Right to know breached professional standard

Short answer

There is no single statutory rule in England and Wales that says a university must cite the precise clause of a professional standard in a fitness to practise or professional suitability case. However, the underlying principle of procedural fairness, reinforced by regulator and Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) expectations, means the university must give you enough clarity about what you are alleged to have done and how it relates to the relevant professional standards that you can understand and answer the case against you. In practice that will often require identifying the specific standard or code provision in question, particularly where the allegation is not obvious on its face.

Where the obligation comes from

The duty is not a free-standing “name the exact standard” rule. It flows from three overlapping sources.

First, the common law duty of fairness that applies to university disciplinary and fitness to practise decisions. A student facing a serious allegation is entitled to know the case against them in sufficient detail to respond meaningfully. The more serious the potential consequence, such as removal from a professional programme, the higher the standard of fairness expected.

Second, the university’s own regulations. Fitness to practise procedures typically promise a “written specification of the allegations” and notification of “how it relates to the relevant professional standards and what evidence there is.” If your university’s procedure uses wording like that, the university has bound itself contractually to explain the link to the professional standards, and a failure to do so is a breach of its own process that you can challenge.

Third, the OIA Good Practice Framework on fitness to practise, which the OIA applies when reviewing complaints against providers. It expects students to be able to understand any allegations and concerns and how they relate to the relevant professional standards and to their fitness to practise. The OIA treats a failure to explain this adequately as a procedural shortcoming.

What “sufficient particularity” means in practice

The test is not a technical one of pinpoint citation, but of whether the allegation is fair and answerable. You should be told, in writing and before any decision-making meeting or panel:

1. The specific factual conduct alleged, including what you are said to have done or failed to do, and ideally when and where.

2. Which professional standard, code of conduct or set of proficiencies that conduct is said to breach, for example a particular part of the relevant regulator’s code (such as the NMC, GMC, HCPC, SRA or GDC standards) or the programme’s professional suitability requirements.

3. Why that conduct is said to raise a fitness to practise concern rather than being, for example, an ordinary academic or conduct matter.

4. The evidence relied on.

Regulators themselves apply a comparable standard when drafting their own charges. For example, the NMC guidance on drafting charges says a charge should specify how and why conduct falls below the standard expected of a registered professional, and must contain enough detail for the person to prepare their defence. Universities running fitness to practise processes are generally expected to reflect that same principle of clear, particularised allegations.

When a general reference may be enough

A university does not necessarily have to isolate a single sub-paragraph if the nature of the concern is obvious and you are plainly able to answer it. For instance, if the allegation is that you were dishonest on placement, a reference to the honesty and integrity provisions of the relevant code, combined with a clear factual account, may be adequate even without pinpointing one line. The question a reviewer or court would ask is whether, taken as a whole, you understood what you had to meet and had a genuine opportunity to respond. Vague or shifting allegations, or a bare assertion that you are “not fit to practise” without linking it to identified standards and facts, are much more vulnerable to challenge.

Missing facts that affect the answer

The strength of your position depends on details I do not have. It would help to know which profession and regulator the programme leads to, exactly what wording your university’s fitness to practise regulations use about notifying allegations and standards, what you have actually been sent so far, and whether you are at the investigation, panel or appeal stage. If the university has quoted the code generally but you genuinely cannot tell which specific behaviour is said to breach which standard, that is the gap to press on.

Practical next steps

1. Read your university’s fitness to practise procedure and note any wording that promises a written specification of allegations and an explanation of how they relate to professional standards. That contractual wording is your strongest lever.

2. Put a short, calm request in writing asking the university to confirm, in relation to each allegation, the precise factual conduct alleged, the specific professional standard or code provision said to be breached, and the evidence relied on. Frame it as needing this to prepare your response, not as an accusation.

3. Keep the request proportionate and cooperative. Universities are usually willing to clarify, and a reasonable clarification request also builds a record if you later need to complain.

4. If the university refuses to particularise and you cannot fairly understand or answer the case, raise it as a procedural fairness point at the panel stage and preserve it for any internal appeal.

5. Once the internal process is exhausted and you receive a Completion of Procedures letter, you can complain to the OIA, which can consider whether the university followed a fair procedure and properly explained how the allegations related to professional standards.

Bottom line

The university does not have to cite chapter and verse in every case, but it must make the allegation clear enough, including its link to the relevant professional standards, for you to understand and answer it. If you genuinely cannot identify which standard your alleged conduct is said to breach, you are entitled to ask, and a persistent failure to explain that link is a fairness point you can raise internally and, if necessary, with the OIA.