Recipient

Coventry University

First report 11 Nov 2020•Latest report 11 Nov 2020

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · University. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 2
Stated actions: 3

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found

3stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Coventry University linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

11 Nov2020
Coventry
Concerns raised2
1. Lack of a procedure for contacting an overseas student under 18’s Guardian or Parents when no face-to-face meeting has occurred before sending a course-removal risk email
2. Lack of a procedure for a face-to-face meeting with an overseas student under 18 before sending an email indicating risk of removal from the course
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Review policies and procedures for students under 18.
  Stated in progress
2. Action
  Implement an additional process requiring welfare assessment meetings before withdrawing under-18 international students at visa-related engagement risk.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Provide the finalized new under-18 student policy to the Coroner.
  Stated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Existing attendance, engagement and welfare policies already provide face-to-face meetings and welfare checks and were followed.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Xuanze Piao · 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

Xuanze Piao, a 17-year-old overseas student at Coventry University, was struck by a train near Coventry Railway station on 3 December 2018 and died from catastrophic injuries; the inquest concluded suicide. The principal concerns were that the university did not meet him face to face or contact his guardian or parents before emailing him about the risk of removal from his course, and that no relevant procedure or policy was in place.

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. The report was sent to Coventry University; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a procedure for contacting an overseas student under 18’s Guardian or Parents when no face-to-face meeting has occurred before sending a course-removal risk email
Wider context from the report
“(.1) The University did not have a face to face meeting with Xuanze, a student under the age of 18, prior to sending him the email dated 29/11/2018 indicating that he was at risk of being removed from the course and that he should attend a meeting to discuss this on 03/12/2018; (.2) In the absence of a face to face meeting with Xuanze, the University did not contact either Xuanze’s Guardian or Parents prior to sending Xuanze the email dated 29/11/2018 indicating that Xuanze was at risk of being removed from the course and that he should attend a meeting to discuss this on 03/12/2018; Evidence was given at the inquest that in the case of an overseas student under 18, notwithstanding both prolonged absence from academic commitments and a persistent omission to respond to email requests that the absentee student should make contact with the university, there was no procedure or policy in place either for a face to face meeting with the student or, in the absence of such a face to face meeting, for contacting that student’s Guardian or Parents, prior to the email being sent indicating that the U.18 student was at risk of being removed from the course and that he should attend a meeting to discuss this. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Coventry University; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a procedure for a face-to-face meeting with an overseas student under 18 before sending an email indicating risk of removal from the course
Wider context from the report
“(.1) The University did not have a face to face meeting with Xuanze, a student under the age of 18, prior to sending him the email dated 29/11/2018 indicating that he was at risk of being removed from the course and that he should attend a meeting to discuss this on 03/12/2018; (.2) In the absence of a face to face meeting with Xuanze, the University did not contact either Xuanze’s Guardian or Parents prior to sending Xuanze the email dated 29/11/2018 indicating that Xuanze was at risk of being removed from the course and that he should attend a meeting to discuss this on 03/12/2018; Evidence was given at the inquest that in the case of an overseas student under 18, notwithstanding both prolonged absence from academic commitments and a persistent omission to respond to email requests that the absentee student should make contact with the university, there was no procedure or policy in place either for a face to face meeting with the student or, in the absence of such a face to face meeting, for contacting that student’s Guardian or Parents, prior to the email being sent indicating that the U.18 student was at risk of being removed from the course and that he should attend a meeting to discuss this. ”
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 policies and procedures for students under 18.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The University is undertaking a full review of its policy and procedures relating to students who are under the age of 18. This is expected to be complete by 31 January 2021. The University will provide a copy of the new policy to the Coroner when it has been finalised.”

Source location
2020-0230-Response-from-Coventry-University.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 23 December 2020
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
Implement an additional process requiring welfare assessment meetings before withdrawing under-18 international students at visa-related engagement risk.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In relation to the concerns raised by the Coroner, the University refers to the chronology set out above. The University also confirms that it has already put in place an additional process for responding when international students who are under 18 fail to engage with their course where”

Source location
2020-0230-Response-from-Coventry-University.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 23 December 2020
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
Provide the finalized new under-18 student policy to the Coroner.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The University is undertaking a full review of its policy and procedures relating to students who are under the age of 18. This is expected to be complete by 31 January 2021. The University will provide a copy of the new policy to the Coroner when it has been finalised.”

Source location
2020-0230-Response-from-Coventry-University.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 23 December 2020
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
Existing attendance, engagement and welfare policies already provide face-to-face meetings and welfare checks and were followed.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The University’s attendance/engagement and welfare policies and procedures therefore already provide for face to face meetings and welfare checks and those policies and procedures were followed in this case. However, the University is committed to continuous evolution and welcomes any proposals, comments or suggestions about the development of its policies and procedures.”

Source location
2020-0230-Response-from-Coventry-University.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 23 December 2020
Open published response

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised2

Lack of a procedure for contacting an overseas student under 18’s Guardian or Parents when no face-to-face meeting has occurred before sending a course-removal risk email

Lack of a procedure for a face-to-face meeting with an overseas student under 18 before sending an email indicating risk of removal from the course

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 1