a provider to require a disabled student to pay for the reasonable adjustments themselves.

Can cost justify refusal?

Cost is a legitimate factor in deciding whether an adjustment is reasonable, but it is judged against the resources of the whole institution, not the budget of a single department, faculty or course. Universities are generally large, well-resourced bodies, so the bar for arguing that something is genuinely unaffordable is high. The Equality and Human Rights Commission technical guidance treats the following as relevant to reasonableness: the cost, the extent of the provider’s financial and other resources, the availability of external funding or support, and the practicability of the step.

A crucial point on funding is Disabled Students’ Allowances (DSA). Many individual support costs for students in higher education are met through DSA rather than by the university. Where an adjustment can be funded through DSA or another external source, the university will struggle to argue that it is too expensive. The university remains responsible for institutional adjustments, such as accessible teaching, materials, assessment arrangements and physical access.

So “it is too expensive” is only a valid answer if, realistically and objectively, the cost is disproportionate when measured against the institution’s overall resources and the availability of external funding. A bare assertion of expense is not enough.

Can difficulty or impracticality justify refusal?

Yes, but again only within limits. The practicability of taking the step is expressly relevant to reasonableness. Adjustments that are genuinely impractical, or that would take a disproportionate amount of time or disruption to implement, may not be reasonable. Effectiveness also matters: the duty is to take steps that would actually help avoid the disadvantage. An adjustment that would not actually work, or that is technically impossible, may not be required.

However, difficulty is not the same as inconvenience. The fact that an adjustment requires effort, planning, or a change to established practice is not, by itself, a lawful reason to refuse. Universities are expected to review and adapt their normal ways of doing things.

Can fairness to other students justify refusal?

This is the reason to be most sceptical about. The whole purpose of a reasonable adjustment is to treat a disabled student differently in order to remove a disadvantage they face because of disability. That different treatment is precisely what the law requires, so it cannot ordinarily be objectionable simply because non-disabled students are not receiving the same thing. Providing extra time in an exam, alternative assessment formats, or additional support is not “unfair” in the legal sense merely because other students do not get it.

There is one genuinely important boundary here, and it is not really about fairness in the loose sense. It concerns competence standards.

Competence standards

Under Schedule 13 to the Equality Act, the reasonable adjustments duty does not require a university to alter the application of a genuine competence standard. A competence standard is an academic, medical or other standard applied to determine whether a person has a particular level of competence or ability. Examples might be the requirement to demonstrate a particular clinical skill on a professional course, or the core academic learning outcomes of a degree.

The key distinctions are these. A university does not have to lower or waive a genuine competence standard, and it does not have to change the standard being assessed. But it does have to make reasonable adjustments to the way a student is assessed against that standard, for example by giving extra time, using a different format, or providing assistive technology, unless doing so would itself compromise what is genuinely being tested. To count as a genuine competence standard, the requirement must actually be a measure of competence, must be applied equally to all, and must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. A university cannot dress up an ordinary procedural or logistical preference as a “competence standard” to avoid adjusting it.

So when a university says an adjustment would be “unfair to other students”, the legitimate version of that argument is usually really this: the adjustment would undermine a genuine academic standard that all students must meet. If it is a genuine competence standard, that can be a valid reason. If it is not, “fairness to others” is generally not a lawful basis for refusal.

How a refusal is actually judged

Whether an adjustment is reasonable is an objective question, ultimately for a court to decide, not a matter left to the university’s discretion. Relevant factors include the effectiveness of the step in overcoming the disadvantage, its practicability, the financial and other costs, the extent of the university’s resources, the availability of external funding such as DSA, and the effect on other students and on academic standards. The university must weigh these genuinely; it cannot simply pick one factor and treat it as decisive.

It is also worth noting that failing to make a reasonable adjustment is a distinct form of discrimination that cannot be justified. Unlike indirect discrimination or discrimination arising from disability, there is no separate “objective justification” defence once the duty is engaged; the justification is built into the concept of reasonableness itself. In practice this means the university’s reasons are tested through the reasonableness assessment, not as a separate stage.

What you should do if an adjustment is refused

The order below usually reflects the most sensible practical route.

1. Get the refusal and its reasons in writing. Ask the university to state exactly which adjustment has been refused, why, and by reference to which factors (cost, practicality, competence standard, or otherwise). This forces the university to justify itself and creates useful evidence.

2. Gather your evidence. This includes your medical or diagnostic evidence, any DSA assessment or needs assessment, correspondence with the disability support service, and details of the disadvantage you experience. Where the refusal is based on cost, ask whether the adjustment could be funded through DSA.

3. Engage the university’s disability support and, if needed, its formal complaints procedure. Ask for a review of the decision and, where appropriate, an alternative adjustment that would meet your needs. Reasonable adjustment often involves finding a workable option, so propose alternatives.

4. Escalate through the internal complaints process to obtain a Completion of Procedures letter. You will normally need this before an external body will look at the matter.

5. Take the complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA). The OIA reviews student complaints against most higher education providers in England and Wales, including complaints about disability support and reasonable adjustments, and it can recommend remedies. This is free, less stressful and far cheaper than court.

6. Consider a legal claim only if necessary. A claim for disability discrimination in education against a university is generally brought in the County Court under the Equality Act 2010, and there are strict time limits, ordinarily six months from the act complained of. This limit runs independently of the internal and OIA processes, so if you think you may need to litigate you must watch the deadline carefully and take advice in good time. Court action carries cost and litigation risk, so it is usually a last resort after internal and OIA routes.

Key points to take away

A university cannot lawfully refuse a reasonable adjustment simply by asserting that it is expensive, difficult or unfair to others. Cost is measured against the whole institution’s resources and the availability of external funding such as DSA, difficulty must be genuine impracticality rather than mere inconvenience, and “unfair to other students” is generally not a valid reason unless the adjustment would genuinely undermine a legitimate competence standard. The reasonableness of a refusal is an objective legal question, and there are structured routes, internal complaint, the OIA, and ultimately the County Court, to challenge a refusal you believe is unlawful.

Where the answer could change

The outcome depends heavily on the specific adjustment requested, the disadvantage it is meant to address, the evidence of your disability, whether DSA or other funding is available, and whether the requirement in question is a genuine competence standard. If you tell me the exact adjustment, the reason the university has given, the type of course, and where you are in the complaints process, I can give a more precise assessment of how strong the university’s position is and what your best next step would be.