Universities

Summary

C complained about the way the university made the decision to remove them from their course. C complained that they was not given prior notice that they might be withdrawn, that the decision was made as they returned from medical leave and that their appeal against the decision was treated as a complaint instead.

We found that the university had repeatedly raised clear concerns with C about their academic progress in monthly progress reports. We also found that C should have been aware that this could have resulted in the university deciding to withdraw them. We also found that as C did not raise grounds for an appeal, it was reasonable that their concerns were considered through the university's complaints process instead.

However, we were concerned about aspects of how the university handled C's withdrawal. There was no record of the decision-making process and so there was no evidence that their medical leave and health issues had been taken into account. We also found that the university should have told C the reason that they were being withdrawn, before directing them to their appeals process. We considered that this meant C was not given a fair opportunity to consider and lodge grounds for an appeal against the decision to withdraw them. For these reasons, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified in these aspects of the university's handling of their withdrawal. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Reconsider C's appeal; after allowing them an opportunity to submit any further evidence in support of their appeal.

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Mr C complained that the university had unreasonably withdrawn him from his course of study. He considered that, contrary to the findings of the university's appeal process, he had appropriately corresponded with the university and engaged with his studies. He was removed for not responding to correspondence and not adhering to obligations of his visa with respect to attendance, particularly that he missed a number of face-to-face meetings.

We found that the university had corresponded with Mr C with respect to his studies, and a progress report for a number of months identified that he had failed to attend organised meetings. However, the university had not communicated with Mr C directly regarding his attendance or to remind him about the obligations in this regard, which was required under the university policy on student engagement.

We found that whilst the university should have issued additional communications to Mr C regarding his attendance, overall, the communication was reasonable as the progress reports correctly recorded that he had not attended as he should have. Mr C should have been aware of his obligations to attend, and there was an expectation on him to raise the very difficult circumstances which had impacted on his ability to attend meetings.

Overall, the communication was reasonable, Mr C confirmed he understood his obligations with respect to attendance at the subsequent hearing regarding his appeal, and the decision to remove him from his studies was reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had failed to take reasonable action to inform students of class cancellations and failed to provide adequate alternative provision for the teaching that was not delivered due to industrial action. We found that the university had provided information about class cancellations as early as it could using the agreed internal messaging system for students. We found that the question of whether the proposed alternative provision was adequate to meet the needs of students was a question of academic judgement and was not something SPSO could investigate. Mr C had not raised the practical difficulties of attendance with the university, however, the university had made reasonable provision for the teaching that had not been provided due to industrial action. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university failed to provide her with adequate support after the death of her parent. We found that the university had acted in line with their guidance in relation to this matter. We did not consider that the actions of the university in responding to Ms C's concerns were unreasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

Ms C also complained that the university failed to provide her with appropriate information about applying for an extension for her dissertation around this time. We found that it was unreasonable that Ms C was only told on the deadline date for her dissertation that an extension would be granted. We considered that Ms C should have been provided with clear information about this at an earlier stage. We upheld this complaint. The university said that they had taken action to prevent this from happening in the future. We asked them to provide evidence of the action taken.

Finally, Ms C complained that the university provided inaccurate information about when her results would be available. We found that there had been some confusion about this issue and that the information Ms C was given should have been clearer. However, we did not find any clear evidence that Ms C was given inaccurate information and, on balance, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C complained about the university's handling of a late application they made for extenuating circumstances after their personal circumstances impacted on their attendance at university. C considered that, in handling their application, the university had failed to follow their procedures, failed to communicate clearly and accurately, and failed to ensure their appeal guidelines were clear.

We found that the university had departed from their normal procedures on a number of occasions, but to the benefit of C, allowing for additional late appeals than were required by the regulations. On balance, we considered that the university had communicated clearly and accurately, despite incorrectly suggesting a request for additional information had been made at one stage. We also considered that their appeal guidelines were reasonably clear, given the complex subject matter and academic audience, and were encouraged by the support made available to students wishing to appeal, as well as the procedures for reviewing guideline content. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C had a number of concerns about the way the university handled a disciplinary process and an appeal process.

Mr C was subject to an allegation that he had committed academic misconduct in relation to a coursework submission. Mr C was invited to attend a disciplinary meeting to discuss the allegation. Mr C wished to bring his mother to the meeting; however, the university informed him that he could not do this under their policy. Following the conclusion of the meeting, Mr C was found guilty of collusion and a penalty was applied.

Mr C appealed the outcome of the appeal process. An informal meeting was arranged, to which Mr C brought his mother and university staff for support. No procedural failing was identified during the appeals process and Mr C was informed that grounds did not exist for the appeal to be considered.

We found that the university failed to consider making a reasonable adjustment in relation to the policy for who may accompany a student to a disciplinary meeting. We also found that the university failed to document their consideration of part of Mr C's appeal and provide him with a reason for their decision on this point. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaints about the disciplinary and appeal processes.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to consider making a reasonable adjustment in relation to the policy for who may accompany a student to a disciplinary meeting; and failing to document their consideration of part of his appeal and provide him with a reason for their decision on this point. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .
• Provide Mr C with a reason for their decision on his appeal submission that his actions did not amount to collusion. If the university is unable to establish that this point was considered fully, then consideration should be given to re-opening the appeal for further consideration.

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

• Where appropriate, the university should consider making reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled students can fully participate in education and enjoy other benefits, facilities and services that are provided to students.

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 complained about the university’s handling of an academic appeal. Mr C had appealed a decision reached by the Board of Examiners following a previous academic appeal which was upheld. Mr C submitted that the calculation method used by the board of examiners was procedurally incorrect. The appeal sub-committee who considered Mr C’s appeal did not consider that he had established grounds for appeal. Mr C complained to us that the report of the appeal sub-committee contained factual inaccuracies and that it did not consider the points of appeal he had raised.

We considered the appeal documentation and the relevant university policies and regulations. We found that the documentation of the board of examiner’s decision was not clear and we also noted that a member of staff had not communicated with Mr C precisely about the decision. We considered that the evidence showed that the appeal sub-committee did not give adequate consideration to the points Mr C made in his appeal. We upheld Mr C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not handling his appeal appropriately and for the imprecise communication in response to an enquiry. The apology should meet thestandards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• An appeals sub-committee should reconsider Mr C's specific allegations of procedural irregularity and provide Mr C with an explanation regarding whether the decision of the Board of Examiners was in accordance with the quoted regulations or not. The appeals sub-committee should decide whether any points should be referred back to the Board of Examiners for reconsideration. The university should ask the appeals sub-committee to take into account Mr C's specific point about script viewing and calculation error and consider whether to recommend that the Board of Examiners consider this point.

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

• Appeal sub-committees should demonstrate that they have considered the grounds of appeal and provide explanation for their decision.
• Where a Board of Examiners does not accept a recommendation by an appeals sub-committee this should be clearly documented including the reasons.
• Responses to requests for clarification should be clear and accurate.

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, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) about the university's handling of an academic appeal. Mr A was withdrawn from his degree programme because of inadequate attendance. Mr A appealed against this decision. The university did not uphold his appeal and concluded that the withdrawal decision should stand.

Mr C complained to us about whether the committee who considered Mr A's appeal considered his special circumstances and the documents he submitted. We concluded that it was more likely than not that the committee considered all of the evidence provided. We did not find evidence of procedural failing and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university failed to follow their procedures correctly when they decided that she should be removed from a course due to her lack of progress.

We found that staff had made reasonable attempts to assist Ms C with determining a project topic and identifying a supervisor. However, the university were unable to provide evidence that their mitigation process had been followed appropriately when Ms C made a mitigation claim. Their records in relation to the decision that she should be removed from the course were also inadequate and there was no evidence of her supervisor's view on whether she had made sufficient progress. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also complained that the university had failed to follow their appeals and complaints procedures in response to her correspondence on the matter.

We found that the university's response to Ms C's appeal contained inaccurate information. They had also failed to respond to her correspondence in line with their complaints handling procedure. Whilst the university had told Ms C that staff had reported that they had many meetings with her to discuss the matters she had raised, there were no records of these meetings. 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 failing to provide information that they followed their mitigation process, including inaccurate information in their appeal response, failing to respond to Ms C's correspondence under their complaints handling procedure and failing to make a record of meetings. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Obtain a written statement from the supervisor in relation to Ms C's progress at that time and then decide if any further action needs to be taken in relation to the matter.

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

• Mitigation claims should be dealt with in line with the university's mitigation process.
• The university should be able to demonstrate administratively through clear records that the decision to remove a student from a course is made appropriately.
• The university should ensure that correspondence in relation to appeals is accurate.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be dealt with in accordance with the university's complaints handling procedure.
• Where meetings are held to provide an answer to concerns raised by students, an appropriate record should be made.

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, a lawyer, complained on behalf of his client (Ms A) regarding the university's handling of complaints she had made about an extra curricular programme provided by them. Mr C raised a number of concerns, the main points being that, Ms A had not been adequately consulted during the university's investigation, that the university had failed to disclose critical information, and that the university had failed to follow their complaints handling procedure.

We found that the university had reasonably followed their complaints handling procedure and had reasonably consulted Ms A during their investigation. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaints.