With nearly one in five undergraduates now reporting a disability and persistent gaps in student satisfaction scores, universities face mounting pressure to provide effective reasonable adjustments.

But navigating the boundary between reasonable and unreasonable adjustments remains a significant challenge in higher education law.

The legal framework

The Equality Act 2010 requires universities to make reasonable adjustments that remove substantial disadvantages for disabled students. 

However, adjustments that are highly impractical, prohibitively expensive or compromise essential competence standards are not considered reasonable. The difficulty lies in applying these principles consistently whilst responding to individual circumstances.

What recent data reveals

Recent Office for Students research paints a concerning picture. Only 38% of disabled students who declared their disability reported having the support and adjustments needed to access their studies on equal terms with peers. 

More troubling still, 43% of adjustment applications were fully or partially rejected, yet 78 per cent of those students were given no explanation for the decision.

This data gap matters: disabled students are significantly overrepresented in Office of the Independent Adjudicator complaints - over 40% in 2024 - with higher uphold rates than non-disabled students. Poor adjustment decisions carry real consequences.

Where to draw the line

Competence standards 

These remain sacrosanct. Universities must ensure teaching and assessments remain accessible whilst maintaining rigour and credibility. A robust identification of competence standards – particularly for professionally accredited programmes – provides clear justification for refusing adjustments that would compromise essential learning outcomes.

For example, a medical degree cannot waive clinical examination skills and a music performance degree cannot remove performance requirements.

Proportionality

Consider the burden versus the benefit. One-to-one support sessions may be reasonable; hiring permanent additional staff for a single student typically is not. However, cost alone rarely justifies refusal – universities must demonstrate genuine disproportionality.

Whole-institution approach

Moving away from one-size-fits-all policies towards personalised discussions about barriers to learning is essential. This requires accountability set at senior level and staff training across all departments, not just disability services.

Evidence requirements

Consider tiered approaches: standard adjustments (extensions, alternative formats) requiring no medical evidence, with documentation requested only where implementing adjustments involves significant cost or operational complexity.

Practical steps for managing boundaries

1. Document everything: Record why adjustments were refused, what alternatives were considered, and the evidence underpinning decisions.
2. Explain decisions clearly: Never leave students without explanation for rejections.
3. Engage early: Late requests limit what is achievable, but timing shouldn't automatically justify refusal.
4. Train decision-makers: Ensure staff understand both obligations and permissible boundaries.
5. Review regularly: Policies should evolve with case law and sector guidance.

The bottom line

Getting adjustment decisions wrong risks discrimination claims, regulatory criticism, and reputational damage. But making genuinely unreasonable adjustments can compromise academic integrity and create unsustainable precedents.

Transparent, well-documented decision-making that balances legal obligations with operational realities. For expert advice on navigating complex adjustment decisions and student disputes, or to discuss disability support training workshops for your staff, please get in touch with our student matters in higher education team.