Universities

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter (Miss A) about a number of failings by the university. During her final year at university, both of Miss A's parents were admitted to hospital unexpectedly. Miss A approached her dissertation supervisor to advise of this and the information was also passed to Miss A's academic mentor. Neither the supervisor nor the mentor advised Miss A of the university's process for having mitigating circumstances taken into account. Miss A was dissatisfied with her final degree classification and, particularly, the mark awarded for her dissertation. Following advice on the university's website, she approached her mentor to seek information about appealing these decisions. The mentor told Miss A that she could not make a complaint or an appeal at that time, but that she could graduate and then appeal her degree classification. The mentor called Miss A shortly before the scheduled graduation to advise her that the information they had given her had been incorrect. A number of complaints and an appeal were then submitted, however, Miss A said that the mentor encouraged her to drop her appeal. In considering the appeal, the university identified that a number of procedural errors had occurred. The university decided that there were mitigating circumstances that had affected Miss A's final year but that they could not measure the impact this had on her academic performance, as only her dissertation had been affected. Mrs C then brought a complaint to us.

Mrs C complained that:

the university did not provide reasonable academic support to Miss A during her studies;

the university did not correctly signpost Miss A to the appropriate processes when she approached her dissertation supervisor with mitigating circumstances;

the university provided Miss A with inaccurate information regarding complaints and appeals;

Miss A's academic mentor inappropriately encouraged her to withdraw her appeal on the evening before, and the morning of, her year group's graduation;

the university did not consider Miss A's appeal in line with university procedures;

the university did not respond reasonably to the complaints lodged on Miss A's behalf; and

the university's conclusions on Miss A's appeal were unreasonable.

We found that the university had accepted that they had not provided reasonable academic support to Miss A during her studies and that they had not correctly signposted her to the appropriate processes when she approached her dissertation supervisor with mitigating circumstances. They also acknowledged that they had provided Miss A with inaccurate information regarding complaints and appeals and did not consider her appeal in line with relevant procedures. Therefore, we upheld these four complaints. Although the university identified these failures, they did not apologise to Miss A. Therefore, we also upheld Mrs C's complaint that the university did not respond reasonably to complaints lodged on Miss A's behalf.

In terms of the university's conclusions on Miss A's appeal, the university said that there was no evidence that the mitigating circumstances had impacted any area of her studies except her dissertation. However, they could not explain their reasoning for this. We considered that the university did not provide a reasonable explanation for this decision and, therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Finally, we found no evidence that the mentor had inappropriately encouraged Miss A to withdraw her appeal during phone conversations shortly before her year group's graduation ceremony. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss A for:
• the lack of academic mentoring provided to her during her studies;
• not alerting her to concerns about her work and well-being that were shared between the supervisor and the mentor;
• not reasonably signposting her to the university's mitigating circumstances process;
• not considering her appeal in line with the university procedures;
• not apologising for the failings identified by their consideration of her appeal; and
• not providing a reasonable explanation for their conclusion that they are unable to measure the impact of her mitigating circumstances on her dissertation.
• The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Provide Miss C with the opportunity to have her appeal considered by separate mitigating circumstances and examination committees, with membership in line with relevant procedures.
• Provide Miss C with a reasonable explanation for their conclusion that they are unable to measure the impact of her mitigating circumstances on her dissertation.

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

• The university should review the responsibilities of supervisors and mentors to ensure that they include clearly advising and signposting students to appropriate support functions or processes.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The university should take steps to ensure that any failings that are identified in appeal considerations are formally apologised for.

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 complained that she had been unreasonably withdrawn from her university course due to lack of attendance at classes. She also complained that communication before and after her withdrawal was unreasonable in that it was confusing and unclear.

We found that the university's procedure for withdrawing students for non-engagement was not sufficiently robust. We found that evidence to support their decision to remove Ms C from the course was unsatisfactory. We also found that, when she appealed the decision, Ms C was disadvantaged by the poor explanation for their decision to withdraw her. We upheld both of Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Reconsider Ms C's appeal of the decision to withdraw her.

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

• The university should have a robust process which gives students clear information about their attendance requirements and warnings when their attendance falls below an acceptable level. Responses from students should be followed up and support and advice should be offered.
• Decisions to withdraw a student for non-engagement should be noted and key evidence should be retained.

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

Mrs C was studying for a PhD at the university. She was concerned about the conduct of her final oral examination. She complained that her supervisor was asked to leave the examination, contrary to university regulations. She also complained that she was not permitted to finish her answers during the examination and alleged that the external examiner had made comments to her supervisor that indicated he had a bias against students of her nationality.

Mrs C complained to us that there were administrative errors in the conduct of her oral exam, that some communication with her had been incorrectly headed and that the university did not respond reasonably to her complaints.

We found that it would have been reasonable for Mrs C to raise concerns about her supervisor being asked to leave the examination at the time, not after the fact, and we could not reach a finding in relation to her remaining concerns about the conduct of the examination. As such, we did not uphold her complaint of administrative errors in the conduct of the examination.

We found that there were two occasions where the university sent letters to Mrs C that contained incorrect headings, so we upheld the aspects of her complaint regarding this. However, we found that the university had already offered their apologies for these mistakes, and so we made no further recommendations in relation to this.

We found that the university's handling of Mrs C's complaints was unreasonable. We found that the university had not properly investigated the alleged statements of the external examiner which may have indicated that he had a bias against students of Mrs C's nationality. We also found that the university had not responded reasonably to Mrs C in relation to the other matters she raised. We upheld this part of her complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that they did not respond reasonably to her complaints about the conduct of an oral examination. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Properly investigate Mrs C's allegation that an external examiner made comments to her supervisor that indicated he had a bias against students of Mrs C's nationality, and advise her of this.
• Following the conclusion of the investigation of Mrs C's allegation that an external examiner made comments to her supervisor that indicated he had a bias against students of Mrs C's nationality, consider what impact, if any, this may have had on the outcome of Mrs C's oral examination. Take any reasonable steps as a result and advise Mrs C of this.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Respond to all specific and relevant points raised in 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

Mr C, who was studying a one-year postgraduate course, complained that the university failed to follow compensation criteria as set out in a programme handbook. Compensation is where a failed module can be converted to a pass in certain circumstances. Mr C said that a decision should have been taken at the first exam board of the academic year to compensate him for one module.

We found that the programme handbook did not specify whether compensation should be applied at the first or second exam attempts and that it did not specify whether compensation decisions should be taken at the first or second exam board. Decisions on whether and when to apply compensation were for the exam board to take. There was no evidence in the programme handbook to support Mr C's opinion, and Mr C's disagreement with the university's decisions and with their interpretation of matters was not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing on the university's part. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. He felt that the university handled his complaint carelessly and that there was prejudice or bias against him. He said that the university were mistaken about the subject of his complaint, despite him reminding them, and that the university's investigation focused on irrelevant issues and took a different direction from his submitted complaint.

We found that the university's complaint investigators took Mr C's complaint seriously, and investigated it thoroughly and objectively. Having read the complaint Mr C submitted, and the notes of two meetings he had with the investigators, it was clear the university investigated the complaint Mr C made, dealt with the issues he raised, and provided reasonable explanations. Mr C's disagreement with the university's decisions and their interpretation of matters was not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing on their part. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the university failed to notify her within a reasonable timescale of the registration fees required for her to proceed with her university course, failed to provide her with reasonable alternative payment options, gave her inconsistent advice about her progress on the course and did not provide her with suitable adaptations for her health conditions.

We found that the university acted reasonably and in line with their guidance documents when they provided support and information to Mrs C about the progression of her course. We found no evidence that the university had not notified her within a reasonable timescale of the required fees. However, the university did offer to provide a rebate for part of her fees in recognition of Mrs C's confusion about this. We found no evidence that Mrs C was prevented from paying her fees in instalments.

We found that Mrs C was aware that her progress on the course had encountered some difficulties and that staff had tried to support her. While Mrs C was told she was performing well enough to progress to other parts of the course, she later failed it. We did not consider this to be evidence that she was given inconsistent advice about her overall progress.

We found that there was a delay in providing suitable seating for Mrs C's needs, however this was rectified and an apology was provided.

We did not uphold any of Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C was removed from his PhD studies following his annual review on the basis of his academic knowledge and performance not being of the required standard to complete his studies. Mr C appealed the decision through the academic appeals process and in supporting his appeal, he complained that the university had not responded appropriately to his requests to change his academic supervisor. He considered that the university's failure to support him in this matter had had an adverse impact on his studies. The university considered this matter, together with a consideration of his academic performance, as part of the academic appeals process. The university considered that Mr C had access to supervisory support during his studies and that his academic performance was not impacted by the relationship with his supervisor. They upheld their original decision to remove him from the course. Mr C was not satisfied with this response and brought his complaint to us. Mr C complained to us that the university had failed to respond reasonably to his requests for a change of supervisor.

We requested relevant documentation from the university relating to their consideration of Mr C's concerns about his supervision. The university delayed in providing information to us, and were unresponsive to several communications requesting information. The university's response explained that they had failed to appropriately consider Mr C's concerns about his relationship with his supervisor and that the university's policy was to encourage the relationship to develop over the first year and review matters at the annual review. The university acknowledged that this was not appropriate in the circumstances and that they missed signs that Mr C's relationship with his supervisor had broken down. The university accepted that the concerns about Mr C's supervisor should have been addressed through their complaints procedure rather than at an annual review and through the academic appeals process. Given the issues highlighted, and the delays caused by their failure to respond to our requests for information, the university wished to offer Mr C a sum of money in compensation. We accepted the university's acknowledgement of their failures in this case and we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide an apology to Mr C for failing to properly consider and respond to his requests for a change in supervisor. This apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Offer Mr C the agreed sum of money in recognition of the failings in responding to his concerns and the delays in assisting us with our investigations.

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

• Requests for a change in PhD supervisor should be properly considered and managed regardless of when they were raised. The university should adopt a more appropriate policy for considering requests for changing supervisors and this should be available 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 was a student on a placement at an organisation outside the university. He felt that he was bullied by staff at the organisation where he was on placement and complained to the external organisation. They investigated, and found that Mr C had been mistreated while on placement. Mr C was unhappy with the university's role in what happened and complained to them. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaints to us. He complained to us that the university had failed to follow their Dignity at Work & Study Policy and Procedure during his placement, that they had unreasonably provided incorrect information to the external organisation about his reports of mistreatment during placement, and that the university had handed his complaint in an unreasonable way.

We found that the university's Dignity at Work & Study Policy and Procedure outlined what a student or university staff member should do if they thought they were being subjected to bullying by students, members of university staff, or contractors and suppliers. It did not include a specific provision for students on placement who thought they were being subjected to bullying by a member of staff employed by the placement provider. Given this, we found that the policy did not apply in Mr C's circumstances and we did not uphold this part of the complaint.

We found that information about Mr C's reports of mistreatment was provided by the university to the external organisation in a phone call. Given this, we could not prove exactly what was discussed and whether the information was incorrect. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

We found that the university's investigation report on Mr C's complaint was a reasonable reflection of the relevant evidence from him, university staff, and the external organisation. The report responded to each of the main points of Mr C's complaint and reached reasonable conclusions on them. We therefore considered that the university had handled Mr C's complaint in a reasonable way and we did not uphold this part of the complaint. However, in their investigation report about the complaint, the university had made a number of recommendations. Given the importance of the university learning from complaints to improve their service, we requested that they send us evidence that these recommendations had been implemented.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the university had not responded reasonably to her complaints about the quality of teaching on her course, and that the university had not responded appropriately to allegations she had made that her tutor had bullied and harassed her.

We found that the university had not responded to all of the issues that Mrs C raised with them about the quality of the teaching on her course. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

On the topic of bullying and harassment, we found that the university had not correctly followed their Harassment and Bullying Policy and Procedures when they dealt with Mrs C's complaint about this. We also found that in their response to Mrs C on this issue, the apologies they included were insufficient as they were qualified apologies which said that the university was sorry if Mrs C had taken offence, rather than saying they were sorry for the failings. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that they:
• did not respond to her allegations of harassment and bullying in line with their Harassment and Bullying Policy and Procedures
• did not respond reasonably to her complaints about the quality of teaching.
• The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• The elements of Mrs C's complaint about the quality of teaching which were not responded to should be properly investigated.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• When responding to complaints the university should:
• respond to all specific and relevant points raised in the complaint
• not include qualified apologies in their response
• refer to policies or procedures relevant to the subject when considering the complaint.
• Both formal and informal complaints of harassment and bullying should be responded to in line with the Harassment and Bullying Policy and Procedures.

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 to us about the university's handling of his academic appeal. In particular, he complained that his appeal was initially considered informally by his college within the university, that the formal appeal sub-committee did not consider all aspects of his appeal and that a conflict of interest was overlooked.

We found that it was not clear why a draft of Mr C's appeal was considered informally by his college, and we found that communication with Mr C about this was not clear. We made recommendations to the university to remedy this issue. However, we did not find evidence that this consideration had a detrimental impact on the consideration of Mr C's formal appeal, as he was able to submit his formal appeal within the deadline set in the regulations. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

The formal appeal sub-committee saw the evidence submitted by Mr C, as well as evidence the university administration gathered from academic staff. A member of the sub-committee suggested that Mr C's college should draw examiners' attention to programme-specific regulations, and we made a recommendation to address this point. However, the sub-committee concluded that Mr C did not meet the grounds for appeal. While we appreciated that Mr C disagreed with their decision, the sub-committee were entitled to reach their own view on the evidence available to them as part of the formal appeal process. The evidence showed that Mr C's formal appeal was handled in line with the regulations. We did not uphold this part of the complaint.

In relation to a conflict of interest, Mr C did not raise this issue in his formal appeal and, based on the information we saw, there was no evidence of a conflict of interest. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

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

• The university should recommend to the college that they draw the attention of examiners to any programme-specific regulations that apply.
• It should be clarified under what circumstances a draft of a student's appeal would be considered informally at a college committee before the student submits their formal appeal electronically to academic services. Communication with students about this should be clear.

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.