Fitness-to-practise decision reasons requirement

Short answer

Yes. In England and Wales a university is expected to give the student clear, adequate reasons for both a fitness-to-practise (FtP) finding and any sanction imposed. This obligation comes from several overlapping sources: the general public law duty of fairness that applies to internal disciplinary and regulatory-style decisions, the university’s own regulations and procedures (which form part of the student contract), and the standards published by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA). A bare conclusion, without explanation of the findings of fact, the professional standards engaged and why the particular sanction was chosen, will usually be inadequate and open to challenge.

Why reasons must be given

Fitness-to-practise decisions carry serious consequences, often affecting whether the student can enter or continue in their intended profession. The more serious the impact on the individual, the higher the standard of fairness the law expects, and the stronger the expectation of a properly reasoned decision. Adequate reasons serve three practical functions: they show the student the decision was reached rationally and lawfully, they allow the student to understand the case and decide whether to appeal, and they enable any appeal panel, the OIA, or ultimately a court to review the decision.

The OIA’s Good Practice Framework on Fitness to Practise, which the OIA applies when reviewing student complaints against providers, states expressly that reasons should be given for decisions about the student’s health or behaviour and what to do about it, that the provider should write to the student setting out the outcome giving a clear explanation of and the reasons for its decision and any conditions in straightforward language, and that the reasons should be detailed enough to enable the student to understand the decision. It also says a panel should explain the reasons for the action it decides to take, especially where the consequences are serious and may prevent the student from starting or continuing their intended career, and that there should be a route of appeal. While the OIA framework is guidance rather than binding law, the OIA treats departures from it as relevant to whether a complaint is justified, and universities are expected to follow it.

The legal basis

There is no single statute imposing a general duty to give reasons. The duty arises from three main sources working together.

First, common law fairness. Courts have increasingly recognised that where a decision has serious consequences for an individual, fairness ordinarily requires the decision-maker to give reasons sufficient to show the essential findings and the basis for them. A fitness-to-practise sanction that could end a career sits firmly at the serious end of that spectrum.

Second, the student contract. A university’s own FtP regulations and procedures are contractual. Most such procedures expressly require the panel to notify the student in writing of the decision, the reasons for it (with reference to findings of fact), the sanction, and the right of appeal, usually within a set number of working days. If the procedure promises reasons, failing to give adequate reasons is a breach of that procedure and therefore a proper ground of appeal or complaint. You should check the specific wording of your university’s FtP procedure, as it defines exactly what must be provided and by when.

Third, judicial review principles applied to university decisions. Although most disputes are resolved internally and through the OIA rather than the courts, the courts will review university disciplinary and FtP decisions for procedural fairness, and inadequate reasons is a recognised public law failing. A recent Scottish case (albeit not binding in England and Wales) illustrates the point: the court rejected the argument that no reasons needed to be given and assessed the adequacy of the reasons against the university’s own fitness-to-practise rules.

What “adequate reasons” means in practice

Adequacy is judged by whether the reasons let the student understand why they lost on the key issues and why the particular sanction was chosen. In an FtP context adequate reasons would normally address:

1. The findings of fact, including how conflicts of evidence were resolved where the facts were disputed.

2. Which professional standards or fitness-to-practise concerns those facts engaged, and how.

3. The panel’s assessment of insight, remediation, risk and any mitigation the student put forward.

4. Why the chosen sanction was proportionate, and why lesser measures (for example a warning, conditions, or a remediation plan) were considered insufficient where a serious sanction such as suspension or removal from the programme was imposed.

Reasons do not have to be lengthy or deal with every point, but they must engage with the principal controversial issues. A decision that simply states the student is not fit to practise and is removed from the course, without explaining the findings and the reasoning on sanction, is likely to be inadequate.

If the reasons are missing or inadequate

If you have received an FtP outcome with no reasons or only token reasons, the practical routes, broadly in order, are:

1. Request written reasons. Ask the university in writing to provide full reasons and the findings of fact if these were not supplied, referring to the relevant clause of its FtP procedure. Sometimes this alone resolves the problem.

2. Use the internal appeal. Inadequate reasons, and any procedural defect that reasons reveal, are usually valid grounds of appeal under the FtP procedure. Note the appeal deadline carefully, as these are often short (commonly 10 to 21 days) and the clock may already be running.

3. Complete the internal process and obtain a Completion of Procedures letter. You will normally need this before the OIA will consider a complaint.

4. Complain to the OIA. The OIA can review whether the university acted fairly, followed its own procedures, and gave adequate reasons, applying the Good Practice Framework. It can recommend the decision be reconsidered, the process be repeated, or that compensation be paid. The OIA is free to use and lower risk than court.

5. Judicial review is a last resort, subject to a strict time limit (promptly and in any event within three months) and normally only after internal remedies are exhausted. It is expensive and permission-based, so it is usually reserved for cases where the OIA route is inadequate or a very urgent remedy is needed.

Key facts that would sharpen the advice

The precise position depends on several things it would help to know: what your university’s FtP procedure says about notification and reasons; exactly what you were told and in what form; the sanction imposed and its practical effect on your studies or future registration with a professional regulator; whether the programme leads to a regulated profession with its own regulator standards feeding into the FtP test; whether you have exhausted the internal appeal; and what deadlines are currently running for appeal or for approaching the OIA.

Practical next step

If the deadline to appeal is close, prioritise submitting an appeal (or a holding appeal reserving your grounds) that expressly relies on the absence or inadequacy of reasons, then request the full reasons and findings of fact in the same communication. Keep everything in writing and keep a clear record of dates, because the strength of any later OIA complaint or claim depends heavily on showing what you were told, when, and how it fell short of the university’s own procedure.