Challenging repeated retelling of trauma

Overview

Yes, there are several potential routes to challenge or improve a university process that forces you to repeatedly recount a traumatic incident, but which route is realistic depends on what kind of process it is, why the repetition is happening, and what you actually want to achieve. Before deciding this is unlawful, it helps to separate genuinely unfair or discriminatory practice from repetition that is an ordinary and sometimes unavoidable feature of a fair procedure.

The main framework is a combination of the university’s own procedures, the Equality Act 2010 (particularly the duty to make reasonable adjustments if you are disabled), general public law fairness duties, and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator’s expectations of good practice. Let me explain each and how the facts change the position.

First, identify what kind of process this is

The right approach differs significantly depending on the context, so this is the key missing fact.

If this is a complaint or disciplinary process about sexual misconduct, harassment or assault, the OIA’s Good Practice Framework specifically addresses supporting students who report such incidents, and repeatedly requiring a reporting student to retell their account can be a legitimate criticism.

If it is a fitness to study, mitigating circumstances, or academic appeal process where you are relying on the traumatic event as evidence, some repetition may be harder to avoid, because different decision-makers may legitimately need the information at different stages.

If it is a support or wellbeing process, the concern is more about how it is being handled than about a formal legal wrong.

Tell yourself, and later the university, precisely which process this is and at which stages you have had to recount the incident, because that determines whether the repetition is avoidable.

Is the repetition actually avoidable

Not all repetition is unfair. A fair procedure sometimes requires your account to be considered by different people, for example an initial support contact, an investigator, and then a decision panel. Before treating this as wrongdoing, consider whether there is an ordinary procedural explanation: separate stages, separate decision-makers, a right of the other party to respond, or an appeal that reopens the facts.

The challenge becomes much stronger where the repetition is unnecessary, for example where the same information is being demanded again because records were not kept, where staff have not read what you already submitted, where you are being asked to recount orally when a written account already exists, or where no thought has been given to a single documented account that can be reused.

The Equality Act 2010 and reasonable adjustments

This is often the strongest legal angle. If the traumatic incident has resulted in a mental health condition such as post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety or depression that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your day-to-day activities, you are likely to be disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. A condition can still qualify even if it fluctuates or is being managed with treatment.

If you are disabled, the university (as a provider of higher education under Part 6 of the Act) owes you the duty to make reasonable adjustments. A process that repeatedly requires you to recount a traumatic event could amount to a provision, criterion or practice that puts you at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled students. Reasonable adjustments might include giving your account once in writing, allowing a support person present, avoiding face-to-face repetition, permitting recorded or pre-prepared statements, adjusting timescales, or nominating a single point of contact so you do not retell the story to multiple staff.

You could also potentially argue discrimination arising from disability under section 15, or indirect discrimination under section 19, if the practice disadvantages people with trauma-related conditions and cannot be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The university’s answer will usually be that some information-gathering is a proportionate necessity, so the focus is on whether the specific repetition is genuinely necessary.

Practically, you do not need to prove all this before asking. You can request reasonable adjustments now, and the university has a duty to consider and respond.

The university’s own procedures and public law fairness

Universities must follow their own published regulations and procedures, and must act fairly. If the procedure itself does not require repeated accounts, but staff are demanding them anyway, that is a departure from procedure you can challenge internally. If the procedure does require it, you can argue it is being applied in a way that is unfair or fails to accommodate your circumstances.

For most students the enforceable relationship with the university is contractual, and public law principles of fairness are also relevant, particularly for institutions amenable to judicial review. But judicial review is a last resort, expensive, and subject to a strict time limit of promptly and in any event within three months. It is rarely the right first step here.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator

If the university is a member of the OIA scheme (almost all higher education providers in England and Wales are), you can bring a complaint to the OIA once you have exhausted the internal process and received a Completion of Procedures letter. The OIA reviews whether the university acted reasonably and in line with good practice, including whether it supported you appropriately and made reasonable adjustments. The OIA’s Good Practice Framework expressly encourages providers to avoid requiring students to repeat traumatic accounts unnecessarily and to handle such cases sensitively, so this is squarely within its remit.

The OIA cannot usually be approached until the internal stages are complete, so the internal complaint is normally the necessary first step.

Practical next steps

1. Gather the documents. Get the relevant procedure or policy, any emails or letters requiring you to recount the incident, and a note of each occasion you have had to do so and to whom.

2. Get supporting evidence about the impact. If you have a diagnosis or are under the care of a GP, counsellor or specialist, a short letter confirming your condition and that repeated recounting is harmful to your health will strongly support a reasonable adjustments request.

3. Make a written reasonable adjustments request now. Ask the university’s disability or student support service, and the person running the process, to agree specific adjustments, for example a single written statement used across all stages, a named single point of contact, a support person present, and no unnecessary oral repetition. Frame it as a request under the Equality Act 2010 duty to make reasonable adjustments.

4. If that is refused or ignored, use the formal complaint procedure. Set out clearly what has gone wrong, why the repetition is unnecessary and harmful, the adjustments you asked for, and what you want done. Keep it concise and evidence-based.

5. Consider the students’ union advice service. Most have trained advisers who can support you through internal processes at no cost, and can attend meetings with you.

6. If the internal outcome is unsatisfactory, obtain the Completion of Procedures letter and complain to the OIA within its time limit, or consider whether an equality claim in the county court is appropriate, since disability discrimination claims in higher education under the Equality Act are brought in the county court rather than the employment tribunal.

What would change the answer

The strength of your position depends heavily on whether you have a diagnosable condition linked to the trauma, whether the repetition is genuinely avoidable or an inherent part of a fair process, whether the university’s own procedure mandates it, and whether you have already asked for adjustments and been refused. If you can tell me what type of process this is, at what stages you have had to recount the incident, and whether you have a relevant health condition or diagnosis, I can give you a much more focused view on your best route and how likely a challenge is to succeed.