Harassment and sexual misconduct: what the OIA’s Good Practice Framework consultation means for students

Key Points

• If you are involved in a harassment or sexual misconduct case you should receive clear information about the process, and consistent wellbeing support throughout.
• If you are making a sexual misconduct or harassment allegation, you should not feel pressured to formalise it. You can explore resolution options that protect your wellbeing and minimise disruption to your studies.
• If you are responding to an allegation of harassment or sexual misconduct, you should request a written summary of the allegation early so you can participate fully and fairly in the investigation.

In my work advising students on university procedures, and as a member of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator’s (OIA) Good Practice Framework Steering Group for this consultation, I welcome the forthcoming guidance on how universities should handle reports of harassment and sexual misconduct. If implemented well, this guidance offers an important opportunity to embed fair, trauma-informed, and legally robust processes across the higher education sector. Otherwise, it risks compounding harm for reporting students and undermining fairness for responding students. Students deserve better on both fronts.

What does the consultation address?

The consultation covers how universities should respond to and investigate reports of harassment and sexual misconduct, including how disciplinary procedures should be conducted when a student is responding to allegations. The consultation closed on 6 February 2026, with the finalised guidance to be published later this year.

This consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Office for Students’ (OfS) Condition E6, which has been in force since 1 August 2025. E6 requires a single comprehensive source of information that sets out how incidents of harassment and sexual misconduct are to be handled.

The consultation is also informed by the OIA’s casework. Although harassment and sexual misconduct complaints remain a small share of overall complaints, the OIA reports that it upholds a higher proportion of these complaints than any other category. I believe this is a clear signal that institutional processes frequently fall short of what is required. Indeed, my own experience is that universities struggle to support the interests of reporting and responding students in equal measure.

The starting point is straightforward: students’ interests must be at the centre of any investigatory process, both for those reporting harm and for those facing allegations; each deserve clear information and consistent support throughout.

What I consider to be strengths of the OIA draft Framework

The emphasis on a trauma‑informed initial response is significant. I agree that early meetings should prioritise wellbeing, risk mitigation, and explore various options as to how to resolve the matter rather than testing the reporting student’s credibility.

The focus on clearly separating staff roles is also positive. Ensuring that the staff supporting a reporting student are not the same individuals collecting evidence or sitting on a disciplinary panel helps build trust between students and institutions, while reducing the risk of conflicts of interest or perceived bias when the evidence is later reviewed.

Another welcome feature is enabling fair ways to challenge evidence. Responding students should be able to question the evidence underpinning the claims made against them. This helps create a robust and transparent process while avoiding cross examination tactics that can be adversarial or harmful.

The draft Framework also pushes for competent evaluation and training, warning institutions not to rely on credibility cues, delays in reporting, or continued contact with the responding student, as this can all be consistent with known trauma responses.

Finally, I welcome the shift toward greater transparency in communicating investigation outcomes to reporting students. My experience is that too often, reporting students are given minimal information about outcomes, eroding their trust that the institution has conducted a proper investigation or taken appropriate action. In my experience, this is because communication of outcomes can sit at odds with confidentiality duties owed to responding students. The OIA’s draft Framework now expects providers to explain decisions and reasons to those directly affected, which aligns closely with E6’s outcome‑communication requirements.

Potential problems with the OIA draft Framework

Language and clarity

Using the term “report” for both informal and formal disclosures risks deterring students from seeking low-level advice and support, thereby blurring next steps. The finalised Framework should clarify the distinction so students can disclose and access support without being propelled into formal processes before they are ready.

Anonymous reporting and freedom of speech

Anonymous tools can help to identify patterns, which allows universities to take proactive safeguarding measures, but this also raises concerns about fairness and free speech if anonymous disclosures are used to trigger actions about named individuals without corroboration. The OIA acknowledges the importance of maintaining students’ confidence in university processes and trend‑spotting. However, E6 requires providers to operate in a way that is consistent with freedom of speech principles. I would expect providers to consider, on a case-by-case basis, any appropriate actions arising from an anonymous disclosure, especially where their safeguarding duties toward the wider community come into play.

Historic complaints and feasibility

A compassionate stance against rigid time limits must be paired with a practical approach as it relates to older cases, where records are missing or witnesses have graduated or left the university. Universities should be equipped to offer mental health support and make necessary adjustments with regard to a reporting student’s studies, even if action can no longer be taken against an alleged perpetrator.

Small and specialist providers

Separating support, investigatory, and decision‑making roles is good practice, but smaller institutions can struggle to resource this, or to assure independence in spaces where “everyone knows everyone”. Responses from student services staff highlight the need to keep this in mind when designing realistic pathways for students to make disclosures, ensuring that all students receive a consistent and high quality service wherever they study.

Our guidance for reporting and responding students

For a reporting student, the first conversation should be support-led, not an interrogation. Reporting students should be offered options from disclosure-only support, to informal resolution, to formal reporting. None of those routes should be closed off because they have asked for help.

For a responding student, fairness means early disclosure of the case against them. This also means clear communication of the relevant procedures, reasonable time to prepare, and a meaningful way to question the evidence against them. Responding students should also know how the panel will assess evidence, what training decision-makers have, and how to appeal. The standard should be consistent across all universities, not dependent on institutional size or budget.

If safeguarding measures are needed, they should be proportionate, regularly reviewed, and designed to minimise disruption to both the reporting and responding students’ studies. Both parties should receive timely updates, and when the investigation concludes, reporting students should be informed of the outcome and the university’s reasons as far as data protection allows.

How we can help

If you’ve experienced harassment or sexual misconduct at university, you should be able to seek support without committing to formal action. Ask your university to explain, in writing, the difference between a disclosure and a formal report, and seek support if you are unclear before making any decisions.

If you’re facing an allegation, request a written summary of the allegations as well as the accompanying evidence, and the relevant university procedure which will apply in your circumstances.

No matter whether you are bringing or responding to an allegation of harassment or sexual misconduct, seek legal advice if you consider the process being followed is unfair, unclear, or inconsistent, as soon as possible.