In the present environment, all students who fail should be doing a SAR. The information you are entitled to receive is not only helpful for revision, possibly replicating many of the benefits of exam counselling for no charge, but allows you to know whether you are in the ever growing list of students who have not had their paper marked by the IFoA in line with their own marking procedure in force at the time you entered for the exam.
Regarding the adjustments applied to your marks, have you asked the ICO whether the IFoA were able to exclude how the adjustment was calculated in your Subject Access Request? The IFoA do not have a good track record in adhering to the Data Protection Act, so I would ask the ICO for their opinion. My suspicion is that the IFoA have to provide such data under the Data Protection Act.
I have to echo your experience here, the SCF do not advocate for and do not appropriately represent the student body. Every year I see their role on the website being watered down further and further, until now they are just described as a conduit for communicating to the IFoA.
I understand our rep ran student feedback for the last meeting by the IFoA for approval. The IFoA advised the rep to put the feedback aside, and the rep agreed and then refused to raise the student's feedback at the meeting last November. The IFoA are therefore filtering the questions that are raised at their own feedback meeting, and no-one on the SCF has a problem with this!
The SCF is not fit for purpose and needs to be reformed. Any students should therefore be raising their complaints directly to the IFoA until this changes.
Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2017