Challenging unfair online proctoring

Overview

Problems with online proctoring software generally fall into two broad situations, and the right approach depends on which you are facing. The first is a technical failure during an assessment, for example the software crashing, your camera or connection dropping, the system flagging you incorrectly, or you being unable to complete or submit the exam. The second is where the proctoring or associated detection software leads to an allegation against you, such as suspected cheating, collusion or misconduct based on flagged behaviour, room scans, eye movement, background noise or a lost connection.

The material distinction matters because a technical failure is normally handled through the university’s academic appeals or mitigating circumstances process, whereas an allegation of misconduct triggers a disciplinary process in which you have procedural rights to fairness before any penalty is imposed.

What proctoring software actually shows

Proctoring tools do not prove cheating. They generate flags, alerts or probability scores based on things like face detection, movement, audio, additional devices, or interruptions to the feed. These are indicators that require human judgement, not conclusive evidence. A dropped connection, a second person in your home, looking away from the screen, or reading a question aloud can all be flagged innocently. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (the OIA, which handles unresolved student complaints against higher education providers in England and Wales) has made clear in its casework that a provider must not treat software output as decisive. A panel is expected to engage with the substance of the work and the student’s explanation, and not rely solely on a detection report. If a decision rests only on a software flag, that is a strong ground of challenge.

This principle applies with even more force to AI-detection and similarity software, where the OIA has accepted that reliability concerns are legitimate and that students must be given a fair chance to respond to the specific evidence, including any comparison material the panel relies on.

If the software failed during the exam

Act immediately and preserve evidence. The single most important thing is to document the problem in real time, because these disputes usually turn on evidence.

1. Take screenshots or photographs (using a phone) of any error messages, frozen screens, disconnection notices, timers, or the point at which the system failed.

2. Note the exact date and times, and keep any automatic emails, chat logs with technical support, or helpdesk ticket numbers.

3. Record your internet status if you can, for example a broadband outage notification or a speed test.

4. Report the problem to the invigilation team, module leader or exams office as soon as possible, ideally during or immediately after the assessment, and follow up in writing so there is a dated record.

Most universities have a specific route for this, often called mitigating circumstances, extenuating circumstances, or an assessment irregularity claim. Submit that claim within the deadline set in the regulations, attaching your evidence. Typical remedies include being allowed to sit the assessment again as a first attempt (an uncapped resit), disregarding the affected attempt, an extension, or an adjustment to the mark or classification. Check your university’s academic regulations for the exact process and time limit, because these are set by each institution and vary.

If you are accused of misconduct because of a flag

You are entitled to a fair process before any finding or penalty. In practice this means you should expect to be told clearly what you are alleged to have done, be shown the evidence relied on against you, be given a genuine opportunity to respond and put forward your own evidence, and receive reasons for the decision.

Build your response around innocent explanations and your own evidence. Depending on what was flagged, that might include your draft work, notes, browser history, planning documents, timestamps showing your working process, evidence of a genuine technical or connection problem, or an explanation for anything in your environment that was picked up. If the allegation is based partly on comparison with your other work or another student’s, you are entitled to see that comparison material and comment on it. A failure to disclose the evidence used against you is a recognised procedural flaw.

Ask targeted questions about the software itself: what exactly it flagged, the false-positive rate, whether a human reviewed the raw footage or data, and whether the finding rests on the software alone or on independent human judgement. If the only evidence is a software score, press that point.

Reasonable adjustments and disability

If you have a disability, a mental health condition, a specific learning difference, or another protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, proctoring can raise separate issues. Software that penalises movement, looking away, or needing breaks can disadvantage disabled students, and universities have a duty to make reasonable adjustments and to avoid discrimination arising from disability. If your flag or difficulty is connected to a condition, or the software could not accommodate an adjustment you were entitled to, raise this expressly, because it strengthens both a fairness argument and a potential discrimination complaint. Data protection concerns can also arise, since proctoring involves biometric and behavioural data, but for most students the practical routes are the academic and complaints processes rather than a standalone data claim.

The order of steps to take

1. Gather and preserve all evidence straight away, as set out above.

2. Read your university’s own regulations on assessment, academic misconduct, mitigating or extenuating circumstances, and complaints. These documents govern your rights and deadlines, and the university is bound to follow them.

3. Use the informal or first-tier route first where one exists, for example contacting the exams office or module leader, or responding to the misconduct allegation at the initial stage.

4. If the outcome is wrong, use the formal internal appeal or complaint procedure within the stated time limit. Set out clearly what went wrong, whether procedural unfairness, reliance on software alone, failure to consider your evidence, or a technical failure that affected your performance, and state the remedy you want.

5. Get support from your students’ union or a student advice service. Most SUs have advisers who specialise in academic appeals and misconduct cases and can attend hearings with you. This is usually free and very worthwhile.

6. Exhaust the internal process. You normally cannot escalate externally until the university has issued its final decision, often called a Completion of Procedures letter.

Escalating beyond the university

Once you have a Completion of Procedures letter and remain dissatisfied, you can complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which reviews unresolved complaints against higher education providers in England and Wales. The OIA cannot re-mark your work or overturn pure academic judgement, but it can examine whether the university applied its procedures properly, acted fairly and reasonably, considered your evidence, and gave adequate reasons. Complaints about reliance on software flags, non-disclosure of evidence, and failure to consider a student’s explanation are precisely the kind of issues the OIA has upheld. There is normally a twelve-month time limit for bringing a complaint to the OIA after the Completion of Procedures letter, so keep an eye on that deadline.

If there is a distinct discrimination element under the Equality Act, a claim in the County Court is theoretically possible, but that is a more serious, costlier and slower route with litigation risk, and the internal process plus the OIA is usually the sensible first path.

What will shape the outcome

The strength of your position depends heavily on facts you have not yet given me. The key variables are what exactly the software flagged and whether the university is treating that as the sole basis for a decision, whether you reported any technical failure at the time and can evidence it, whether you have been shown the evidence and given a chance to respond, whether your university’s regulations were followed, and whether any disability or reasonable adjustment issue is involved. If you tell me which situation you are in, what the software flagged or how it failed, and what the university has said or decided so far, I can give you a more precise assessment and help you frame the appeal or complaint.