INDIVIDUAL REPORT (CW2): You have been tasked to produce a business report on the proposed capital investment project (see the following case study) for use by the Board of Directors in their upcomi

1 Faculty of Business and Law ACADEMIC YEAR 201 8/19 ASSESSMENT BRIEF Module Code: UMACTA -30 -M / UMADNJ -30 -M Module Title: Fundamentals of Finance / Fundamentals of Accounting and Finance Submission Deadline: CW 1: 04 /12/2018 and 06 /12/2018 Group Presentations CW2: 08/01/2019 Individual Report Assessment Component CW1 and CW2 Assessment Weighting: 30% (10% CW1 + 20% CW2 ) per cent of total module mark Marking and feedback deadline (20 working days) 06/02/2019 Assessment Instructions Case study “Foster’s Construction Ltd” Your role You are Harry (or Harriet) Simons, recent graduate and newly appointed assistant to Sonya Carson, the Director of Capital Investments (CI) for Foster’s Construction Ltd. Your six -month probationary period is almost up and you are keen to make a good impres sion. Required : You have been tasked by Sonya to produce the following coursework elements: 1) GROUP PRESENTATION (CW1): A 15 -minute presentation on the investment appraisal of the proposed project for the upcoming meeting of the Board of Directors. The presentation should include:  An investment analysis of the proposed project discussed in the attached data. Your projected cash flows should include the impact of corporation tax, capital allowances and you should use NPV as the discriminator.  A scenario a nalysis, including sensitivity analysis, which shows the effects of a range of changes in the estimates on the investment project’s NPV value.  A short discussion of other financial and non -financial factors involved in making investments in the proposed capital assets. 2) INDIVIDUAL REPORT ( CW2): You have been tasked to produce a business report on the proposed capital investment project (see the following case study) for use by the Board of Directors in their upcoming meeting. The report should contain a short discussion of sources of finance for the proposed capital investment project and a short discussion of the gap between the theory and practice of capital budgeting. 2 Learning outcomes tested by the GROUP presentation  Compare and contrast costs in investment appraisal.  Undertake discounted cash flow calculations taking inflation, tax and capital allowances into account where appropriate.  Identify and apply techniques to deal with investment decisions and discriminate between relevant and irrelevant information for decision -making purposes.  Apply appropriate knowledge, analytical techniques and concepts to problems and issues arising from familiar and unfamiliar situations.  Extract and critically analyse data from dif ferent sources.  Identify and discuss financial considerations arising from sensitivity analysis.  Think critically; examine problems and issues from a number of perspectives, challenging viewpoints, ideas and concepts, and present good arguments.  Present information in a coherent presentation to professional standards of organisation, clarity and logical coherence.  Discuss and defend ideas, concepts and views effectively through verbal communication.  Use appropriate IT packages to aid efficient searchin g, communicating and presentation of information (general IT skills include use of standard word processing packages, internet and spreadsheets). Learning outcomes tested by the INDIVIDUAL report  Apply appropriate knowledge, analytical techniques and concepts to problems and issues arising from familiar and unfamiliar situations;  Think critically, examine problems and issues from a number of perspectives, challenging viewpoints, ideas and concepts, and present good arguments;  Present written information in a report format to professional standards of organisation, clarity and logical coherence;  Discuss and defend ideas, concepts and views effectively through written communication;  Use appropriate IT packages to aid efficient searching, commu nicating and presentation of information (general IT skills include use of standard word processing packages, internet and spreadsheets). Group Presentations You will be allocated by the module leaders in a group with 4/5 members (You are not allowed to change or choose your group). The presentations will take place on the 4th December and 6th December 2018, the presentation schedule will be released in due course. As usual, full attendance will be expected on both days, even if your group is not present ing. 10% of your mark will come from peer assessment, you will be assessing your peers’ presentations. You will need to present your findings professionally and clearly. Your presentation will be limited by 15 minutes. Y ou will be stopped if you have not completed your presentation on time. 3 Submission of the INDIVIDUAL report You should submit the completed report no later than 2pm (14:00) , 8th January 2019 , and electronically via Blackboard. Please ensure that you submit all supporting files in a single Microsoft Word document submission, Blackboard only allows marking of files included in final submission. You are required to produce the report individually, working on this report with other students is potentially an assessment offence. Please refer to the assessment offence section of this assessment brief for details. The report has a maximum word count of 1,000 words. This figure is for the main body of the report and does not include t ables, appendices and executive summary. Please refer to the word count policy section of this assessment brief for details. Staff Contact You can consult staff up to 13th December 2018. Support given will be limited to exploring the possible interpreta tions of the assignment. CASE STUDY Background Foster’s Construction Ltd: Organizational Background Fosters Construction Ltd (FCL) is a privately owned company with revenue of £20 million per annum, and 200 employees. The company has been operating for 24 years and is well established in the marketplace. However, despite a national rate of inflation of 4 per cent per annum over the last few years (which is expected to continue), a general economic downturn has seen FCL’s nominal revenue reduce at a rate of about 3 per cent per annum. The company’s main activity is the construction of large industrial buildings. It also provides maintenance services, mainly for those buildings which it has constructed. FCL has a large investment in construction machinery, and has always kept up with the latest technology in the industry. The company has concentrated on developing a corporate image as an innovative, technologically advanced construction firm, and many of the managers of FCL consider that this corporate image has been a major factor in sec uring large, competitive contracts in the past. FCL is subject to corporation tax at 35 per cent, payable twelve months after year end, and a system of 25 per cent writing down allowance on capital assets, FCL’s formal capital investment system An in vestment in construction equipment is central to the operations of FCL. The organization has, over many years, developed a detailed system by which capital investment proposals are considered.

The summary sheet in Exhibit 1 is taken from the firm’s capital investment procedures manual, and outlines the formal process for capital investment decision -making within FCL . The current CI decision: purchase of a replacement crane The Construction Site Manager (CSM) has recently submitted a CI/12 application for the purchase of a new crane. The new asset would replace an existing crane, which is ten years old, and which requires major maintenance in order to meet required safety sta ndards. 4 The CSM has indicated in the January budget setting round that the firm would need to spend money maintaining the old crane, but had not at that stage been aware of any replacement options. It had previously been expected that the existing crane w ould see out its remaining useful life, to be replaced by a more modern crane (the Auto -Lift II, or ‘ALII’). The ALII is technologically more advanced than the firm’s existing crane, and is able to lift much larger loads. The new crane would cost £345,00 0, which is considerably more than the original £195,000 cost of the existing crane. The CSM consulted with the site accountants, and put forward the following information in the CI/12 application:  Description: purchase of an ALII crane to replace an exi sting crane which is in need of major maintenance.  Cost projections: purchase price = £345,000; annual running cost = £60,000. It is expected that the ALII crane would have a £30,000 scrap value at the end of its useful life in ten years’ time.  Projected timescale: available for purchase from Allied Importers Ltd in one month’s time.

Purchase price payable on 31 March of this year (year 0) – the last day of FCL’s financial year for taxation purposes. The site accountants and the CSM had agreed that no further information was necessary, as the CI proposal qualified as a ‘replacement of existing asset’ Class I investment. The CSM’s CI/12 application has now been considered by the Director of CI, who feels uneasy about recommending the ALII crane p urchase for funding approval. The Director of CI has called a meeting of concerned parties to discuss the CI application. The meeting participants The following people are present at the meeting to discuss the ALII purchase proposal:  Sonya Carson (SC) Director of CI. Sonya is new to this position, and is familiarizing herself with the technical nature of the firm’s operations. She has an undergraduate economics degree and is considered competent, if perhaps a little overambitious. However, many longer -serving organizational members doubt Sonya’s ability to make good decisions regarding investment in an industry about which she currently knows little. For this reason, her appointment to the position of Director of CI was controversial.  Julian Done (JD) Construction site manager. Julian has worked in the construction industry for 15 years, progressing through the ranks to become CSM two years ago. He is considered to be competent in his job, but is perceived as uncompromising and confrontational. Julian ha s no time for ‘the head office bosses’, and his outspoken manner at meetings has often met with disapproval from the CEO.  Franc Silvero (FS) CEO of Foster’s Construction Ltd. Franc came to FCL seven years ago when the construction industry was in a boom period. Received much accolade for record sales levels when he first joined the firm as contracts director, and so has continued to implement the policies which had met with success in the past. Franc is now perceived as conservative, and often resists mov ement towards new areas of business operations. He has a construction background, and sometimes feels uncomfortable with his new managerial role as CEO.  Henry Morton (HM) Engineering manager. Henry has an engineering degree and has worked in the trade for eight years, joining FCL three years ago. Henry is often called to give advice 5 on the technical and operating implications of capital asset purchases, as well as their pro bable maintenance costs. Henry keeps up -to-date on innovation and new technology in the construction industry, and in his opinion, is well respected. However, Henry has in the past been frustrated in several attempts to introduce advanced technology into F CL’s construction equipment, and blames this on the conservative approach of Franc Silvero. The meeting The meeting called by Sonya turned out to lengthy and lively. There was a considerable debate, and the following excerpt reflects the main comments r aised by the participants. SC: Look Julian, there just isn’t enough information here. I have to be able to work out the new crane’s NPV and payback period. In the past, if projects haven’t had a positive NPV at a required rate of return of 26 per cent, a nd paid back within five years, then they haven’t been approved. Do we know anything about the financial benefits which the ALII might produce? What advantage is there in buying this thing now? Couldn’t we just let our old crane run its course and consider our options once it reaches the end of its useful life in few years ’ time? FS: Yes, I think we need to look more closely at the details here. Julian, what do you think the outlook is if we stay with the old crane? JD: The old crane really needs some m aintenance work done on it, to bring it up to safety standards. If we spent about £40,000 on maintenance straight away it should be OK until it goes out of commission in five years’ time. FS: What does it cost to run the old crane? JD: Running costs ar e around £40,000 per annum. Plus, the crane’s getting unreliable. I reckon there’s about a 50 per cent chance that it will break down at some time during the year. If it does we lose three day’s productivity on a job at a cost of around £15,000, not to men tion the cost of fixing it, which was £10,000 last time. Even once it’s fixed there’s still a 50 per cent chance it could break down again within the next twelve months. FS: What if we go for the ALII? JD: The running costs would be a bit higher, as it ’s a finely tuned machine and needs regular maintenance. I reckon we’re looking at about £60,000 a year, judging by the recommended service programme. But, at least it’s not likely to break down. Also, I’m sure that the ALII would improve our chances of wi nning contracts, as it’s faster and it will help keep costs down. Take for example that Storex contract we missed out on last month. The kind of cost savings we could get with the ALII could have won us that bid, and jobs like that are worth around £40,000 pre -tax profit to FCL. We could pick up a couple more like that one each year, maybe more. FS: How would you rate the chance of picking up more work with the ALII? JD: Well, probably about 60 per cent chance that we’d get another two like the Storex job each year, and perhaps about 20 per cent chance of doubling that. It’s hard to say really, but the customers out there are feeling the pinch. We’ve got to watch our c ost competitiveness if we want to stay in the game. HM: That’s a key point here, I think. We’ve got to take a long -term view. The way I read it, these ALII cranes will take over the market in the next two years, and by the time we came to replace the old crane five years from now, we’d be looking at buying an ALII anyway. The question is, do we get in on the new technology now, or in five years’ time ? We really can’t assume that the status quo will continue if we don’t go for the ALII now. We’re looking a t a fall in price competitiveness, company 6 image and profits if we don’t move with the times. If we do go with the ALII now, we’ve got an edge over our competitors. Even then, we wouldn’t want to hang on to the ALII for more than ten years.

We need to keep upgrading to keep ahead of the game. JD: I can’t see what the problem is with these numbers Sonya has to crunch. It’s only an asset replacement, and I’ve given you all the information the manual says you need. Besides, I told everyone in January that we ’d need to spend some money on the crane, so we all knew this was coming. FS: That’s true, Julian, but we’re talking £345,000 now, whereas we only expected to spend £40,000 on maintenance. I’m not at all sure that we want to get into experimental technol ogy anyway, it seems pretty risky. What’s wrong with maintaining the old crane, as planned? It’s still got five years left in it, and they’re pretty hard to sell second -hand. It’s in our books at £10,981 after accumulated WDAs. We’d probably only get about £20,000 for it if we want to sell it, which isn’t much more than the £5,000 scrap value we’d get for it in five years’ time. SC: Julian, perhaps you, Henry and I can sit down and draw up the figures, including the cost and benefit information you’ve men tioned today. Then I can run the numbers and see if it meets our investment criteria. There’s just a couple of things that bother me, though. It doesn’t seem right to use the same required rate of return for every project. We should be using different ra tes for different types of projects. I’ve been playing around with a few numbers, and it seems to me that 26 per cent is too high. It might be OK for risky projects that are something new to us, but here we’re talking about a crane. That’s run - of-the -mill stuff for FCL, and it seems to me that a 21 per cent nominal required return would be more appropriate. Also, looking at past records of CI analyses, it looks like the 26 per cent rate has been used as a real discount rate, when it is actually calculated to represent a nominal rate. We really need to do some inflation adjustments to the rates we’re using. JD: This is all gobbledegook to me. Perhaps that’s the problem here – we’re so tied up in the numbers that we can’t see a good investment when it hits us in the face! FS: We have to be sure that any investment is financially viable, Julian. Sonya, why don’t you run the numbers both ways: the way we have in the past, and again using a rate you think is appropriate. I’d be interested in seeing what diff erence it makes, although there’s never been a shortage of projects in the past that have made the 26 per cent grade. I hope you wouldn’t be cutting it too fine using a rate like 21 per cent. It doesn’t seem to leave much margin for error if our project es timates turn out to be wrong. SC: I’ll run the numbers, but the best way of dealing with margins for error is by getting things right in the first place. There’s still a lot of uncertainty on this project. All we’ve got so far are ‘feeling’ and estimates – do you think we can firm up those figures at all? JD: No. There just isn’t any other information. Look, I’ve been in this industry since before you finished school – I’ve learnt enough to know what’s what. I can tell you now that sooner or later we’ll need a new crane to be able to do our jobs, and doing our jobs is what makes money for this company! FS: OK, Julian, no one doubts your judgement. Sonya, how about doing what you suggested, and sitting down with Henry and Julian. They should be able to give you the technical information, and you can work through the numbers. I’d like to see the IRR too – I’ve never been able to understand why we don’t calculate IRR. I know a lot of other firms that do. 7 HM: Maybe we could think about changing the CI proc edures manual too. That way, the technical people will know exactly what information the director of CI needs and things can be settled faster. SC: Fine, that’s a good idea. Look, I know we haven’t resolved this, but thanks for coming to this meeting. Pe rhaps we can all get together again in a week’s time to make a decision. EXHIBIT 1 Fosters Construction Ltd. Capital investment procedures – summary Capital investment (CI) is defined as ‘any major expenditure on purchasing, construction or upgrading capital assets, the benefits from which will accrue over several years’. 1. In early January of each year the CI budget is determined. The total amount of available funds for CI expenditure is determined by the directors, based on what they consider the company can afford. 2. Later that month, divisional managers meet to discuss forthcoming CI requirements, and the budget allocated across divisions. Man agers must present their proposed CI requirements under the following three headings: (i) essential replacement of existing assets (Class 1); (ii) strategic expansion (Class 2); (iii) safety and regulatory expenditure (Class 3). The final allocation a cross divisions is a decision taken jointly by the CEO and the director of CI. 3. Throughout the year, access to funds for investment requires the submission of a standard form CI/12 – Capital Expenditure Application. The information normally required wi th such as submission includes: (i) a description of the proposed investment; (ii) motivation for the investment, i.e. what will the investment achieve for the company; (iii) financial projections of the cost of the investment; (iv) projected future fi nancial benefits of the investment; (v) key success indicators for the investment (used for assessing the riskiness of the project and for subsequent post audit); (vi) a projected time -scale for completion of the investment. However, proposed Class 3 projects may dispense with items (iv) and (v), and those in Class 1 may dispense with items (ii), (iv) and (v). 4. The CI/12 form is assessed by the director of CI, w ho has the following options: (i) accept the proposal and forward it to the CEO for financing approval; (ii) refer the proposal back for further refinement; (iii) reject the proposal. CI proposals will be assessed with regard to the net present value ( NPV) and payback period (PP) of the proposed project, although Class I projects will be considered as ‘cost minimization exercises’, since there is already an accepted need to continue with current operations and assets, and Class 3 projects are not requir ed to meet financial criteria. 5. All CI projects are assessed within a ten -year planning horizon, i.e. investment effects beyond this ten -year horizon are considered uncertain, and are ignored. 6. If approved, a CI proposal is then allocated funds fro m the annual budget. A project supervisor is then assigned, and this person is responsible for the implementation and reporting of the CI project. 7. In due course, some selected CI projects will be subject to post audit by the director of CI. 8 Marking Criteria The following criteria will be use d in evaluating this assessment : 1) Group Presentation Marking Criteria (CW1) Group Name: Team members Student Number 1.

2.

3.

4.

5. For each criterion, rate the presentation between 1 (very poor) and 5 (very good) Criteria Score Weight Total Organisation  Clear introduction  Rationale presented to support arguments  Conclusion logically drawn from rationale  Logical flow of discussion 30% Content  Topic addressed satisfactorily  Reasoning clearly with valid logic  Evidence presented to support key points  Critical evaluation of the case scenario in arriving at recommendations 40% Team work and Q&A section  Clear demonstration of each member contributing during the presentation and Q&A  Individual accountability demonstrated during Q&A  Prompt answers, creative reasoning and persuasiveness 20% Visual aids and overall oral presentation  Proper use of visual aids  Engaging with the audience  Volume, enunciation, eye contact, gesture 10% Final Mark Feedback From: Date: Strengths of this assignment are: Main ways to improve this assignment are: Group Presentation Mark Mark Peer Assessment Mark Final Mark The peer assessment mark will account for 10%. 9 2) Individual Report Marking Criteria (CW2) : For the individual report you will be provided with a formative feedback showing strengths and ways to improve your assignment: Student number: Feedback From: Date: Strengths of this assignment are: Main ways to improve this assignment are: Marking Criteria Issue Grade A Grade B+ Grade B Grade C Refer/Fail Relevance to assignment brief Assignment’s aims and themes are integral to the assignment. Clear focus on the themes of the assignment. Mainly focused on the themes of the assignment. Some of the writing is focused on the themes of the assignment. Makes no attempt to address the themes of the assignment. Extent of evaluation Evaluation within assignment rigorous and appropriate. Good clear evidence of evaluation carried out within assignment. Evaluation reasonably well carried out Some attempt at evaluation within assignment. No attempt at evaluation within assignment Quality of reasoning Analytical and clear conclusions well - grounded in theory and literature, showing development of new concepts. Good development as shown in summary of arguments based on theory/literature and beginnings of synthesis. Evidence of findin gs and conclusions grounded in theory/literature. Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by the literature and theory. Unsubstantiated/invalid conclusion, based on anecdotes and generalisations only. Skill at facilitating discussion Excellent enabling pacing and summarising of discussion. Clear evidence of ability to stimulate, facilitate and summarise discussion. Some ability to stimulate and facilitate discussion or be directive. Some ability to facilitate discussion but tendency to miss opportunities. Inability to stimulate/ facilitate discussion. Clarity and quality of written expression Clarity of expression excellent. Consistently accurate use of grammar and spelling professional/academic writing style. Thoughts and ideas clearly expressed. Grammar and spelling accurate with fluent fluent. Language mainly fluent. Grammar and spelling mainly accurate and language fluent Meaning apparent but.... language not always fluent, grammar and spelling still poor. Purpose and meaning of assignment unclear. Language, grammar and spelling poor. Understanding of subject Work shows a well - co-ordinated , grounded and reasoned understanding of topic and its relevance to practice Consistent understanding demonstrated in a logical, coherent and lucid manner. Demonstrates understanding in a style which is logical, coherent and flowing. Attempts a logical and coherent understanding of the subject area. Fails to demonstrate understa nding of the subject/topic area. Referencing Referencing clear, relevant and consistently accurate using the Harvard system. Referencing relevant and mostly accurate using the Harvard system. Minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies in referencing using the Harvard system. Referencing present but had inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Referencing inaccurate or absent. Use of literature Has developed own ideas and justified using a wide range of sources of theories and literature which has been thoroughly analysed, applied and tested. Ability to appraise critically the theory and literature from a variety of courses, developing own ideas in the process. Clear evidence and application of readings relevant to the subject within the text. Little or no evidence of reading around the subject. Evidence of some limited reading around the subject 10 Formative feedback and Support Formative feedback Formative feedback provides opportunities to reflect on your ongoing work and preparation for your assignment . You will be given a verbal feedback and a more detailed written feedback for your presentation and a written feedback for your individual assignment . Further information about this assessment is available on the Blackboard site for this module and includes: Guidance documents, module handbook, reading list sections or other resources here. Format ting Please use t he following file format(s) Word or pdf. We cannot ensure that other formats are compatible with markers’ software. All work should be word processed in 12 -point font Times New Roman or Arial and single spaced. The first page of your coursework must include :  Your st udent Number  The m odule Name and Number  Your w ord Count  The c oursework question or title Word Limit The maximum word limit for this coursework is 1,000  This w ord count includes everything in the main body of the text (including headings, tables, citations, quotes, lists, etc.).  The references, bibliography and footnotes (provided footnotes only include references) are NOT included in this word count.  There is no direct penalty for exceeding the word count , but the marker WILL sto p reading once the maximum word limit has been reached and nothing further will be taken into account in the allocation of marks. You can view the UWE word count policy here: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/abo utus/policies Referencing: Please adhere to the principles of good academic practice and ensure you reference all sources used when developing your assessment, using the UWE Harvard system. Failure to properly reference your work to original source material can be grounds for the assessment offence of plagiarism and may resul t in failure of the assessment or have more serious implications. For further guidance on correct referencing go to: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/stud yskills/referencing.aspx Details of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it can be found here: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/st udyskills/readingandwriting/plagiarism.aspx For general guidance on how to avoid assessment offences see: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/academicadvice/assessments/assessmentoffences.aspx Instructions for submission You must submit your assignment before the stated deadline by electronic submission through Blackboard. Notification that the electronic submis sion portal is open for your assignment is displayed (usually two weeks before the submission date) in the Coursework tab in myUWE, the Coursework tab in Blackboard and via an announcement in the Blackboard course . Please allow sufficient time to upload your assignment , noting that the system becomes busier and slower as the deadline approaches. Only your final upload will be counted. Ensure all your information is submitted at one attempt to avoid ‘overwriting’ your intended submission. Always check and retain your receipts . Late submission in the 24 hours following the deadline will be accepted but the assignment mark will 11 be capped at 5 0%. Submissions after 24 hours will not be accepted. For full guidance on online submission through Blackboard, see: http://info.uwe.ac.uk/online/Blackboard/students/guides/assignments/default.asp Submissions of coursework by any oth er method ( including a paper copy, on disk or by email) are NOT permissible for this module unless specifically agreed in advance of the submission date . Before submitting your work, please ensure that :  You have proof read you work thoroughly to ensure your work is presented appropriately  You have addressed all the required elements of the assessment  You have referenced in accordance with the guidance provided  You have addressed each of the marking criter ion  The submission is in the correct format Final feedback and marks release Students will normally receive marks and feedback on their submission within 20 working days of the submission deadline (not including any public holidays or university closure days). Any delay in returning students ’ work will be communicated by the module leader via Blackboard . Feedback on this module is not limited to the written comments you will receive on individual written assessment submissions . Feedback and marks for this module will be available by 6 February 2019 . For further guidance on feedback , p lease refer to the modul e handbook . Further Guidance and Support General g uidance on study skills: is available at: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills.aspx Specific study skills pages relating to this module include: Presentation skills:

https://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills/groupworkandpresenting/presenting.aspx Working in a group: https://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills/groupworkandpresenting/groupwork.aspx Writing skills: https://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills/readingandwriting/writing.aspx Support from the FBL Academic Success Centre : http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/bl/bbs/aboutus/studentexperience/academicsupportcentre.aspx Guidance on UWE assessment regulations and terminology:

http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/academicadvice/assessments/assessmentsguide.aspx Guidance on using the library: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/library/usingthelibrary.aspx Personal Circumstances If you are experiencing difficulties in completing a piece of assessment on time due to unexpected circumstances (for example illness, accident, bereavement), you should seek advice from a Student Support Adviser at the earliest opportunity. Please note t he module leader cannot grant personal circumstances or extensions. Appointments with a student adviser can be made via an Information Point or online at: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/academicadvice/studentadvisers.aspx The Student Support Adviser will advise as to whether you should submit an application for ‘ Personal Circum stances ( PCs)’, how to do so and what evidence is required to support the application. Further details on ECs can be found here: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/stu dents/academicadvice/assessments/personalcircumstances.aspx