Reasonable adjustments for disability at university

Short answer

No, not as a substitute for meeting your actual needs. A university in England and Wales cannot lawfully discharge its legal duties towards a disabled student simply by offering a fixed, one-size-fits-all support package and refusing to look at your individual situation. The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 is fundamentally about the disadvantage that a particular disabled person experiences. A standard package can be a legitimate starting point, and can even satisfy the duty in some cases, but only if it actually removes or reduces the substantial disadvantage you face. If it does not, the university generally has to go further and consider adjustments tailored to you.

The legal framework

Universities are covered by the further and higher education provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (section 91 and Schedule 13). The responsible body must not discriminate against, harass or victimise students, and it is subject to a duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The reasonable adjustments duty is set out in section 20 and Schedule 13. Where a provision, criterion or practice, or a physical feature, or the absence of an auxiliary aid, puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared with people who are not disabled, the responsible body must take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid that disadvantage. “Substantial” simply means more than minor or trivial.

There are two features of the duty that are directly relevant to your question.

First, it is an anticipatory duty. Unlike an employer, a university is expected to think ahead about the needs of disabled students generally and to put arrangements in place in advance, rather than waiting for each individual to ask. This is precisely why universities create standard support arrangements. But the anticipatory duty sits alongside, and does not replace, the duty to respond to the needs of the individual in front of them.

Second, the test is outcome-focused. The question is not whether the university offered a policy or a package, but whether the substantial disadvantage you experience has actually been avoided or reduced so far as is reasonable. A generic package that leaves you at a substantial disadvantage will not discharge the duty just because it is what the university offers everyone.

Can a standard package ever be enough?

Yes, sometimes. If the standard package genuinely addresses your particular disadvantage, the university does not have to invent bespoke measures on top. The law requires reasonable steps, not perfect or maximal ones, and not everything a student would prefer.

The problem arises where the university treats the standard package as the complete and final answer and declines to assess whether your specific needs are met. Two things can make that unlawful in practice:

1. A blanket approach that fetters discretion. Applying a fixed policy rigidly, without being willing to consider whether an individual needs something different, is a well-recognised risk area. The duty is individual to the disabled person, so a refusal to look beyond the standard offer can amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

2. Failure to make adjustments that would in fact be reasonable. If there is a further step that would reduce your disadvantage and it would be reasonable to take it, the university cannot escape that obligation merely by pointing to its standard package.

What “reasonable” depends on

Whether a particular adjustment is reasonable is fact-sensitive. Relevant factors include how effective the step would be at removing the disadvantage, how practicable it is, the cost and resources of the institution, and the effect on academic standards. Universities are entitled to maintain genuine academic competence standards, and the application of a genuine competence standard is treated differently from an ordinary provision, criterion or practice. But administrative convenience, or simply that a package is standard, is not a good reason on its own for refusing an adjustment that is otherwise reasonable.

The recent High Court decision in University of Bristol v Abrahart [2024] EWHC 299 (KB) illustrates how seriously the courts take the individual nature of the duty. The court accepted that a university had to consider adjustments to its assessment arrangements for a disabled student, and that a failure to do so, in circumstances where the disadvantage was apparent, could breach the Act. It also indicated that the duty can be engaged even without a formal diagnosis where the disability and disadvantage are apparent. The wider point for you is that the focus is on whether the individual student’s substantial disadvantage was addressed, not on whether a standard process was followed.

The role of the DSA and separate obligations

There can be some overlap and some confusion here. Many students receive support through Disabled Students’ Allowances, which fund things like assistive technology and non-medical helpers. That is a separate government-funded scheme. A university sometimes points to DSA-funded support and treats its own obligations as satisfied. But DSA support and the university’s own reasonable adjustments duty are distinct. The university cannot delegate away its own legal responsibility to DSA, and there are things only the university can do, such as adjusting teaching, deadlines, examination arrangements, placements and the physical environment. So the existence of a standard package or DSA support does not remove the university’s duty to consider adjustments within its own control.

What facts would change the answer

The strength of your position depends on several things that are not yet clear:

Whether you meet the Equality Act definition of disability, namely a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. You do not necessarily need a formal diagnosis for the duty to arise if the disability and disadvantage are apparent, but evidence helps.

What specific substantial disadvantage you experience with the standard package, and what alternative or additional adjustment you say is needed. The clearer and more concrete this is, the easier it is to test reasonableness.

What the university has actually said and done. There is a real difference between a university that has assessed you, considered your request and reasonably concluded the standard package meets your needs, and one that has refused to engage with your individual circumstances at all.

Whether the point you are affected on involves a genuine academic competence standard, which is treated differently, or ordinary arrangements such as deadlines, exam conditions or format, where adjustments are more readily required.

Practical next steps

1. Put your needs in writing. Set out clearly what your disability is, the specific difficulties the standard package does not address, and the particular adjustments you are requesting and why. Ask the university to carry out an individual assessment of your needs rather than applying a fixed policy.

2. Engage the disability or student support service and, where relevant, ask for a documented individual support plan or learning support agreement. Provide any medical or educational evidence you have.

3. Reference the duty. It is reasonable to state that you are asking the university to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 by considering your individual circumstances, not only its standard offer.

4. If informal requests fail, use the university’s formal complaints procedure. Keep a clear record of what you asked for, when, and how the university responded.

5. If the internal complaint does not resolve matters, you can escalate to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which reviews unresolved student complaints against most higher education providers in England and Wales, provided you have exhausted the internal process and obtained a Completion of Procedures letter.

6. Separately, a disability discrimination claim under the Equality Act can be brought in the County Court, and there is a strict time limit of six months less one day from the act complained of, subject to the court’s discretion to extend. Because internal complaints and OIA review can take time, be careful that pursuing those routes does not cause you to miss the court deadline if you may want to litigate. The claim and the complaint routes are not mutually exclusive, but the timing needs managing.

Bottom line

A university is entitled to have standard support arrangements, and it is even expected to plan ahead under the anticipatory duty. What it cannot do is use a standard package as a reason to refuse to assess your individual needs, or to leave you at a substantial disadvantage that a reasonable further adjustment would remove. The lawful position is that the standard package is a starting point, and the duty is measured by whether your particular disadvantage has actually been addressed so far as it is reasonable to do so.