Universities

Summary

C complained on behalf of their relative (A), a student at the university. A is blind and has arrangements in place to digitise course materials. A attended a law fair hosted by the university to allow students to meet prospective employers. A received a number of leaflets from law firms present and submitted these to the university for digitisation. Having not received any response to this request, C complained to the university, who informed them some months after the initial request that they did not consider responsibility to digitise the materials lay with them and that instead it was the responsibility of the law firms who provided them. They returned the leaflets around six months after initially receiving them. C complained to us that the university had mishandled the request for digitisation due to delay and refusal to accept responsibility. C said that, due to the time that had passed, A had missed out on internship opportunities detailed in the leaflets.

We concluded that the question of responsibility for providing the materials in an accessible format was a complex one, which could likely only be resolved through the courts. Regardless, we considered that there had been an unreasonable delay in handling the request and returning the leaflets. As such we upheld the complaint.

We also identified that the university had failed to reasonably handle C's complaints about the matter, as they did not adhere to the timescales for complaints and ultimately refused to investigate the matter fully.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and A for failing to respond within a reasonable timeframe and for mishandling C's complaints. 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:

• Where the university do not consider they are responsible for digitisation of materials, the student requesting this should be made aware and the materials in question should be promptly returned.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• All complaints should be processed in line with the requirements of the Model Complaints Handling Procedure.

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 their family member (A) about the way A was treated by the university. C’s complaint was regarding a support meeting which they attended with A. C said that the meeting was unreasonably cut short by university staff after a disagreement about recording the meeting; A was required to make a recording as he is blind, but university staff refused to allow this. C also held concerns regarding the handling of the complaint they subsequently made about this matter.

We found that the university had unreasonably refused to allow A to record the meeting, despite this being an established practice. When C attempted to raise this with the staff, they abruptly ended the meeting, stating they considered that C’s behaviour had become unreasonable. In doing this, we found that they had not followed the university’s policies for managing unacceptable behaviour. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

In addition, we agreed that there had been failings in the handling of the complaint, including a failure by the staff involved to provide reasonably accurate statements of what had occurred, and a failure by the university to fully respond to the points of complaint raised. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A and C for failing to take account of their equalities obligations in refusing consent to record the meeting, for ending that meeting unreasonably, and for failing to reasonably handle C’s complaint. 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:

• Staff should follow the Code of Practice when addressing unacceptable behaviour.
• Staff should take account of their equalities duties when considering requests for reasonable adjustments made by disabled students.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• All complaints should provide clear outcomes to all complaints raised, and reasonably consider and interrogate all available evidence to resolve contradictions, where possible.
• Staff should give reasonably accurate statements in complaint investigations, being clear about any factors which may impact their recollection or the accuracy of their statements.

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, a solicitor, complained on behalf of their client (A) who was formerly an international student at the university. A had a history of health issues, which had impacted on their exam performance. A was excluded from the university as they had reached the exam attempt limit (under the UK Visas and Immigration Tier 4 Regulations) and the university did not consider that there were exceptional circumstances to grant a concession. A submitted an appeal against the university’s decision; however, the university did not uphold the appeal. A remained dissatisfied with the decision to exclude them and C complained to SPSO.

C raised concerns about a number of aspects of the process followed by the university. These concerns related to the university’s consideration of the medical evidence and immigration advice; the failure to offer A an interview during the exclusion process; and failure by the university to provide adequate reasons for their decision.

We did not find evidence of maladministration or service failure in the way the university reached their decision to exclude A. We did not uphold C’s complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their family member (A) who was a disabled student at the University of Glasgow. A had encountered a number of issues which they complained about. As a result of one of those complaints, A understood an action plan for the support for their learning was to be devised. A considered they, and their representatives, had asked for a copy of this action plan. C complained that the requests for a copy of the action plan had not been fulfilled. The university concluded that the action plan had not been shared with A or their representatives as the university wished to do so at a face-to-face meeting but no mutually convenient time had been identified. C was dissatisfied and raised complaints with this office about the university’s failure to provide a copy of the action plan when it was requested and about the time the university had taken to respond to their complaints.

We found that the university had not explained to A or C why they felt a meeting would be the best way to share the action plan with A, and had not provided any justification for why they felt the failure to arrange a meeting meant it was reasonable not to share the action plan with A. We decided that it was not reasonable for the university to have withheld the action plan from A in these circumstances and upheld this complaint.

We found that the matters C raised in their complaints were numerous and complex and that, consequently, there was a high volume of information that had to be considered by the investigating officer and a significant number of university staff to obtain evidence from. Taking all of this into account, we concluded that the time taken for the university to respond to the complaints was reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint but we did have a number of concerns about other aspects of the university’s handling of C’s complaints and made recommendations to address these.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C that they did not reasonably communicate with them regarding their failure to investigate C's complaints in line with timescales noted in their complaints handling procedure. The apology should make clear mention of each of the failings identified and meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Apologise to A that they failed to provide a copy of the support action plan when it was requested. The apology should make clear mention of each of the failings identified and meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets. The university should liaise with A to ensure their apology is provided in a format they are able to access.

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

• The university should reasonably consider requests for copies of documents and, where they feel it would be best to provide requested copies in a specific context, advise the requestor of their reasons for this. Where the university’s preferred method of providing a requested document cannot be undertaken in a reasonable timescale, the university should reconsider their position.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The university should handle complaints in line with their complaints handling procedure.

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’s family member (A) was a disabled student at the University of Glasgow. A month before A sat an exam, adjustments were agreed for the conduct of the exam. The exam was for a subject taught by a different school of the university than their core degree subject. When A sat the exam they felt some of the agreed adjustments were not made. C raised a complaint with the university about this. The university identified that the school conducting the exam had put in place previous adjustments for A’s examinations while the school of their core degree subject had put in place the adjustments agreed in the month before the exam. The university explained that this had been done in good faith and that they would ensure steps would be taken to ensure the situation did not occur again. C was dissatisfied and raised their complaints with this office. C also complained about aspects of the university’s handling of their complaints.

We found that the university had endeavoured to conduct the examination with due regard to A’s needs but that, despite this, they had not adhered to two of the adjustments agreed in the month before the exam: that A could be accompanied, if they wished, during the whole examination by a Study Skills Assistant who would ensure that they were able to log on to a computer and access the correct software at the beginning of the examination; and that clear written instructions relating to the examination venue and process would be issued in advance including arrangements for breaks, access to toilet facilities and details of permitted items (including food and drink) that could be brought into the examination. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint.

We also found that the university did not seek or obtain C’s agreement to an extension to the timescale for responding to their complaint, failed to explain the reason for the extension to C, failed to update C with a revised timescale for responding to their complaint proactively or within a reasonable timescale and failed to apologise, or provide a reason, for their failure to meet their timescales for provision of a response to the investigation stage of C’s complaint. We upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A that they unreasonably failed to adhere to agreed adjustments for A’s exam. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets. The university should liaise with A to ensure their apology is provided in a format they are able to access.
• Apologise to C for the specific failings we found in their handling of C’s complaints. The apology should make clear mention of each of the failings identified and meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Formally consider whether it is reasonable, given our findings that the university unreasonably failed to adhere to the agreed adjustments and all of A’s other circumstances, for the result of A’s exam to stand. Feedback the details, outcome and reasons for the outcome of that consideration and any proposed actions as a result to A and this office. The university should liaise with A to ensure their communication is provided in a format A is able to access.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The university should ensure all evidence to allow a clear decision to be reached on a complaint is reasonably and proportionately pursued.
• The university should ensure their complaints handling procedure is followed when considering and investigating complaints.

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 began her studies and was given a laptop by the university to assist her. The laptop went on to develop a fault and Ms C requested a repair. The university established that she had been given the laptop without having completed the normal procedures for assessing students requirements for assistance and allocating funds. After lengthy correspondence on the issue and a complaint, the university acknowledged that Ms C had a legitimate expectation that the laptop would be repaired, despite the fact that the appropriate procedures had not been followed. However, there was further delay and Ms C did not receive equipment for some time. Ms C complained that there was an unreasonable delay in repairing the laptop and in handling her complaint.

Having looked at the correspondence, which included a further response to the complaint from the university and a refund of fees, we established that the university had acknowledged significant failings with respect to the handling of the complaint and the time it had taken to address issues with equipment. The university upheld these complaints and had indicated that it was taking actions to address how it handled complaints in future. We upheld these complaints but made no further recommendation for action by the university.

Ms C also complained that the universities request for medical evidence from her was handled unreasonably and that they unreasonably recommended she left the course. We reviewed the communications with Ms C and found the university acted reasonably, and therefore we did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

C was enrolled on a programme at the University of Edinburgh. C complained about the university's response to reports of bullying during their placements. We found that the university took reasonable action to address C's concerns regarding the difficulties they experienced on placement, in line with the relevant university procedures. We did not find evidence that the university failed to follow their own procedures regarding the reports made by C.

C complained that the university unreasonably denied them the opportunity to re-sit a small number of placements. We did not find any evidence of maladministration and procedural failings which would lead us to question the merits of the decisions taken by the university.

C also complained that the university did not reasonably respond to their appeals. We did not find any evidence of maladministration or a procedural failing which would lead us to question the merits of the decisions taken by university in relation to C's appeals. We did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained about the University of Dundee on behalf of their client (A). A was a disabled student at the university. The university terminated A's studies on the basis that A had not met the required academic standard. C made a number of complaints about how the university handled matters. C complained that the university did not provide A with reasonable adjustments during their studies.

We took independent advice from an equalities adviser. We found that the university had appropriate regard to their obligations in terms of the relevant equalities legislation and guidance and that they took reasonable action to address A's concerns regarding equipment issues. We did not uphold C's complaint regarding the reasonable adjustments provided to A.

C complained that the university did not provide A with a first and second supervisor and with supervision meetings. We noted that the university appeared to have done most of what was required of them regarding the provision of supervisors and supervision meetings. However, we found that:

for a four-month period, A did not have at least two supervisors

the supervisors did not record the substantive outcomes of all A's scheduled supervision meetings

not all the supervision meetings that took place were recorded on the university's system.

Given that these were requirements in the university's procedures, we upheld C's complaint about the supervision provided by the university.

C complained that the university unreasonable terminated A's studies and unreasonably time-barred A's academic appeal. We did not find any evidence of administrative or procedural failings regarding the university's actions. We noted that, in the particular circumstances, the university had the discretion to decide whether to terminate A's studies and whether to time-bar the appeal. We did not uphold these aspects of C's complaints.

C complained about the way the university communicated with A. We found that the university did not:

set out their position to A after a deadline had passed without submission

explain to A that a particular email would be treated as an extension request

explain to A why the position regarding the extension request changed from being refused to approved within a few days.

We upheld C's complaint that the university failed to communicate reasonably with A.

Lastly, C complained about the way that the university had handled A's complaint. We found that the university did not give appropriate consideration to whether the outcome A said they were seeking should have been dealt with under the appropriate appeals procedures, rather than under the complaints handling procedure. We, therefore, upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for the university's communication with them regarding the extension and for not giving further consideration to whether the outcome A said they were seeking should have been dealt with under the appropriate appeals procedures, rather than under the complaints handling procedure. 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:

• Communication with students regarding extensions should be clear, particularly where the position regarding an extension request changes.
• Procedures regarding the supervision of students should be followed.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Consideration should be given to the outcome a complainant is seeking and whether that outcome would be more appropriately explored through the appeals procedures or other appropriate mechanism.

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 university's handling of their complaint in relation to language used by an external tutor that C felt was inappropriate. C told us they were specifically concerned that the tutor was not contacted or interviewed as part of the investigation and that it was unreasonable that correspondence between the tutor and the Dean of the relevant school was not included in the appendices of the investigation report.

We found that there was no requirement for the university to contact or interview the tutor as part of the investigation or for the correspondence to be included in the investigation report but that these things would usually happen. We found that the reasons given in the report for why the university had decided not to contact or interview the tutor were inaccurate. We also found that the university did not make clear all of the reasons why the correspondence between the tutor and the Dean were not included in the report. Therefore, we considered that the university had not responded to C's complaint reasonably and upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for not responding reasonably to their complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology, including direct reference to the specific issues highlighted in this decision. The standards are available at: www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The university should clearly record all significant decisions taken as part of an investigation and provide clear and accurate investigation reports.

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

Miss C, a student adviser, complained on behalf of a student (Miss A) regarding the university's stage 2 appeal outcome letter. She complained that the outcome letter took 20 weeks to be completed as opposed to the published timescale of four weeks; that the university did not apologise for failings they had identified through the appeal consideration; that no further reasons were given for the stage 1 appeal being turned down; and that it was not clear whether the additional evidence provided at stage 2 was taken into account.

We considered that the delay in the stage 2 outcome letter being issued was unreasonable, although we noted that the university had apologised for this and had made changes to prevent this occurring in the future. We accepted that it will not always be appropriate to put information about lessons learned in the academic appeal outcome letter; however, we considered that any failings identified in appeal should be formally apologised for, either in the outcome letter or in a separate letter. We also considered that the stage 2 appeal outcome letter could have stated more clearly that all additional evidence had been considered. We upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss A for the failings identified in their consideration of her stage 2 appeal (ie missing opportunities to support her during her studies and not providing a full response at stage 1 of the appeals process), failing to apologise for the failings identified in consideration of her stage 2 appeal, failing to state more clearly that all additional evidence provided at stage 2 of the appeals process was considered. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Ensure that, regardless of the outcome of an appeal, any failings identified are apologised for.
• The stage 2 appeal outcome letter should clearly communicate the evidence that has been considered.

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.