A King’s College London student has initiated legal proceedings against her university after her first-class degree was downgraded to a 2:1.
Ceana Agbro, 23, who started studying business management at King’s College London in 2021, alleges that the incident has exposed “unjust” procedures, significant delays, and a series of administrative errors.
Ceana was delighted when the university’s online portal displayed her grades, and she calculated that she had earned a first-class degree in May 2024.
However, weeks later, she said her grade was unexpectedly reduced from a first to a 2:1. Initially, she was told it was due to a system error and was reassured the grade would be reinstated.
Yet, just days before her graduation, the university contradicted itself, stating that her grade was indeed a 2:1, as her initial grade did not account for a peer-reviewed assignment.
Ceana maintains she was unable to access the university’s peer review portal, even though other students could assess her contribution to the assignment.
Feeling the process was unfair, Ceana deferred her graduation and filed multiple appeals against the university, insisting her complaint was about procedure rather than academic judgment. However, she said both appeals were rejected after significant delays.
After also being unsuccessful through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) for Higher Education, she is now pursuing legal action, representing herself, as she was advised legal representation would cost around £25,000.
A spokesperson for King’s College London said the university has apologised “for the error in email correspondence that occurred” but is “confident that this robust investigation of the matter has reached a conclusive outcome”.
Ceana, a television development intern living in London, stated: “I want people to understand this isn’t even about the grade – it’s about the process and it’s been unjust. I’m doing this for the students before me and after me – I don’t want it to happen to anyone else.”
Ceana was the first in her family to attend university and said she was “very focused” on achieving a first-class grade, often turning down events to prioritise her work.
In May 2024, she logged on to King’s College London’s online portal and saw her module grades, calculating she had achieved a first. A first is the highest academic grade for undergraduate bachelor’s degrees in the UK, requiring an overall average of 70% or higher.
She said: “I felt like all these sacrifices, all those late nights, were worth it. I thought getting a first from King’s would open a lot of doors for me.”
However, on July 9, 2024, she logged back onto the platform and noticed her grade, or ‘c-score’, had been incorrectly entered as 67, changing her grade from a first to a 2:1. She emailed a staff member who confirmed the miscalculation and said it would be corrected, ensuring she would still achieve a first.
Additionally, a grade for a module titled ‘Managing Extreme Situations: Crises, Corruptions And Controversies’ did not add up. Ceana believed she had earned a first in that module, as the system had previously indicated, but it now showed a 2:1.
She contacted the university, and the programme manager replied on July 17, stating she “did indeed receive a 70 for the group report – apologies for the error”. The email continued: “I have raised this with the assessment and awards team who will make this amendment, accordingly, including recalculating your overall c-score.”
However, Ceana said her grade did not change, and she contacted the university multiple times. The director of undergraduate studies contacted her on July 26, 2024, apologising for “incorrect information provided” about her c-score and confirming that the source of the errors “were related to updates to the system made earlier this year”.
She then began preparing for graduation, assuming her grade would soon be updated, and was excited for her family to attend. Ceana said: “That email gave me hope that everything would be sorted before my graduation. I had it in writing. I had no indication that anything was still wrong.”
Three days before the ceremony, on July 29, the university’s programme manager emailed, contradicting their previous message. According to Ceana, the programme manager said the module grade was supposed to be 68 rather than 70, and that the 70 grade did not “include peer review”. As part of the module, students completed a group project where group members assessed each other’s contributions.
Ceana submitted an academic appeal to the university in September 2024. She said the peer review scores accounted for 25% of each individual’s final mark for the module, but the peer review portal was not accessible on her account.
“It felt so unfair – first, they tell me it was an error, then I find out others have been able to score me,” she said. So, she decided to defer her graduation until the following year.
She explained: “I just didn’t feel like I was able to walk across the stage accepting an incorrect grade. I just felt like it wouldn’t be authentic to me, because I’m upset with what’s happened.”
On September 2, 2024, with the help of lawyers, she submitted an academic appeal to the university and expected a response within 30 working days, in line with university guidelines. However, Ceana said the university responded eight working days late, which she described as “breaching their own regulation”.
“They declined my appeal because they said I’m challenging academic judgment. It wasn’t about academic judgment – this is about the procedures. It was not fair that I didn’t get to do the peer review,” she said.
She submitted a stage two appeal on November 6, 2024, this time representing herself, and claims she received a response at the end of February 2025 – 50 working days late – denying her appeal again.
She said: “If I filed something late as a student, they wouldn’t even accept it. It’s like they’re able to do whatever they want to do and don’t have to follow their own procedures and timelines.”
On July 9, 2025, she said she received an email from a King’s College London business department staff member confirming again that the peer review link was not visible on the system for her due to “module administrators updating the portal”.
In the same month, she said a link to the peer review portal became available on her account for the first time – a year after the dispute began. When she accessed it, her name appeared as having completed the peer review. She asked for a timestamp to confirm when this was submitted, but King’s College London did not provide one.
She also submitted two subject access requests in June 2025 to see if “any other information had been withheld” from her, but it took the university 226 calendar days to fulfil just one of these – they were meant to take 30 calendar days.
She contacted the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) in November 2025 and was informed in March 2026 that her complaint was not justified, but she said the OIA could not consider all elements of her case.
Ceana has decided to pursue a judicial review through the administrative court – a specialist court within the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. She said she was advised that legal representation would cost approximately £25,000.
“Navigating this massive process for the past few years has been exhausting, I’d love for anyone with experience in educational law to reach out to me,” she said.
She has decided to represent herself and has set up a GoFundMe page to help cover any associated fees. In the middle of May 2026, she sent her letter before claim to King’s College London.
On May 26, they replied, confirming they do not consider there is a basis for settlement, but they are open to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The following day, Ceana responded, saying she was “equally willing to engage with ADR”. However, on June 1, King’s withdrew the offer, stating they did not consider ADR productive at this stage.
She now wishes to continue with legal proceedings and will submit a claim form at the administrative court. Ceana is due to graduate in July 2026, and it cannot be rescheduled again, so she hopes to resolve her case in time.
A spokesperson for King’s College London said: “We take all matters relating to student grades and academic appeals very seriously to ensure fairness for all of our students and we have sincerely apologised for the error in email correspondence that occurred, however this error is separate from and does not affect the outcome of investigations. This matter has been investigated thoroughly, firstly through our own robust and objective appeals processes and then secondly by the independent, external Adjudicator, who upheld the University’s position. We have engaged fully with the appeals process pursued by the student, and are confident that this robust investigation of the matter has reached a conclusive outcome.”
