Universities

Summary

Mr C complained that the university failed to send his exam results to his personal email address, failed to consider technical problems that occurred during the course, and failed to follow their complaints procedure.

We found that exam results are always sent to a student's university email address and not to their personal email address, and no agreement was reached with Mr C to send his results to his personal email address. In relation to technical problems, there had been a problem with downloading software from the university. This was resolved by the university to enable download, and the problem was taken into account by the course's assessment board. Mr C claimed his computer and personal email account were hacked. However, it was Mr C's responsibility to have appropriate protection for his computer and email account, something for which the university could not be held responsible. Finally, we found no evidence that the university had failed to follow their complaints procedure. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained that during her time as a PhD student at the university, the university unreasonably failed to follow the code of practice for supervisors and research students. She specifically complained that the university failed to appoint a second supervisor for her, and that her main supervisor had not organised a first year review to assess her progress. Ms C also said the university unreasonably failed to follow the postgraduate assessment regulations, as her principal supervisor did not tell her about of all of the assessment practice and requirements, or the code of practice. Ms C said that the delays and the non-performance of services, together with her loss of trust and confidence in the university, resulted in her withdrawing from the course. In addition, Ms C complained about the university’s investigation of and response to her complaint.

We found that there was a considerable delay in the university appointing a second supervisor for Ms C and that they failed to act in accordance with the code of practice. While we were critical of this, we noted that there were frequent supervisory meetings with Ms C’s main supervisor in line with the code of practice. The evidence also showed that the university unreasonably failed to carry out a review of Ms C's work within nine to twelve months of her enrolment, as set out in the code of practice. We therefore concluded that the university unreasonably failed to follow the code. We upheld this part of Ms C ’s complaint and made recommendations to address this.

In terms of the postgraduate assessment regulations, the evidence suggested that for Ms C’s first academic year of study, it was her responsibility to be aware of the assessment practices and requirements. We also noted that the university may have provided Ms C with information on the code and regulations, including assessment practice and requirements, in a joining instruction mailing sent before Ms C started her course. We therefore considered that the university did not unreasonably fail to adhere to the regulations and we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C’s complaint.

On the issue of complaints handling, whilst we did not see any evidence that the university’s investigation of Ms C’s complaint was inadequate, we considered that the university unreasonably failed to uphold Ms C’s final stage complaint, and in this regard we considered that their response to Ms C’s complaint was inadequate. We upheld this part of Ms C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to adhere to the code of practice for supervisors and research students, for failing to appoint an assistant supervisor within a reasonable timescale and for unreasonably failing to uphold her final stage complaint.

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

• Assistant supervisors for students should be appointed in accordance with the requirements of the code of practice. One year reviews for part-time students should be carried out within nine to twelve months of their enrolment.

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 the university’s investigation of her complaint about aspects of the course she was on was unreasonable.

The university proposed a number of specific points of complaint to Ms C, and she accepted them as the basis for her complaint. Given this, the university made enquiries that related to the specific points of complaint, and not to other ancillary issues Ms C raised. We found that the university’s approach to their investigation was reasonable in the circumstances, as was the university’s response to Ms C. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint.

Summary

Miss C was unhappy with the honours classification of her degree. She complained to us about the university's handling of her academic appeal.

The classification decision was a matter of academic judgement for the university, which could be challenged using the academic appeals process and was not in our jurisdiction. However, we noted that evidence provided by the university indicated Miss C's degree classification was based on her overall academic performance, and was not affected by administrative issues she raised.

We found that the university dealt with Miss C's appeal in line with their regulations. There was evidence that Miss C's appeal submission was considered carefully and the relevant university sub-committee reached a view on it, as they were entitled to. We understood why Miss C disagreed with the outcome reached by the sub-committee, but there was no evidence to dispute that outcome, and her disagreement was not evidence of maladministration. In the absence of maladministration, we could not question the merits of the university's decision. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university failed to follow the correct procedures when assessing her exam. She was also unhappy that when she requested a copy of their standard operating procedure (SOP) for the assessment of the exam they provided the incorrect document. She also complained that they failed to consider her appeal in line with their appeals process.

We found that the university should have provided the SOP when this was requested. We also noted that they failed to arrange an appeal hearing within the timescale required by their appeals process. As a result, we upheld these elements of the complaint.

We did not find failings in the way Ms C's exam was assessed and did not uphold this element of her complaint. We did accept that the SOP was open to interpretation and we suggested to the university that they give consideration to reviewing this document to provide greater clarity.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• write to Ms C to apologise for the initial failure to provide her with the correct documentation she requested;
• ensure that staff know how to respond to a freedom of information request; and
• write to Ms C to apologise for the delay in arranging the panel hearing.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Miss A), a student at the university. Mr C's complaints were about the university's handling of the Fitness to Practise (FtP) process in relation to Miss A, and the university's handling of his complaint.

We found that, in general terms, the FtP regulations were followed by the university. However, we had to consider whether the university's handling of this matter was reasonable. We had specific concerns about the introduction of new evidence at an investigatory meeting and an apparent lack of contemporaneous documentary evidence in relation to concerns about Miss A's fitness to practise. We also had concerns about Miss A and her student adviser not being given a copy of the investigatory meeting notes to check for accuracy and an apparent failure to provide an FtP panel hearing with information from Mr C.

Given these concerns, we concluded that the university's handling of the FtP process in relation to Miss A was unreasonable and, therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

We had some minor concerns about the university's handling of Mr C's complaint, in particular that the university did not provide us with a complaint file of all evidence considered in respect of the complaint. Nevertheless, the university's written response to Mr C dealt with each of the points he made. Having considered the complaint correspondence between Mr C and the university, overall we regarded the response Mr C received was reasonable in the circumstances, as it sought to outline the facts relevant to the points made in his complaint and to provide a proportionate response giving the university's definitive position. We did not see evidence to conclude that the university's handling of Mr C's complaint was unreasonable and therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• ensure that the nature of all alleged causes for concern are notified to students before an investigatory meeting takes place as part of the FtP process;
• ensure that the FtP file includes copies of evidence relevant to all alleged causes for concern, such as contemporaneous documentary evidence from placement records;
• ensure that, where alleged causes for concern are based on anecdotal evidence, the anecdotal evidence is tested, for example by obtaining corroborating documentary evidence or by interviewing relevant people;
• ensure that all evidence considered by an investigating officer and submitted by a student is forwarded to FtP panel hearings;
• consider revising the FtP regulations to allow a student, and the person supporting or representing them, an opportunity to review the content of investigatory meeting notes for accuracy; and
• ensure they keep a copy of all evidence considered in respect of complaints.

Summary

Ms C, an MP, complained on behalf of her constituent (Ms A). The complaint was that the university's promotional material about a degree course was unreasonable, as Ms A felt she was not told that her degree would not help her with her chosen career.

We found that, while technically correct, the university's information was ambiguous. In dealing with the complaint, the university admitted their website could have been clearer and changed their published information to clarify it. In addition, the university offered Ms A a goodwill payment.

While Ms A's circumstances were unfortunate, in our view there was no certainty she could have achieved more from the university's handling of her complaint, and we found that the university acted reasonably to clarify the information. On balance, we concluded that the university's promotional material about the degree was reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Ms A's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university unreasonably failed to make him aware of an examiners' rule and that the university's consideration of his academic appeals was unreasonable.

The university acknowledged that the examiners' rule was not included in the course handbook for that academic year. Because of this failure on the university's part, which they corrected for the following year, Mr C was unable to make an informed choice about whether or not to submit a claim for mitigating circumstances. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to Mr C's appeals, we found no evidence that the university failed to follow the relevant process and we therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• provide us with evidence that they have taken steps to ensure students are notified of the examiners' rule in future.

Summary

Ms C complained about the university's handling of her termination of studies, their consideration of her extenuating circumstances and her reasons for not disclosing them earlier. She also complained about the university's handling of her academic appeal.

In relation to all three matters we found no evidence that the university had failed to follow their policies. Without evidence of administrative failure, we could not question the university's decisions in these matters. We did therefore not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university failed to follow the relevant procedure in marking her dissertation. She said that the second marker should not have been able to see the first marker's comments and that the second marker had simply agreed with the first marker's comments.

We found that the university's guidance did allow for the second marker to see the first marker's comments in some cases. Whilst the second marker's comments were brief, we did not consider that this amounted to unreasonable practice and therefore we did not uphold the complaint.

Ms C also complained that the university failed to consider bias in dealing with her appeal. We found that the issue of bias was considered during the consideration of her appeal and that the decision made by the university on this was not unreasonable. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C complained that the university failed to agree to her request for a third marker. In their response to us on this matter, the university said that the appeal did not establish any procedural irregularity in the marking of Ms C's dissertation and that there were therefore no grounds for appointing an additional marker. They also stated that the appointment of an additional marker would have been contrary to their procedures and would have meant inconsistency of treatment for students. We considered that the university's decision on this matter was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained that the university unreasonably decided that her appeal was about academic judgement. We found that the university had clarified to Ms C that did they did not consider the appeal to be a challenge to academic judgement. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.