Universities

Summary

Mr C complained about the teaching and assessment of a module on his course. He also considered he was treated unfairly and with bias which he said had caused him stress and impacted on his studies.

Mr C complained to the university following the outcome of an academic appeal which was partially upheld. Of the sixteen points of complaint considered, one of the points of complaint was partially upheld, and a recommendation was made for an external independent assessment of Mr C's work on the module to be carried out.

We were satisfied that the university had carried out a proper and thorough investigation of Mr C's complaint including a serious allegation concerning the alleged conduct of a member of staff towards him. We also were satisfied that Mr C's personal circumstances were taken account of.

We also considered whether there was any unreasonable delay by the university in carrying out their investigation of Mr C's complaint. While we accepted there was a delay, we did not consider this was unreasonable given the extent of the investigation carried out and as Mr C had been notified that there would be a delay and the reason for this.

The university told us that there is no requirement under their complaints handling procedure for meetings which take place as part of an attempted frontline resolution of complaints to be documented, nor would it be practical to do so. It was also not departmental policy to record meetings which academic staff have with students to try to ascertain and resolve a student's concerns. However, we are of the view that where a student raises a complaint at a meeting with a member of the university staff, in particular where a potentially serious allegation is made about the conduct of a member of staff, this should be recorded.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• give consideration to staff documenting meetings they have with students where a complaint is raised.

Summary

Ms C complained about the information provided by the university in respect of the work she was required to submit for assessment at the end of the academic year. She said she asked her course tutor for information about the submission requirements but that the course tutor could not help her. She failed this aspect of the course. She said she contacted a senior secretary who advised her not to appeal but to resit the assessment in August. She felt this advice was wrong. She submitted her work in August after the deadline and, as a result, it was given a zero mark. She also said she was advised after her late submission that even though her submission was late it would still be assessed. She was also unhappy with the level of information provided by the university about the academic appeals process and about the late submission of work. Ms C was advised that she would need to resit the following year. As a result, she appealed the university's decision to give her a zero mark but her appeal was rejected. She was also unhappy with the time taken by the university to tell her their decision on her appeal.

We reviewed the information available to students and noted that there was a description of the assessment submissions required for this course. Contact details were also provided for members of the academic staff who could assist where there was any doubt or confusion. We also found that there was clear information on the late submission of work and the academic appeals process online and in the student handbook. Whilst we could not say with sufficient certainty what information she was given by staff, we noted that the appeals process was clear and that she could have sought advice about this from a number of sources. We also noted that, even if she was told that her work which she submitted late would be assessed, the policy was clear in that this was not the case. However, we noted that consideration of her appeal had taken much longer than the published timescales and, as a result, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• write to Ms C to apologise for the time taken to consider her appeal; and
• remind staff that all appeals should be dealt with within the published timescales.

Summary

Ms C, who had Asperger's syndrome, was a student at the university. Complaints by staff and students about her behaviour were brought to her attention, and she was advised that the matter would be brought to a discipline committee if the situation continued. Subsequently, the matter was brought to the committee and, after hearing from Ms C, a decision was taken to expel her. However, the expulsion was suspended to allow Ms C to change her behaviour. Nonetheless, the unacceptable behaviour continued and Ms C's case progressed through the university's discipline process. She later appealed the expulsion decision to the university court.

Ms C's unacceptable actions towards other students and staff continued, and a final decision was taken to expel her with immediate effect. Ms C considered that the university had dealt with her unfairly and that she had not been fully informed of the process. She said that the penalty of expulsion was totally disproportionate and was unreasonable because it would affect the rest of her life.

We investigated Ms C's complaint and found that, as required, the university had made reasonable adjustments for Ms C's disability. They had provided her with advice and information about the discipline process. We found that the process had followed the university's own guidance, about which Ms C had been made aware. Ms C had been given advice and a number of chances to change her behaviour, but she did not do so. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C enrolled as a student on a postgraduate course at the university. He complained that a lecturer had been dismissive of an enquiry he made during a class, which caused him to feel bullied. Mr C was dissatisfied with the university’s investigation into his complaint. He said the university had unreasonably failed to consider all relevant evidence. This included a failure to interview students who were present when the alleged bullying occurred, and a failure to obtain an audio recording of the class (which was available). Mr C left the university and received a full refund of his course fees.

Our investigation found that the university had addressed Mr C's complaint about being bullied with the lecturer concerned. However, given the serious nature of the allegation, and in the interests of fairness to both Mr C and the lecturer, we considered that the university should have interviewed other students who were present. We also considered that, for the purposes of determining Mr C’s complaint, consideration should have been given to reviewing the audio recording. We found the university had unreasonably failed to consider all relevant evidence and so we upheld this part of Mr C’s complaint.

Mr C also complained that the university did not have suitable policies and procedures in place for managing his allegation of bullying. Although the university did not have a specific bullying policy for students, we were satisfied that they had a number of policies and procedures in place which dealt with allegations of bullying made by students. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

As the university has a specific harassment and bullying policy and procedure in place for their employees, we recommended that they give consideration to introducing such a policy and procedure for students.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to undertake a reasonable investigation of his complaint;
• ensure the findings of our investigation are fed back to relevant staff; and
• give consideration to introducing a specific harassment and bullying policy and procedure for students.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university did not follow their guidelines when considering his view that his health problems should be taken into account when awarding a grade for his project. Mr C also said the university did not tell him why his health problems did not count as a case of 'good cause'. According to the university's regulations, 'good cause' means illness or other adverse personal circumstances affecting an individual and resulting in that individual either missing an examination, failing to submit coursework on time, or clearly prejudicing their performance in the assessment. In addition, Mr C complained that the university did not follow their guidelines on the discretion to promote his degree classification.

We found that the university had followed their guidelines on 'good cause'. Mr C wanted the university to tell him what else he could have done to show that his health problems were a case of 'good cause'. The university said that the various doctors' letters Mr C provided did not alter the initial conclusion reached by a board of examiners, which was that he did not have 'good cause'. We were satisfied that the university told Mr C why his submission of 'good cause' was dismissed. We also found that the university followed their guidelines when they decided not to promote Mr C's degree classification.

Mr C did not accept the university's position and disagreed with it. However, these were decisions the university were entitled to reach after considering the relevant evidence. We explained to Mr C that disagreement with the university's decisions or with their interpretation of matters was not evidence of an administrative failing on their part. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Miss C started a part-time distance learning masters degree course at the university. Within a few weeks she found that she was struggling with the course and she left. The university said they could only refund 40 percent of Miss C's course fees, because this was all they would offer to students who left between 31 January and 31 May in any year. Miss C complained about this, and that the university had not told her soon enough that the course was for practicing professionals with excellent IT skills and a good level of maths and, therefore, was unsuitable for her. Miss C also complained that the university ignored her main complaint that she should not have been accepted onto the course.

We found that Miss C had not read much information about the course before she applied. The university website said the course was for practicing professionals, and that the course included IT, probability and finance-related numeracy. As an applicant to the course, it was Miss C's responsibility to read the relevant information in order to decide whether this was the right course for her. If she was in any doubt, Miss C could have contacted the university to discuss whether for the course was suitable for her.

We looked at the university's file on Miss C's complaint, and it was clear that they had considered her complaint about being admitted to the course, although the university acknowledged it was not covered in the report they sent to her. The university also acknowledged that they had made an error in offering Miss C a 40 percent refund. Their tuition fee refund policy was clear that no refund should be offered for the course Miss C was studying, where the course had been started or where a student had received the learning materials. The university said that as they had made the offer of a 40 percent refund, even though it was against their policy, they would honour the offer. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C failed a piece of course work on his postgraduate certificate course. His appeal against the result was not upheld. He submitted a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and received evidence that suggested the university had not followed the assessment regulations when they held assessment boards that confirmed his fail. Specifically he received an email that the external examiner had sent stating that Mr C's resubmitted work should not be a fail. Mr C complained to the university that they had not followed assessment regulations and had not followed the advice of the external examiner. He also complained that the assessment board meetings were not quorate (having the necessary number of people present for decisions to be allowed to be made) nor properly attended by relevant board members. The university investigated and did not uphold his complaints.

Our investigation found that the university had not followed its regulations, although following Mr C's complaint, advice had been sought retrospectively from the examinations office, which suggested that the external examiner's views could be presented in writing. This had not been done at Mr C's assessment boards either.

We found that the inability to provide evidence that the external examiner's views were presented to the assessment board constituted an act of maladministration and that Mr C was entitled to an assessment board attended by the external examiner. We also found that the only available evidence of the external examiner's view showed they disagreed with the decision to fail Mr C. We did not find evidence that the assessment boards were not quorate or that the appropriate staff members did not attend.

It is not our role to consider questions of academic judgement and accordingly, it was not possible for our investigation to consider whether the correct mark was awarded, or whether the course as a whole should have been passed or not. Nor was it possible for us to order that a certain mark or qualification be awarded. It is our role to look at whether procedure was followed and in this case, mistakes were made. Where we find mistakes, our aim is to address them in such a manner as to place the complainant (if possible) in the situation they would have been in, had the error not occurred. We therefore recommended that the assessment board be re-held, while making it clear that this did not prejudge the outcome of the board, or require them to reach a specific decision on the work.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• provide evidence in the form of a formal minute to show the assessment board for Mr C has been re-held with the external examiner in attendance;
• provide evidence that the university regulations regarding the attendance of external examiners are being reviewed at the earliest opportunity; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings we identified.

Summary

Mr C applied to study at the university and was offered a place with the fee status of 'rest of UK'. After he accepted the offer, Mr C asked the university to reassess his fee status to 'home/EU'. The university did this and, as a result, Mr C lost his place at the university. Mr C complained to us that the university failed to explain how his offer would be reassessed, and that they failed to tell him when he made his fee status enquiry that all funded places for home/EU students had been filled.

We found the university told Mr C that if he wanted them to reassess his fee status, and if his fee status changed to home/EU, they would re-evaluate his application under their home/EU application framework and they may change or cancel the offer previously made to him. Mr C told us he assumed that he would not lose his place at the university as a result of the reassessment of his fee status. Because of this assumption, he did not contact the university for more information about how reassessment would take place, and what exactly this could mean for him. In our view, it was not reasonable to hold the university responsible for Mr C's assumptions.

Mr C believed he had a choice about which fee status category to be in. It was the university's policy that applicants could not choose their fee status. The university assessed fee status themselves on the basis of information provided by applicants. It was also university policy that the most recent fee status assessment was the one that remained valid, and an applicant could not decide to go back to a previous fee status, even if their offer was withdrawn following fee status reassessment. The university expected applicants to provide correct information so they could assess fee status accurately, and the process was not designed to help applicants choose which fee status category they wanted. Given this, we accepted the university's explanation of why they would not tell Mr C that there were no places left in the home/EU fee category. This information was not relevant to the reassessment of Mr C's fee status, which was a process he started. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Miss C was a student at the university, studying towards a PhD. She did not pass her PhD and appealed against the decision of the examiners. This appeal, and Miss C's subsequent formal complaint to the university, were not upheld. Miss C felt that the university had failed to take account of their own policies and procedural guidelines when reaching their decision.

We did not issue a finding on this case as it was resolved to Miss C’s satisfaction, following a review by the university of their previous position.

Summary

Mr C complained that his university unreasonably required him to re-attend for a whole academic year, after he failed to submit a piece of coursework for a module. Mr C was also unhappy with the university's handling of his complaint.

We found that Mr C assumed he could re-sit the coursework at the end of the academic year. However, university regulations said that, in the circumstances, Mr C was required to re-attend. Mr C, as an enrolled student, was bound by university regulations and had confirmed his acceptance of them. Therefore, he had to re-attend. We did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

We found some failings in the adminstration of Mr C's complaint, where the university had not followed their complaints procedure in respect of stage one of the process. We upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• remind relevant staff of the stage one process in their complaints handling procedure.