Universities

Summary

Ms C complained that the university had unreasonably withdrawn her from her course because of poor attendance. She had been experiencing personal difficulties, which she had reported to her personal tutor. The tutor had not passed on this information to the relevant people, so her circumstances had not been taken into account before her studies were terminated.

After we became involved, the university offered Ms C a meeting to discuss the options available to enable her to continue her studies. Her complaint was therefore withdrawn.

Summary

Mr C was a postgraduate student at the university. Two pieces of work he submitted were judged to have been plagiarised due to the style of citation and referencing used. Academic misconduct penalties were applied to the pieces of work following an investigation by the college academic misconduct officer. Mr C was unhappy with this decision and appealed to the university. Mr C was not satisfied with the outcome of this appeal and so brought his concerns to us for further investigation. Mr C complained that it was inappropriate to investigate him for academic misconduct, that the appropriate procedures had not been followed and that the penalties were unreasonable.

After making enquiries with Mr C and the university, we did not uphold these complaints. We found that the academic judgement of university staff was that there had been misconduct, and the appropriate procedures had been adhered to when investigating this. We found that the penalties applied to Mr C's work were in line with the these procedures. We did identify two areas in relation to the provision of information to students that we considered could benefit from review, and we made two recommendations.

Recommendations

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

• Students should be made fully aware of the findings of academic misconduct investigations.
• There should be consistent guidance for students regarding referencing.

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 on behalf of his daughter (Miss A), who was a third year student at the university. At the end of the year, Miss A received her final results, which showed that she had not submitted several assignments. Miss A queried this with the school office as she said she had submitted the work electronically. However, the university could find no record of this, and they told Miss A she had to withdraw from the course. Miss A appealed against this decision but the appeal was not upheld. Miss A appealed again and provided copies of the missing assignments. While the university marked some of these, they did not uphold Miss A's appeal.

Mr C complained about the conduct of the appeals process, and that Miss A had not been notified earlier about the non-submissions. He said the university gave Miss A unhelpful advice on what to include in her appeal, which meant that one of her papers was not marked. He was also unhappy that another paper was not marked (as the creation date of the electronic document was after the due date). He said Miss A had previously provided evidence of the correct creation date (in hard copy), but the university lost this. Mr C said the university should have provided more support to Miss A in making her appeal and kept her updated throughout the process.

After investigating these issues, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the university had provided appropriate support and advice, and kept Miss A updated throughout the process. We considered the university's reasons for not marking two of the papers were adequate, as one of the papers was not included in the appeal, and there was no evidence the other was created before the due date. We also found the university had no duty to notify Miss A of non-submissions as their policies and guidance made it clear that students were responsible for submitting all work in hard copy and electronic format. However, we found that a member of staff gave Mr C inaccurate information about this and we recommended that the university apologise for this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• apologise to Mr C for giving him incorrect information.

Summary

Miss C complained that the university failed to advise her, and other students, that the criteria for progression to honours may change. She said this was not mentioned in the pre-course open day material or in the year one student handbook which advised of the progression requirements at that time. The progression requirements were changed when she started second year and she did not achieve the required progression results at the end of second year to allow her to progress to honours. She was unhappy that she had not been told that progression grades could change, and she felt that changes to student numbers had required the school to amend the criteria upwards, which she felt was unfair. She submitted an appeal on these grounds and also on the grounds that personal circumstances had affected her studies. Her appeal was rejected. She also submitted a complaint about aspects of the course which was also rejected. As she was unhappy with this, and with the level of support provided to her by the university, she approached us.

We considered the background information and could find no specific evidence to suggest that Miss C had been informed that the progression criteria could change from year to year. Although we noted a caveat in the student handbook advising that information in the handbook was subject to change and could not be guaranteed to be up-to-date, we felt that this was not sufficient to fully inform students. We felt that the information provided to students, both at the pre-course stage and post-enrolment, was not sufficient. For this reason, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, we were satisfied that the university was entitled to change the progression criteria and we were not critical on this point.

We were also satisfied that the university made clear how students could access support and we noted the support given to Miss C following the notification of her results. We considered the university's handling of Miss C's appeal and were satisfied that they had addressed the issues she had raised and did so within the time frame required by their appeals process. We were also satisfied with the way the university had dealt with her subsequent complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for failing to make it clear to students at both pre-course stage and on enrolment that progression criteria to honours can change, and for failing to respond to her complaint within the required timescale. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• A review of the literature used at pre-course open days and the course handbook should be carried out to ensure that they make clear that progression to honours is not guaranteed. The literature should make clear that progression depends on meeting the required progression criteria and that the criteria can change from year to year, including during the course of the degree.

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 to us that the university had not followed their harassment and bullying policy and procedures for students after she made a complaint that she had been harassed and bullied by her PhD supervisor. Ms C sent the university a recording of a meeting with her supervisor with her complaint. She said that the supervisor had made her feel threatened at the meeting. The university decided that they could investigate Ms C's complaint without listening to the recording and destroyed it before they met the supervisor to discuss the matter.

We found that the university had not carried out an adequate investigation into the matter. The allegations Ms C made were serious and we considered that the university should have recorded more clearly the reasons why they felt they could investigate the complaint without listening to the recording before they destroyed it. We also found that the university had not issued an adequate response to the issues Ms C had raised. The response said that they would implement the three requests she had made but did not advise her of the outcome of their investigation into her allegations. In addition, the response did not advise her of how to escalate the matter if she considered that the outcome was not satisfactory. In view of these failings, we upheld this aspect of her complaint.

Ms C also complained that the university had not followed their complaints policy. The university's complaints policy states that it is important to be clear from the start of the investigation exactly what is being investigated and to ensure that both the person making the complaint and the complaints officer understand the scope of the investigation. However, there was no evidence that the university had contacted Ms C to discuss the scope of the investigation before issuing their response to her. We did not consider that the university's email to her was an adequate response to the issues she had raised. In addition, the university did not advise her in the initial response that she could contact our office. In view of these failings, we also upheld this aspect of her complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to follow their harassment and bullying policy and procedures for students. Further apologise for failing to follow their complaints policy. These apologies should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Supervisors should be competent, and adequately trained, to conduct difficult conversations. In particular, it should be ensured that Ms C's previous supervisor has the required competence and skill.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints handling staff should be made aware of the findings of our investigation with regards to their failure to follow the harassment and bullying policy and procedure for students, and failure to follow the university's complaints policy.

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 in his own right and on behalf of a fellow student (Ms A). He complained that the university failed to provide parts of the course as stated on the university website and in course handbooks.

We found the website did not categorically state that the specific points raised by Mr C and Ms A were core parts of the course. However, the wording was unclear and, in response to Mr C and Ms A's complaint, the university acted reasonably by removing the unclear wording. We also found that what Mr C and Ms A said was advertised but not provided was, in fact, available to students. Mr C and Ms A said they were disappointed in the standard of the course, in particular module content, and how the course was described in the module handbook compared to what was actually delivered. We found that all modules were delivered as part of the accredited programme. In terms of what specific subject matter was taught, we explained to Mr C and Ms A that we cannot investigate the exercise of academic judgement, therefore, we could not reach a finding on the specific academic issues they raised. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the university's handling of his complaint, and about financial redress offered to him by the university.

We found that the university considered all relevant events that led to Mr C's complaint, as well as relevant evidence from Mr C and from university staff and records. Mr C disagreed with the university's conclusion but that disagreement, of itself, was not evidence of an administrative failing by the university.

The university accepted that they took too long to deal with Mr C's complaint. In responding to Mr C, the university apologised for and explained the delay, and they took steps to prevent a similar situation from happening again.

The university offered financial redress for periods of Mr C's study that were affected by failings they identified, rather than the whole period of study as Mr C wanted. We concluded that the university's offer was reasonable in the circumstances. Mr C requested that the money be paid directly to him, however, the university intended to pay the money directly to Mr C's financial sponsor. We concluded that the university's decision to do this was also reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C was enrolled as a postgraduate student at the university. During and in the period following her course, Ms C had a number of concerns, including about supervision, the administration of the programme, assessment, communication and the cancellation of the postgraduate show.

Ms C submitted a complaint to the university regarding these matters. In their complaint response the university acknowledged a number of shortcomings and outlined steps that would be taken to improve administration. The university also apologised to Ms C for the distress and inconvenience she experienced throughout the programme.

In the course of our investigation, we did not find evidence that the university had failed to adequately meet Ms C's request for a new supervisor without delay. We were also satisfied that the university provided Ms C with feedback following assessment. Although Ms C felt that the university failed to address her concerns about group work on the course, we found that the university met with Ms C to discuss this issue and we were therefore satisfied that the university acted appropriately. We did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C said that the university had failed to inform her that part of her work would not be assessed. We did not find evidence to support this, and we did not find that the university acted inappropriately. Ms C also said that an assignment posted online had changed after it had been made available to students. Similarly, we did not find evidence that this had happened.

Ms C also complained that the university did not provide adequate access to workshops during the course. We did not find evidence that the university failed to follow its procedures in relation to this matter.

Ms C complained that the university failed to provide her with a reasonable space in order for her to display her work for assessment. We did not find that the space given to Ms C was materially different to that afforded to other students. Ms C was concerned about the university's actions in relation to the postgraduate show. We did not find that the university had acted inappropriately in relation to this matter.

However, we upheld Ms C's complaint that the university failed to provide support to her to apply for a grant. We noted that the university had since created an office for scholarships and we were therefore satisfied that appropriate learning had been implemented.

The university acknowledged to us that there had been a delay in informing Ms C whether her extension request had been granted, and a delay in providing information to Ms C in relation to the assessment and return of her work. The university said that they would review the process of managing extensions. We upheld these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Finally, we found that the university did not appropriately acknowledge Ms C's complaint and did not contact Ms C in relation to a delay in responding to the complaint. We therefore concluded that the university did not handle Ms C's complaint in accordance with their procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• provide us with evidence that a review of the extension request process has taken place; and
• feed back our findings on complaints handling to the relevant staff so that complaints are handled in accordance with the university's procedure.

Summary

Mr C made a number of complaints to us about the way the university had handled complaints he had made to them. He complained about the way in which the university had handled his complaint about two members of staff, but we found that the investigation into this matter had been reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. He also said that the university had failed to investigate this complaint in the scheduled time. We found that many of the delays had been outwith the university's control and that, where extensions for the investigation to be completed had been sought, this had been done in line with the university's complaints procedure. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the university had unreasonably stated that he was unwilling to accept a proposed solution. He also complained that they had unreasonably consulted with a member of staff about whom he had complained. We found that it had been reasonable for the university to state that he was not willing to accept a proposed solution and that there was nothing to prevent the member of staff from being involved in his complaint. We did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint. Mr C complained that the university had erroneously blocked him from registering for classes because there was a marker on his record that he was going through conduct proceedings. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and found that the university had already apologised to him for this.

Mr C complained to us that the university had failed to investigate complaints about both the student conduct committee and the university senate. We found that the responses issued to Mr C about these issues had been reasonable and we did not uphold these aspects of his complaint. Mr C also complained about the actions of a member of staff at the university. Although the member of staff had referred to the wrong sections of the university's complaints procedure in responses to Mr C, we found that this had been due to human error and found no evidence that the member of staff had intentionally mislead him. There was no evidence that the member of staff had bullied or harassed Mr C or had forced him to withdraw his complaints. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C complained that the university did not have a clear procedure for appointing a complaints investigator. We found that the action that they had taken in Mr C's case had been reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

Recommendations

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

• The university should ensure that students are not erroneously blocked from registering for classes because of service indicators against their name.

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 complained that her university failed to provide adequate guidance for her first attempt at her dissertation. She also complained that the university did not allow her to resit two assessments that she had previously passed, even though she had mitigating circumstances.

We found that when dealing with her academic appeal, the university accepted that there were problems with the supervision Miss C received. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint. However, because the university had already apologised to Miss C and she had resat the failed component, we had no recommendations to make as the matter had been remedied.

University regulations were clear that a student could not resit an assessment that had already been passed in order to improve their mark, even if there were mitigating circumstances. In dealing with Miss C's case, the university balanced the need to adhere to their regulations with the exercise of their academic judgement. We cannot question the exercise of academic judgement, and there was no evidence that the university failed to follow their regulations in Miss C's case. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.