How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • Go back-and-forth until satisfied
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jeremy Aldermartin Your Own Question
Jeremy Aldermartin
Jeremy Aldermartin, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 7963
Experience:  Dual qualified Solicitor and Attorney
65242892
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jeremy Aldermartin is online now

Daughter has imposed a unfair penalty for Collusion by

This answer was rated:

Hi, daughter has imposed a unfair penalty for Collusion by Academic integrity officer.
JA: Where is the daughter? It matters because laws vary by location.
Customer: Now in my residence at Horley, UK.
JA: What steps has the daughter taken so far?
Customer: My daughter would like to appeal, prepping for appeal statement, we need legal advice please
JA: Is there anything else the Lawyer should know before I connect you? Rest assured that they'll be able to help you.
Customer: My daughter had received her outcome imposing zero to her piece of work for which she did not collide and she is innocent for. She happened to do a typo of a value in a calculation which conindentially happenned to be a value from a dataset allocated to different group of students.

Hi thank you for your message, please note that I will look to provide an accurate but nevertheless speedy reply to your inquiry. That said, whilst I endeavour to provide a fast response, responses may not be immediate as this is a question and answer service not an instant chat service.

What level is this at, school, college, university? Has your daughter provided this explanation to the educational institution concerned?

Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Hi please see below AIO meeting minutes. PM is my daughterADR introduced himself as the Academic Integrity Officer and AM as the note taker. AMC introduced
herself as the SUSU advisor. ADR explained the reason for the meeting in that suspected breach of AI
had been identified in PM’s submission for SESA2024.
ADR asked how PM had taken the exam and whether she had talked to other students during the
exam window. PM explained that it was a 24-hour, open book exam and had a combination of
written calculations and typed answers. ADR asked if PM had talked to other students to collaborate
or compare solutions. PM said she had not.
ADR explained the breach in that students were working on different data sets and the numbers that
they were using would have been specific to a particular data set. In question 3, PM used a value that
was not in the data set given to her. ADR shared his screen and showed the question 3 where PM
had used a value of 185. ADR noted that this value was not given to her and belongs to a different
data set.
PM read a statement noting that she had not breached the AI regulations.
PM asked ADR to clarify about the different dataset and whether ADR meant that she may have
asked help from other students. ADR explained that students were given 4 different datasets with 4
different values for lsp. PM’s value should have been 175 but she had used 185. PM explained the
possible reasons for this. PM showed her lecture notes and said these prove that she had more than
enough own resources and did not need other people’s help. PM noted that the possible discrepancy
could have occurred when she used her own quiz working outs and may have copied the value from
her own notes. She had intended to copy the method but might have accidentally copied the value.
PM explained that it was an open book exam so she used her own working outs but also the lecture
ones and may have copied the value from there. PM noted that the module lead had told that they
did not need to reference lecture content. PM noted that this had backfired because if she had
explained where she had got her sources from, she could have proved this. PM noted that she was
writing the solution at early hours of the morning so could have been a typo. ADR asked how PM
coincidentally used a value that came from another students’ data set. ADR further asked if PM
believed it was a coincidence. PM said yes it was a coincidence and showed the lecture notes as
proof. ADR noted that this was not proof that she did not collude with others. PM noted that if there
had been collusion there would be more evidence about it in her work but now it was just one value.
She reiterated this was just a coincidence and she had not colluded with anybody. ADR asked if PM had anything else to add. PM explained that she had learned a lesson about minor
errors in work and transferring draft work. If she had known beforehand that she would be
suspected of breaching AI regulations, she would have kept her draft work as extra evidence. She
noted that it may have been a typo when she transferred her work. PM emphasised that she has
abided by the AI guidelines and ensures that she will continue to follow them. ADR did not have any
further questions. AM confirmed that PM would receive the outcome within 5 working days
Customer: replied 8 days ago.
She is at Uni second year Aeronautical and Astronautics e gineering with placement year.
Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Hi Jeremy, the portal has asked to call you, I missed that alert.
Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Hi Jeremy, please see below AIO outcome letter content received on 28 April 21
Outcome of Initial meeting with Academic Integrity Officer
Further to the meeting with Dr Andrea Da Ronch, Academic Integrity Officer, on 19 April 2021, to
discuss a suspected breach of the Regulations Governing Academic Integrity on your Final Assessment
submission for SESA2024 Astronautics, I confirm that having considered the matters, Dr Da Ronch has
decided to impose the following penalty, having been satisfied of a breach, in accordance with
3.3.1(b)(i)
• Award a mark of zero (0) for the piece of work.
You have used a value of 185 for the Isp in the calculation of Q3(ii) on page 11 which comes from
dataset 3 not dataset 1. The reason given by you that this is a coincidence because you have been
working on your lecture notes and examples is not plausible. The reason is that the module lead has
confirmed that “I had a look in the notes and this doesn't match with values used in the lecture notes
either.”. If this is the case, you could have only got that value from another student who was assigned
dataset 3. This displays the breach of AI form you signed. You could have been easily communicating
about other sections too, but have not made the same mistake in displaying them.
If you dispute the findings or the penalty you may request in writing to refer the matter to an
Academic Integrity Panel; please see the generic email address below. Any such written request must
be made within 5 working days of this letter and must include the reasons for the dispute and
indicate any evidence you intend to rely on. Free, independent and specialist advice to support you in
this matter is available through the Advice Centre within SUSU. Contact details are; email ***@******.***. You are also encouraged to discuss the matter with your Personal Academic Tutor
Customer: replied 8 days ago.
My daughter has a deadline to appeal with 5 working days (I believe by 5 May 21) from the date of outcome letter.
Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Her health and wellbeing was badly affected due to the outcome letter for alleged Collusion with no evidence which she is not guilty of Collusion and being accused of Collusion which she did not in the first place. She was demotivated and her hard work was accused of Collusion, she self harmed on Receipt of her outcome letter in 28 April 21. She is recovering now, hence the delay to contact the solicitor

Hi thank you for your message, please note that I will look to provide an accurate but nevertheless speedy reply to your inquiry. That said, whilst I endeavour to provide a fast response, responses may not be immediate as this is a question and answer service not an instant chat service. I understand thank you, ***** ***** on what you have said it seems to me she has ample grounds to appeal because essentially what they seem to be suggesting is that if someone coincidentally types the same number as was in another data set then they will assume they have colluded rather than they just got the wrong answer, which seems absurd. When a perfectly innocent and reasonable explanation is available they should take it to be that rather than the one of wrong doing unless they have very strong evidence of wrong doing which they do not. As a general guide, you should consult the academic appeals process for the university and check every line to see if they have followed the appeals procedure correctly if not that alone is grounds for overturning the decision. Secondly, see if your daughter does have any of her workings out written down which can then be used to support the conclusion reached. Also, go through the question with her to see how the number 185 might have been reached instead of 175 to me a simple error could do that. You will then need to go through the appeals process. There are Barristers that specialise in this in particular I am aware of this company: https://www.academicappeals.co.uk/

However, I am also aware they tend to be expensive. I trust this assists you in understanding your position however, should you have any supplementary inquiries, do not hesitate to ask and I will look to clarify or expand on my previous response.

I thank you for visiting the website and for the opportunity to assist you with your inquiry. If you have further questions, inquiries or queries let me know post haste and I will attempt to answer them. Otherwise I bid you a good day

Jeremy Aldermartin and 2 other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Thank you so much Jeremy for your advkce
Would you be able to review the appeal letter that we have drafted please

I can though we normally charge extra for reviewing documents, how long is it?

Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Hi Jeremy, please advise me your extra charges, Iam happy to pay, I just about to send the draft appeal letter, it is 2 page long with uni appeal guidelines

For some reason the site is not letting me offer the premium service please just send it anyway and I will take a look.

Customer: replied 8 days ago.
From start AIO did not provide turn it report nor evidence for suspected collision only document sent was her exam script and AI meeting guidelines with her in AI meeting invitation letter by email . When my daughter requested for it, they just emailed saying on 15 April that she has used value different date set. On 19 April was the meeting on teams call when they disclosed of the Value used instead of 175 in her calculation. I will email you shortly the draft and uni AI guidelines
Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Hi Jeremy, I have attached guideline for your info, how ere, my daughter has the drafted the appeal letter in green and relevant uni regulation and guidelines in red.

I have taken a look and it is well drafted, just at the end it should be confirm not firm i.e. since I can only confirm - that I have not concluded with another student. In the points to note section. I trust this assists you in understanding your position however, should you have any supplementary inquiries, do not hesitate to ask and I will look to clarify or expand on my previous response.

I thank you for visiting the website and for the opportunity to assist you with your inquiry. If you have further questions, inquiries or queries let me know post haste and I will attempt to answer them. Otherwise I bid you a good day

Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Thank you so much Jeremy, is there any points to be included.

No I think the points she has written are good. I guess I would just focus on emphasising they seem to have discounted the highly likely possibility that one digit in a test i.e. the seven in 175 might have been mistakenly written as 185. it is literally a single digit in a whole test. They have no evidence of collusion, the evidence such as it is, is a single digit out of a whole exam. They suggest collusion but have no evidence from other answers. Also, surely if your daughter colluded with another data set with different numbers why are other answers not also wrong. I trust this assists and am sorry to hear about these circumstances, let me know if you need anything else.

It has been a pleasure to assist you today and let me know if you need any clarification.

Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Hi Jeremy, we are currently finalising the draft letter based on your advise. Would I be able to send it to for final review please before it is sent to appeal panel. Many thanks

Yes sure go ahead.

Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Hi Jeremy, please review the final draft letter attached. The letter should not be undermining or judgemental of AIO decision as part of the appeal guidelines , so please point out the statements if it does in this final draft. The corrections are in blue. Many thanks

Yes that is all fine. I thank you for visiting the website and for the opportunity to assist you with your inquiry. If you have further questions, inquiries or queries let me know post haste and I will attempt to answer them. Otherwise I bid you a good day

Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Thank you for help Jeremy

No problem, take care.

Customer: replied 8 days ago.
File attached (SQSZ216)

I see you have uploaded the final version, take care.

Customer: replied 8 days ago.
HI Jeremy, Iam really sorry, would you be able to review the fi Al draft for one final time, it is in blue. Will my daughter appeal weakens if she mentions lack of alertness and suggest appeal panel to contact candidates with dataset 3 to come forward if my daughter has collided. Thanks

I do not think she should suggest the appeal panel contact candidates to ask them if she colluded.

I trust this assists you in understanding your position however, should you have any supplementary inquiries, do not hesitate to ask and I will look to clarify or expand on my previous response.

Customer: replied 8 days ago.
Thanks Jeremy

No problem, take care.