Recurring concern

Failure to adapt academic decisions and support to student vulnerability

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 1 Feb 2019•Latest report 10 Jul 2024

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes university processes in which academic performance, absence, late work or other study difficulties should trigger an individualised and vulnerability-sensitive response, including proportionate academic decisions, coordination with pastoral or welfare support, and direct engagement where the student's circumstances may impair their ability to comply with academic requirements.

Not included

  • Excludes ordinary academic penalties or progression decisions where the student's vulnerability was appropriately considered and proportionate support was available.
  • Excludes generic student mental-health service access, staff training or pastoral-support deficiencies where no academic decision or academic-triggered support response is involved.
  • Excludes purely academic assessment, marking or curriculum-quality concerns unrelated to a student's vulnerability or welfare needs.
  • Excludes disciplinary or conduct decisions unrelated to academic performance, absence, late work or comparable study difficulties.
Reports
3

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
5

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2019–2024

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
6

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Universities UK1
University of Reading1
University of Southampton1
University of Sussex1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Berkshire

    AI-generated summary

    Benjamin Faux · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Benjamin Faux was a taught research Master's student at the University of Reading who had severe mental health difficulties, disengaged from his studies, and took his own life in his student accommodation on or around 5 August 2023. The concerns included inadequate pastoral support and monitoring, the absence of a process to ensure completion of study-suspension arrangements, unclear responsibility for resolving his academic situation, and a lack of University contact with him before his death.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain contact with vulnerable students during unresolved academic situations

    Wider context from the report

    “(5) By March 2023 Ben’s department at Reading University knew that Ben was a student with severe mental health concerns linked to management of his academic work, who had not taken any exam and had not completed sufficient research to file a dissertation and by late June they also knew that he had not completed paperwork to suspend his studies and yet: a. The University staff who knew this did not appear to appreciate what it meant for Ben and his continuing risk of vulnerability; and b. There was no individual who was given or took responsibility for what should happen next with regard to resolving Ben’s academic situation; and c. Apart from brief further contact from the Student Support Centre the suspension forms, no-one from the University contacted Ben between 24 April 2023 and when he took his life on or around 5 August 2023; ”

    Source location

    Benjamin Faux · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to identify students unfit to study and initiate enforced suspension

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) There is an established process for enforced suspension of studies and the University agreed that with hindsight Ben was clearly not fit to study and should have been identified as such and put on that pathway instead of leaving it to Ben to decide and take action to suspend his studies; ”

    Source location

    Benjamin Faux · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to recognise continuing vulnerability and risk from known academic and mental health concerns

    Wider context from the report

    “(5) By March 2023 Ben’s department at Reading University knew that Ben was a student with severe mental health concerns linked to management of his academic work, who had not taken any exam and had not completed sufficient research to file a dissertation and by late June they also knew that he had not completed paperwork to suspend his studies and yet: a. The University staff who knew this did not appear to appreciate what it meant for Ben and his continuing risk of vulnerability; and b. There was no individual who was given or took responsibility for what should happen next with regard to resolving Ben’s academic situation; and c. Apart from brief further contact from the Student Support Centre the suspension forms, no-one from the University contacted Ben between 24 April 2023 and when he took his life on or around 5 August 2023; ”

    Source location

    Benjamin Faux · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provide every Master’s by Research student with two academic points of contact and monthly meetings throughout the programme.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “This change was an institutional decision made to reflect the view that it was more appropriate for academic staff to focus on providing academic and general pastoral support, with trained professionals providing more specialist welfare support where required. | 1. Strengthen support system for MbR programmes to ensure that all MbR students have monthly meetings with two academic points of contact.”

    Source location

    Response from Reading University
    Page 1 · response
    Published 29 July 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Flag vulnerable students discussing withdrawal or suspension to relevant Student Support Centres and Student Wellbeing Services teams.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “3 | There will be a range of circumstances in which students, outside of our formal fitness to study process, may need to consider the possibility of suspending their studies. Our system for supporting students through to the conclusion of such discussions, is a weakness that the Coroner has correctly identified.”

    Source location

    Response from Reading University
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 July 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Assign SDATs responsibility for ensuring Master’s by Research student-support processes are completed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “5b and 5c | The University has clarified that the student support in place for MbR students should be aligned as far as possible with those on taught programmes. Therefore, it is the relevant SDAT who is responsible for ensuring that student support processes are seen through to completion for these students. | 1. New notification system to be implemented whereby the SDAT emails reminders to relevant academic staff at regular intervals to monitor and report engagement of MbR students. SSCs to provide”

    Source location

    Response from Reading University
    Page 3 · response
    Published 29 July 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Trigger the Fitness to Study Process when a vulnerable student takes no suspension action, enabling suspension in appropriate circumstances.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The University will take the necessary steps to ensure that:”

    Source location

    Response from Reading University
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 July 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Circulate guidance instructing welfare officers on prescriptive escalation, clarifying welfare information, and promptly sharing high-risk concerns with SDATs.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “5a | In response to this Concern, the University has circulated new guidance to key staff. This has included:”

    Source location

    Response from Reading University
    Page 3 · response
    Published 29 July 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The organisation lacks regulatory authority to mandate specific mental-health actions by member universities.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “UUK represents 141 autonomous universities across the United Kingdom. However, it is important to note that our organisation does not represent all higher education providers nor possess the regulatory authority to mandate specific actions by our member institutions. Each university operates independently, with its own governance and procedures.”

    Source location

    Response from Universities UK
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 July 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Individual universities are responsible for their own governance, procedures and decisions on specific mental-health actions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “UUK represents 141 autonomous universities across the United Kingdom. However, it is important to note that our organisation does not represent all higher education providers nor possess the regulatory authority to mandate specific actions by our member institutions. Each university operates independently, with its own governance and procedures.”

    Source location

    Response from Universities UK
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 July 2024

    Open published response
  2. Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

    AI-generated summary

    Matthew George WICKES · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Matthew George WICKES died in hospital on 30 June 2022 after jumping from a road bridge in Southampton during an acute anxiety crisis. Concerns included university staff awareness and training on student mental health and neurodiversity, gaps between academic assessment and pastoral support, difficulties in effectively reaching struggling students, and inadequate recording of academic meetings and agreed support.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient effective proactive outreach to students with academic absence or performance issues

    Wider context from the report

    “2. It was evident to the Court that very positive steps have already been undertaken in planning towards an early warning system for students in the academic year 2023/24. This will allow triggers to be identified and set for academic absence and changes in study or support behaviours (as is to be trialled in 2023/24). Such steps are to be commended and I hope will proceed at pace. However, I do have concerns that there is and remains an evident gap between the academic assessment of students and the pastoral support that they receive. I hope this will be addressed and filled – in part in the development of staff training and understanding around mental health and in what circumstances concerns should be raised (as above). Where academic absence or performance issues are identified, I am not convinced, on the evidence heard at this inquest, that enough has yet been done to also consider how ‘reaching out’ to such students can be most effectively achieved. It was evident that much of the group-focused approaches offered by the university or the initiatives where the onus is placed on the student to come forward, may not work. Practically, how best can students – especially those with neurodiverse needs – be compassionately and empathically approached and engaged with to ensure they receive the help and validation that they probably desperately require? ”

    Source location

    Matthew George WICKES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  3. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Daniel Alexander Jeremiah BOWEN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Daniel Alexander Jeremiah BOWEN took his own life, as recorded in the inquest conclusion. Concerns included insufficient use of academic advisors to support him with late work and academic pressures, and flawed communication between university departments, his GP or counsellor, and student support services.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Imposition of penalties for late academic work without adequate regard to student vulnerability

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Academic Advisor – Better use should be made of the person in this post for each school. There was a wasted opportunity for the academic advisor to be involved in face to face meetings with Daniel and help him when he was struggling to get his work in on time and to deal with his academic pressures. In the circumstances I heard that if work was late a penalty would be imposed. This seems ridiculous; why hit a man when he is already down? ”

    Source location

    Daniel Alexander Jeremiah BOWEN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review late-submission and penalty clauses in examination and assessment regulations, with specific consideration of potential changes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Regulatory & procedural monitoring and review The University regularly reviews its academic regulations and procedures, including the Principles underpinning this governance. As is general practice across the higher education sector, the University sets deadlines for submission of coursework. When a student is late or misses a submission for a deadline a penalty can be applied. When there are known reasons for late submission, a student may submit a request for exceptional circumstances, with evidence (e.g. medical), where appropriate. Students with reasonable adjustments in place due to a disability or specific learning difference have an additional seven days to submit work without penalty. When the University is unaware of such circumstances, a penalty will be applied.”

    Source location

    Response from University of Sussex
    Page 4 · response
    Published 23 February 2024

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026