Universities

Summary

C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of a student at the University (A). C said that A had suffered a serious assault and due to the impact of this on their mental health, had sought an exemption allowing them to study remotely. This had been denied by the University on the basis that only individuals needing to shield from COVID-19 or caring for someone shielding were entitled to remote study. The University said that these were the sole criteria considered by the committee that refused C’s application.

We found that the evidence showed that the University had not adhered to their statement on Gender Based Violence (GBV) in their consideration of A’s appeal. The only option offered to A was for them to suspend their studies. This was at odds with the medical evidence A had submitted. It was also apparent the University’s consideration of the appeal had been concerned about the possibility of setting a precedent. We also found that the University’s refusal to treat the correspondence with C as a formal complaint was unjustified, as it related to the application of the University’s policies and procedures, which were areas which should have been covered by the complaints process. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for failing to handle their request for remote study reasonably. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www. spso. org. uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The University should clarify what adjustments can be made for students under their gender-based violence statement and policy.
• The University should ensure the Counselling service are aware of the academic options available to students, or that they have a named point of contact within each school to signpost students to for guidance on their academic options.
• The University should remind all staff that if the remit of an appeal hearing is constrained to specific issues, they should not introduce irrelevant considerations.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The University should remind staff in the legal department of the provisions of the complaint handling procedure and ensure they are aware of when it should be applied.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about how the university handled their complaint that related to their disability and housing. We found that the university's decision to request further information from C about their disability to be reasonable and in line with their policy. We also considered it reasonable that the university asked C for further information about some serious allegations that they had made.

However, we found that the complaint should have been progressed to stage 2 of their complaints handling procedure from the beginning, with the delay of 18 days, which in the specific circumstances here appeared unreasonably inflexible.

On balance, we upheld this complaint as we did not believe it was properly processed and the university's communication with C could have been better.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to progress their complaint through the proper process, at the proper stage. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The university are aware of the emphasis on them to ensure a complaint progresses through the correct process. We also need to be satisfied that the university are aware of the characteristics of a stage 1 and 2 complaint and finally that they exercise reasonable discretion when a request to progress a complaint to stage 2 is submitted out with the normal time limits.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the way that the university handled their complaint.

We found that the university did not communicate clearly with C regarding the procedure being used to investigate their complaint. We also found that the university failed to adhere to their Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP) and the Model Complaints Handling Procedure (MCHP) when determining that all of C’s complaints should not be considered as a complaint under the CHP. As a result of this, C was not kept updated or given a timescale for when the investigation into their complaint was expected to conclude, there was a significant delay of nine months in C receiving a response to their complaint, C was not kept updated with the reasons for the delay in issuing the complaint response and was not provided with a revised timescale. C was also told that they could not approach us to consider their complaint and they were not signposted to this office.

We also found that the university did not respond to the complaints C raised in writing about how the investigation was carried out and that the university’s CHP states that complainants will be expected to complete the appropriate complaint form for complaints considered at investigation stage. This is not a requirement of the MCHP.

Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to communicate clearly with C regarding the procedure being used to investigate their complaint, failing to adhere to their CHP and the MCHP when determining that all of C’s complaints should not be considered as a complaint under the CHP, not keeping C updated or providing a revised timescale for when the investigation into their complaint was expected to conclude, failing to respond to C's written complaints, the significant delay in responding to C's complaint, not keeping C updated regarding the reasons for the delay in issuing the complaint response and not providing them with a timescale for when they could expect a response, telling C that they could not approach this office to consider their complaint and not signposting C to this office in the complaint response. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The necessary systems should be in place to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the university’s CHP and the MCHP and that all staff responsible for dealing with complaints should be aware of their responsibilities in this respect.
• The university’s CHP should reflect the MCHP.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C had enrolled on two short courses run by Queen Margaret University. They made a number of complaints to us about the action taken by the university in relation to adjustments that they requested for disabilities that affected the way they worked.

C complained that the university did not initially provide them with reasonable support for the courses. We were satisfied that the university sought to make reasonable adjustments for C and that they demonstrably took account of C’s input when preparing an Individual Learning Plan (ILP). We did not uphold this complaint.

C also complained that the university then unreasonably failed to provide the support that was agreed. We found that there had been a delay in providing C with a USB stick that the university had committed to provide them with and we upheld this complaint.

We also found that there was no evidence of communication with C when their disability adviser was absent and that the Head of Student Services had failed to respond to C’s contact. We upheld C’s complaints about these matters.

We also upheld C’s complaint that the university had failed to provide a note taker for a course. Although the equality legislation recognises that there can be more than one way to address an assessed need, in this case, the alternative arrangements did not run smoothly and did not address the matter within a reasonable timescale. We also upheld a complaint that the university had failed to provide a transcript of the course as previously agreed with C.

We did not uphold C’s complaint that a lecturer had failed to respond to their contact about the course or their complaint that the university failed to deal with their complaint effectively.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for these failings. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The university should ensure that any agreed adjustments are provided within reasonable timescales.
• The university should ensure that staff reasonably communicate with students who contact them.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C applied for a Collaborative Doctoral Award (CDA) programme. One of the key features of a CDA is the opportunity to work with an industry partner (IP) as well as academic staff. C complained that their supervision had been flawed and that there had been a lack of engagement with the IP. They also complained about how their complaint was handled.

We considered the information both C and Glasgow School of Art (GSA) provided in support of the complaint. We found that C had regular supervision meetings which were documented as required. There is also evidence that C’s supervisors were readily available by email and responded promptly to C’s contacts. However, according to associated guidance from the Arts and Humanities Research Council Training Grant Funding Guide and their guide on CDAs, GSA should have set out the structure of the collaboration and the expectations of those involved. They did not define what a CDA is or the expectations of the IP and student. The student did not receive an induction at the IP’s business address nor was a supervisor appointed at the IP. We upheld this complaint.

We were satisfied GSA had provided a reasonable response to C's complaint, which was about a number of different issues as well as supervision, and did not uphold that complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the support they received as a disabled student while attending the university. C said that the university failed to put appropriate reasonable adjustments in place to meet their needs. However, the university were satisfied that appropriate support and reasonable adjustments were put in place.

We highlighted to C that the purpose of our investigation was not to assess each individual measure taken by the university or interaction C had with staff and decide whether they were reasonable. Given the circumstances, we considered it reasonable to expect that some measures may not be successful and that there may be disagreement over what actions were put in place or how they are delivered. We concluded that the university made appropriate efforts to assess what support and reasonable adjustments should be put in place. Where the university concluded that certain adjustments suggested by C went beyond what they considered reasonable, we were satisfied that appropriate explanations were provided. In light of this, we did not uphold this complaint.

C also complained about the university's handling of their complaint. We did not have any concerns about the thoroughness of the university's investigation or response. However, there were significant delays to the university's complaint handing at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the process. In addition to this, the university have acknowledged that they did not provide appropriate updates to C during this time. On the basis of the delays in handling C's complaint and providing updates, we upheld this complaint. However, as the university had already taken what we considered to be appropriate action, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Ms C complained about the university regarding the handling of two complaints she had made, both of which were about the management of her course and the university's handling of reasonable adjustments to take account of her needs as a disabled student. On investigation, we found that there had been lengthy delays in the handling of both complaints, requiring considerable prompting from Ms C in order to be updated and eventually receive a response. We also found that the content of the second complaint response was unreasonable, as it had failed to respond to all of the complaints made, including some about sensitive disability issues. On this basis we considered that both complaints were unreasonably handled and upheld the complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to handle her complaints in line with the complaints procedure and failing to fully respond to her second complaint. The apology should met the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• All relevant staff should be aware of their equality responsibilities and make the reasonable adjustments agreed in students' Personal Learning Support Plans.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• All complaints should be handled in line with the complaints procedure and responded to in full.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained on behalf of a family member (A), who was a disabled student at the University of Glasgow.

C was unhappy with the university's assessment of A's IT and assistive technology needs. C considered that the equipment and software recommended following the assessment were unsuitable and ineffective. We found that the documentation from the assessment included insufficient detail about how the equipment and software recommended for A was suitable for their needs. We also found that the university did not act appropriately once concerns were raised about one of the devices. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations.

C also complained that the university failed to make appropriate provision for A to attend an employability event. A was unable to attend the event as they did not have support in place in time. C felt the university were responsible for this. The university upheld C's complaint in part and acknowledged that someone should have approached A about whether they would like to attend the event. We were satisfied that the university had taken steps to prevent a similar issue. We upheld C's complaint and recommended an apology.

C had concerns that the university failed to treat C and A with an appropriate level of dignity and respect. The university partly upheld C's complaints in relation to this matter and made a number of recommendations. We noted that the complaint related to challenging and sensitive issues for both C and A, as well as the members of university staff involved. We were satisfied that the matter was investigated robustly by the university. We found an apology had been provided and that appropriate action had been taken in relation to the issues identified. We upheld the complaint, but did not make recommendations.

C also had concerns about the arrangements made in anticipation of A's exam diet and in relation to the way the exams were conducted (including provision of breaks and access to water). We found that, in the weeks leading up to the exams, there was a failure to respond to C and A's correspondence which led to a missed opportunity to fully explore exam arrangements within good time of the exam diet commencing. We noted that there was limited evidence in relation to the way the exams were managed. We considered that it would have been appropriate for clearer instructions about breaks and water to have been provided to C. We upheld the complaint and made a recommendation.

Finally, we considered the university's handling of C's complaints. We found that the university had inappropriately responded to some complaints at stage 1, as the complexity of the complaints meant that direct investigation at stage 2 was more appropriate. We also found instances where the university did not manage the timescales at stage 2 appropriately and we noted in one case that there was a substantial delay in the university accepting a complaint for investigation. We made a recommendation in view of our findings.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A that the documentation from the needs assessment included insufficient detail about the IT recommendations; the university did not act appropriately once concerns were raised about the equipment recommended; the university failed to make appropriate provision for A to attend the employability event the university failed to respond to C and A's correspondence which led to a missed opportunity to fully explore with them the exam arrangements within good time of the exam diet commencing; and there were inappropriate delays in complaint handling. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Documentation of a needs assessment should provide a clear rationale for the recommendations. Where the recommendations involve substantial expenditure, the university should seek assurance of the suitability of any equipment once delivered and support a student to return it if needed.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure for Higher Education.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C, a postgraduate student, complained that she had paid for classes and seminars which had been cancelled due to industrial action.

We found that the University had taken appropriate steps to minimise the academic impact of the industrial action by giving students advance notice of the industrial action and ensuring that students would only be assessed on work that they had an opportunity to cover in the course of their studies.

We noted that students may expect to learn about a particular subject and if they do not receive the teaching they are supposed to get, it is not necessarily sufficient for the provider to purely decide not to test them on it. In light of this, we also considered whether the university had taken steps to make up for the lost teaching hours and the learning opportunities these represented. We did not consider that this had to be a like-for-like replacement of the teaching hours that were lost.

During the semester affected by the industrial action, Ms C was taking three courses. These courses were formal components of Ms C’s postgraduate programme. Three of Ms C’s classes were cancelled due to the industrial action across two of the courses. Regarding two of the classes, the university offered to discuss course material with Ms C on a one-to-one basis and offered to give feedback on an essay regarding a particular topic. Regarding the third class, no steps were taken by the university to make up for the lost teaching hours. Given that the university made attempts to make up for the teaching hours lost for two out of the three classes cancelled, on balance, we did not consider the university had acted unreasonably.

We also noted that five seminars out of 22 were cancelled due to the industrial action. These seminars were academic events rather than formal components of Ms C’s course. We did not consider that the university were obligated to take steps to make up for the learning opportunities lost due to the cancellation of these seminars and we noted that the majority of the seminars went ahead. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint in this regard.

Ms C also complained that the university failed to handle her complaint reasonably. We found that there was a delay in responding to Ms C’s stage 1 complaints and she was not informed of the reasons for the delay or provided with a revised timescale for when she could expect a response. We upheld this aspect of Ms C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for the delay in responding to Ms C’s stage 1 complaints and that she was not kept updated or provided with a revised timescale. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C was required to complete three school placements as part of his secondary teaching course. Mr C complained that the university failed to provide him with appropriate support during his course and that, after he was deemed to have failed, they did not follow their normal procedure. He was also unhappy with the way the university carried out their investigation into his complaints.

The university said that they had given appropriate support to Mr C and dealt with his concerns and complaints in accordance with their stated procedures.

We found that the support given to Mr C was as required and stated in their guidance documentation. There was no evidence to suggest that he had been treated unfairly in relation to others and this complaint was not upheld.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that the university followed their complaints process in dealing with Mr C’s complaints. However, there were delays (about which Mr C was kept informed) and some of which were unavoidable. Nevertheless on balance, on the basis of timescale alone, this aspect of the complaint was upheld but we made no recommendations.