COVID-19 update

Our office is currently not open to visitors. We are responding to emails; however, due to the impact on our staffing resources, our response times will be affected.  From Monday 25 May 2020, we will also be operating a limited telephone service.  Our Scottish Welfare Fund review service is still available by telephone as normal.  Please read our information for customers and organisations

Decision Report 201402438

  • Case ref:
  • Date:
    March 2015
  • Body:
    University of Glasgow
  • Sector:
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    special needs - assessment and provision


Mr C was a registered student with a disability, with a disabled driver's parking permit. Before his end of year exams Mr C had an accident and needed knee surgery, which he discussed with department staff. He was allocated an exam room on the fourth floor of a building with no lift. He said that he suffered considerable pain throughout the exam because he had to climb the stairs. He complained that the university had not met their responsibilities to him as a disabled student, and that he should be allowed to re-sit the exam. The university investigated, but did not uphold his complaint.

Our investigation considered all the university's relevant policies and procedures, including arrangements for students with disabilities, complaints handling and regulations on equality and building standards. We also examined all correspondence between Mr C and university staff, the university's records of Mr C's disability and their investigation and responses to his complaint. We found that Mr C had not told the university that he had mobility issues and needed disabled access. He had assumed that all rooms were accessible, without checking locations with which he was not familiar. The university had carried out a thorough investigation and provided detailed responses to his complaint and had clearly communicated the procedures students should follow. We did not uphold his complaint, as the university could have only put in place appropriate arrangements if they were told about the mobility difficulties that Mr C later reported.

Updated: March 13, 2018