Universities

Summary

Mr C was a Masters student. The university decided not to pass his project dissertation, as a result of which he was not awarded a masters degree. Mr C appealed the decision to the university and then complained to us. His view was that the feedback the university gave him about their decision not to pass his project dissertation was deficient. He also complained that the university had acted unreasonably by not providing feedback on his draft literary review.

The university considered that Mr C's appeal was a straightforward challenge to academic judgement, which is excluded as grounds for appeal. Mr C was aware that we do not have the authority to investigate complaints about action taken by the university in the exercise of academic judgement by them. Mr C's complaint to us was that the university had acted unreasonably by failing to provide any evidence or explanation that they had considered the information he had provided to question the factual accuracy of the feedback he received. Following investigation, we concluded that we were satisfied that the university's appeals sub-committee had been provided with all relevant documents, including the documents where Mr C said he complained about the factual accuracy of the feedback, before they reached a decision on his appeal. We were satisfied that the university had provided a reasonable explanation as to why they considered that Mr C was questioning academic judgement and that the sub-committee's report provided sufficient explanation/evidence that they had considered his appeal and gave the reasons for their decision. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We also did not uphold the complaint that the university had acted unreasonably by failing to provide feedback to Mr C on his draft literary review. Mr C said he was told that he would receive feedback if the review did not meet the required standard. When this did not happen, he assumed that it had met the required standard. However, the examiner's feedback he received indicated that this was not, in fact, the case. Following our investigation, the only evidence we found that indicated that Mr C may be provided with feedback was in an email from a member of staff to him regarding the review which stated that '… feedback will be given if required'. It was not clear whether this was if the university deemed it was required or if the student required (ie asked) for it. However, when Mr C did not receive feedback, there is no evidence that he contacted the university about this. We did not consider that it was reasonable for Mr C to assume that, in the absence of feedback, the review met the required standard.

Summary

Mr C complained about the marking of his dissertation. One of the markers had emailed Mr C to say that he had made a procedural error in submitting the mark he initially felt the dissertation deserved. The university rejected Mr C's subsequent complaint as the marking had been undertaken in line with their procedures. Mr C brought his complaint to us.

We decided that the marker had made an error, but that it was not a procedural one, simply that an incorrect mark had been entered. However, this error was mitigated against by subsequent reconciliation of the mark with the second marker and scrutiny by an external examiner. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that her university did not support her after she returned from suspension of studies, and about the university's handling of her academic appeal.

We considered the information provided by Miss C and the university. We found that the university, in good faith, accepted certification from Miss C's GP that she was fit to return to study, and that Miss C had given the university no reason to question this until she appealed against the decision to withdraw her from study. The university provided evidence of email exchanges between Miss C and staff from after she returned from suspension and they reiterated that Miss C was certified by her GP as fit to study and that she did not inform the university of any problem at the time. They also said that there were no procedures relating to specific support in a situation where a student was returning from suspension of studies having been declared fit to return. We also found that the university dealt with Miss C's appeal in line with their procedures.

On the matter of Miss C's academic appeal, we saw no evidence that the university's handling of the appeal was inadequate and we therefore did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.

We were in no doubt that Miss C had health issues that had a significant impact on her, and the university were also aware of this. However, we found no evidence that the university failed to follow their procedures and, therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the university failed to follow the procedure and timescales for a student nursing fitness to practise hearing. She also said that there was a delay in signing off placement booklets, and that the university wrongly told her she would not be entitled to further bursary funds.

We found that the university did follow the fitness to practise regulations. Where there was deviation from the timescales this was not significant and, in part, was done at Mrs C's request. We also found that the placement booklets could not be signed off until after the conclusion of the fitness to practise process. Finally, we found that Mrs C was not entitled to bursary funding as there was no medical reason for her period of study being extended; rather, it was due to academic failure. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the university did not tell her sooner that the course she applied for was full. She also complained that the university did not deal with her application in line with their process, and about their handling of her complaint.

We found that the university told Mrs C that the course was full as soon as they knew this to be the case, which was the day after the school exam results were issued; it was only then that it became clear to the university that the course had no places available. We also found that the university followed the correct procedure in considering Mrs C's application, and when investigating and responding to her complaint. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that his university withdrew him from his course because he failed to attend classes, and about their handling of his appeal.

We found that Mr C was warned about his lack of attendance at classes, and when he was further warned that his case was being considered by a university panel, he failed to engage properly with the process. The university followed the process for dealing with Mr C's lack of attendance and considered the evidence available to them at the time and, on that basis, decided to withdraw him from the course. We also found that the university followed the process for dealing with Mr C's appeal. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained that she had made the university aware of issues she was experiencing at home during her third year of studies in relation to childcare and illness, but they had not informed her of the mitigation process. She also complained that communication she had had with the university had not been responded to. She identified four specific emails to two members of staff which were not responded to.

We found that, in the context of seeking an extension for an assignment and explaining why she had been unable to attend academic support sessions, she had informed staff on these particular occasions that she (or her child) had been unwell or had issues with childcare. It did not appear that Ms C was seeking advice or support on these issues and their impact on her studies; rather they were an explanation for the extension request or the reason for not attending meetings. Therefore, we did not consider that it was unreasonable that staff had not mentioned the mitigation process to her directly in response to these emails. The university also provided us with a copy of the student programme handbook for the course which provided details of how and when to apply for mitigation. We considered that it was Ms C's responsibility to familiarise herself with the information the university had provided. Therefore, we did not uphold her complaint.

In relation to Ms C's second complaint about emails not being responded to, unfortunately, because of the length of time which had passed since these emails had been sent, both the university and Ms C were unable to provide us with sufficient evidence to allow us to establish whether the emails were received and responded to or, if they were not, whether this was unreasonable. Therefore, there were no grounds for us to uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a school at the university failed to accept his evidence of special circumstances in relation to his exams, and about the university's handling of his appeal.

We found the school did consider Mr C's evidence; they decided that it was not evidence of the impact of Mr C's claimed special circumstances on his academic performance. The school did this by assessing Mr C's previous academic record and we accepted that, in this case, it was allowed for in university policy and it was a matter of academic judgement. We cannot investigate matters of academic judgement and, therefore, we could not comment on that issue. However, we were satisfied that it was reasonable in the specific circumstances for the school and the university to consider this as a matter of academic judgement, and that the school did consider Mr C's evidence. We were also satisfied that Mr C's appeal was handled in line with the relevant procedure. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had been unfairly prevented from completing a university masters degree. Mr C said he had never been informed of the course-marking criteria. He had been invoiced for the third year of his studies, and paid the fees in full. The university had accepted the fees and had not offered a refund until he had complained. Mr C felt his academic appeal had been poorly handled and had taken an excessive amount of time.

The university said Mr C had been informed at the end of his first year that his marks were not high enough to proceed to year three of his studies: he had met the criteria to proceed to year two (successful completion of year which would result in a postgraduate diploma level qualification) but not to proceed to the third year (masters level). They acknowledged he had been invoiced in error, and apologised for this. They noted his refund had been processed as quickly as possible and that at busy times, such as the start of the academic year, refunds could be subject to delay. The university said that Mr C's academic appeal had been delayed due to the level of workload the academic appeals section had at that time.

We found that Mr C had been told at the end of the first year his marks were insufficient to proceed to year three of his studies. There was no evidence that Mr C had questioned this decision at the time. We did not uphold the complaint that the university unreasonably failed to make clear the criteria for progression.

The university had accepted the invoice was issued in error, but had not provided evidence the error had been addressed. We therefore upheld the complaint that the university unreasonably invoiced Mr C and accepted payment for tuition fees for the third year of the course. However, we did not consider the time taken for the university to refund the payment to be unreasonable in the circumstances, so we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We also found that the academic appeal process had taken too long and the university had not been pro-active in informing Mr C of the delays, and so we upheld the complaint that the university unreasonably failed to meet their stated timescales in relation to the academic appeal.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• provide evidence of the action they have taken to prevent a recurrence of the administrative error which led to a course invoice being issued before the final examination board meeting;
• review the handling of the academic appeal in order to prevent a recurrence of the delays that affected it; and
• apologise for the delays in determining the academic appeal and for failing to provide updates on its progress.

Summary

Mr C complained about how the university had responded to complaints he had made to them. We began to investigate the matters but Mr C advised us that he had resolved his issues with the university. We considered whether there were grounds for us to continue our investigation in these circumstances but decided that there were not and closed the complaint.