A King's College London student is taking legal action against the university after her first-class degree was downgraded to a 2:1, a dispute she describes as marked by “unjust” procedures, repeated errors, and lengthy delays.
Ceana Agbro, 23, began studying business management at King's College London in 2021. In May 2024, she was thrilled to see on the university's online portal that her grades indicated she had achieved a first-class degree. However, weeks later, her grade was reduced to a 2:1. Initially, she was told this was due to a system error and that it would be corrected.
Just days before her graduation, the university contradicted itself, stating that her grade was indeed a 2:1 because her initial grade did not include a peer-reviewed assignment. Ceana claims she was unable to access the peer review portal, even though other students could assess her contribution.
Feeling the process was unfair, Ceana deferred her graduation and launched multiple appeals. She insists her complaint is about procedure, not academic judgment, but both appeals were rejected after significant delays. After an unsuccessful complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) for Higher Education, she is now pursuing legal action, representing herself because legal representation would cost approximately £25,000.
A spokesperson for King's College London said the university apologized “for the error in email correspondence that occurred” but stated it is “confident that this robust investigation of the matter has reached a conclusive outcome.”
Ceana, a television development intern living in London, told PA Real Life: “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.”
She began her studies in September 2021 and was the first in her family to attend university. Throughout her degree, she focused on achieving a first-class grade, often turning down events to prioritize work. In May 2024, she calculated her grades on the portal and believed she had achieved a first, with an overall average of 70% or higher.
On July 9, 2024, she noticed her c-score had been incorrectly inputted as 67, changing her grade from a first to a 2:1. A staff member confirmed the miscalculation and said it would be corrected. Additionally, a grade for a module titled “Managing Extreme Situations: Crises, Corruptions And Controversies” did not add up. She believed she had achieved a first, but it showed a 2:1.
In an email on July 17, the programme manager apologized for the error and said the grade would be amended. However, the grade did not change. The director of undergraduate studies later apologized for incorrect information, attributing the errors to system updates. Ceana prepared for graduation, expecting the grade to be updated.
Three days before the ceremony, on July 29, the programme manager contradicted the earlier message, stating the module grade was supposed to be 68, not 70, because the 70 did not include peer review. The peer review scores accounted for 25% of the final mark, but Ceana said the peer review portal was not accessible on her account.
She deferred her graduation, saying, “I just didn't feel like I was able to walk across the stage accepting an incorrect grade.” On September 2, 2024, she submitted an academic appeal, but the university responded eight working days late, denying the appeal on the grounds that she was challenging academic judgment. Ceana insists it was about procedures.
Her stage two appeal on November 6, 2024, was denied at the end of February 2025, 50 working days late. She said, “If I filed something late as a student, they wouldn't even accept it.” On July 9, 2025, a staff member confirmed the peer review link was not visible due to “module administrators updating the portal.”
In the same month, 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 but did not receive one. She also submitted subject access requests in June 2025, which took 226 days to fulfill, far exceeding the 30-day requirement.
After the OIA found her complaint not justified in March 2026, Ceana decided to pursue a judicial review. She represents herself and has set up a GoFundMe page to cover fees. In May 2026, she sent a letter before claim. King's College London replied on May 26, stating they did not consider a basis for settlement but were open to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Ceana agreed, but on June 1, the university withdrew the offer, saying ADR was not productive.
Ceana is due to graduate in July 2026 and hopes to resolve her case in time. A King's College London spokesperson said: “We take all matters relating to student grades and academic appeals very seriously... This matter has been investigated thoroughly... and we are confident that this robust investigation has reached a conclusive outcome.”
