Universities

Summary

Mr C passed the first part of his course, but his grades were not high enough for automatic progression to honours. The university invited Mr C to a Progress Committee Meeting (PCM) to determine whether he would be granted conditional entry to honours. Mr C did not attend the PCM. The university offered to reschedule it but in the meantime they became concerned that Mr C was not well enough to attend the PCM and/or classes. They arranged a meeting to discuss this, and a referral to occupational health for assessment. Occupational health confirmed Mr C was fit to study. The PCM was held soon after this and did not grant conditional entry to honours. Mr C appealed against this decision, but the university did not uphold his appeal. Mr C also asked to be allowed to attend lectures while the appeal was being considered, but the university did not allow this. Mr C complained about the university’s handling of the PCM and appeal process, and also that the university failed to take into account his disabilities and mitigating circumstances. He also complained about the university’s handling of his complaints.

The university said Mr C had been given ample opportunity to present his case for the PCM and appeal, including multiple extensions to enable him to request documents under freedom of information (FOI) legislation. The university said Mr C’s mitigating circumstances were taken into account, but Mr C did not notify them of a disability until after the PCM. He had also still not provided any medical evidence for this, although the disabilities adviser contacted him to request this. The university considered that they responded to Mr C’s fourteen complaints in accordance with their procedures.

After investigating Mr C’s complaints, we found he was given a reasonable opportunity to present his case to the PCM and appeal. Although Mr C did not receive all the documents he requested under the FOI process, the university did grant significant extensions, and we considered that he had a reasonable opportunity to make his case. We also found Mr C had no automatic entitlement to attend lectures while his appeal was being considered, and there was no evidence the university acted improperly in deciding not to allow this. We found Mr C did not comply with the university’s requirements for registering a disability, and so the university did not act unreasonably by not taking this into account in the PCM and appeal. However, we found that the university should have explained more clearly to Mr C when they decided not to investigate part of one of his complaints (which was being considered in the appeal process instead). We were also critical that the university did not follow the relevant procedure for managing unacceptable behaviour when deciding not to respond to further complaints from Mr C (in particular, failing to give Mr C a formal warning, and failing to make arrangements to review this decision, or for Mr C to appeal it).

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failings our investigation found;
• remind complaints handling staff of the need to provide a full and proportionate response to complaints, including explaining the reasons for the decision; and
• revise the procedure for managing unacceptable behaviour in line with the model Complaints Handling Procedure.

Summary

In the fourth year of his Masters degree, Mr C's dissertation was found to contain work taken from other sources and he had not acknowledged the sources of the copied work. Although the university's disciplinary hearing found plagiarism had been committed, Mr C was allowed to re-submit the dissertation whilst continuing with his fifth year of studies. He was told to amend his original piece of work. When Mr C re-submitted, it was again found to contain plagiarism and, after a second disciplinary meeting, the university terminated his studies. Mr C said that the university did not follow their academic regulations and he should not have been allowed to make a re-submission of the original piece of work. He also reported that he was not given sufficient time to re-submit or adequate instruction about what was required for the re-submission. We considered all the correspondence between Mr C and the university, the records of meetings, the university's regulations on academic student discipline and their responses to Mr C's requests for clarification. We found that the university had shown leniency as their regulations allowed, and asked him to resubmit his work for a course where no resit was normally permitted. Mr C had been told to re-work his original dissertation to ensure that no plagiarism remained, but he did not follow the advice he was given.

Summary

A decision was taken to suspend Mr C from a placement in the third year of his degree course and a fail was recorded against the placement. Mr C listed many points of dissatisfaction with the university, the majority of which were disagreement with their academic and professional judgements. Mr C said he understood that his suspension from placement would be recorded as a non-placement and that he would be allowed to undertake another placement as if it were his first attempt. He appealed the results of three courses that the university had recorded as fails. His appeal was partly upheld when the university decided that without his placement it was not possible to attempt one of his courses. His other two courses remained recorded by the university as fails and he was required to re-take them as second attempts. He did not do this as he felt he had been treated unfairly when he was suspended from his placement and a fail recorded. Our investigation considered all the correspondence between the university and Mr C, the university's appeals procedure, and the records of their investigation into his concerns. We found that the university had fully considered Mr C's circumstances and followed their procedures in dealing with his concerns and his appeal.

Summary

Mr C took a masters course which was a conversion course for students with first degrees in other subjects. Mr C complained to the university that they had not delivered all the contact time and activities including tutorials that were required for the conversion programme. The university addressed concerns in one module and took steps to address any disadvantage by moderating marks awarded. When Mr C complained about the lack of conversion tutorials and contact time in other modules, the university investigated and did not uphold his complaint. We considered the correspondence between Mr C and the university and the evidence of the investigations carried out by the university and found that the university had carried out a thorough investigation and reasonably considered all the issues he had raised in reaching their decision on his complaint. In light of what we found, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a postgraduate student, had complained to the university a number of times about a range of matters. When he submitted two new complaints for investigation, as he did not accept the outcome of the front-line resolution, the university responded that they had decided to restrict his access to the complaints handling procedure as they considered his level of contact to be unacceptable. Mr C complained to us about the university's refusal to consider his complaints. Our investigation considered the complaint submissions Mr C made, the university's response to them and their complaints handling procedure.

We found the university had encouraged Mr C to use alternative appropriate ways to raise his concerns and had clearly explained to Mr C their decision to restrict his access in terms of the relevant points of their policy. The university did not exclude him completely from the complaints handling procedure and said they would consider any new complaints if they deemed they were sufficiently serious to warrant investigation.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the university that her son was not appropriately supported by them when he decided to withdraw from his masters course and complete a postgraduate diploma instead. She believed he was entitled to a refund of fees but the university refused his refund application. We considered the policies of the university and their investigation of her concerns. We found that the university had reasonably investigated and responded to the concerns, and had followed their policy in deciding not to make a refund.

Summary

Miss C, a solicitor, complained to us on behalf of her client (Mr A) about how the university had compensated him for disruption to his exams. Mr A had chronic exam anxiety. He had been assessed by the university's disability service and had been found to require a separate room for exams. He was also allowed an extra 15 minutes for each hour. The invigilator for one of Mr A's exams had been cancelled in error, which meant that the exam had started late. Mr A had been allowed the time for which the exam had been delayed plus an additional 15 minutes to compensate him for the disruption. We found that this had been reasonable and did not uphold Miss C's complaints about this.

In a subsequent exam, the invigilator had been ill and had collapsed. He subsequently apologised to Mr A for the incident and offered him some extra time, but did not specify how much, as Mr A said this was not necessary. Miss C complained that the university had failed to offer Mr A any further compensation for this. We did not consider that this was unreasonable and we did not uphold Miss C's complaint about this matter.

Finally, Miss C complained that the university did not follow procedure and refused to consider evidence of special circumstances outside of the current academic year when considering Mr A’s performance at his progress committee meeting. There was no evidence that the progress committee did not follow procedure in considering Mr A’s performance at the meeting and it was for them to decide what information they required. Mr A could have submitted an appeal if he considered that they had failed to take account of medical or other adverse personal circumstances. We did not uphold these aspects of Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C was a self-funding postgraduate student who decided to withdraw from her programme after facing some personal difficulties and feeling depressed since moving to the university. She complained that the university had not given her support, had not made the process of withdrawing clear and had not agreed to the refund of tuition fee she requested. We considered the correspondence between Miss C and the university, internal correspondence in the course of the university's investigation, and the policy on tuition fee refunds. We found that the university had thoroughly investigated Miss C's complaints and considered new issues that arose through the course of Miss C's withdrawal and complaints. The university clearly explained why they upheld some complaints and not others, and appropriately identified ways their service and communication could be improved. The decision not to refund the fee was taken in line with the university's policy and reasonable consideration given as to whether her mitigating circumstances were exceptional.

Summary

Mr C complained about the university's actions, after he had a period of ill health while studying there. He complained that they did not do enough to support him through a difficult time, and did not make reasonable adjustments to enable him to continue his studies. He said this led to him having to withdraw from the course.

We found that Mr C had had a number of absences, despite the expectation that he attend all elements of the course. We reviewed what the university expected of Mr C in order for him to continue to the next year of the course, and noted the meetings he had with staff and the support that he was offered in trying to overcome his situation.

We sought independent advice from an equality and diversity specialist, who noted that the university had referred Mr C to sources of support. However, she said that Mr C's department did not take reasonable steps to inform and assist him. They had not implemented the university's policies about equality of access and fees refunds. She took the view that had they done so Mr C might have been able to agree an approach with the university that would have enabled him to continue his studies. She also noted that they had not sought advice from occupational health before making a decision about Mr C's future studies.

We noted the difficulties for Mr C and the university in predicting how the year would progress, and in deciding what he could best do to overcome these challenges. However, we considered that the university could have done more to discuss the options with him, highlight their concerns, and review any alternative approaches available to him. We noted that an occupational health referral could have assisted with this, and we were critical of the lack of notes or minutes of meetings.

Mr C also complained about the number of people that he had to inform about his health issues, saying this breached his privacy. Our review of the university's policies and procedures identified who he was required to tell about his sickness absence. We noted that, on occasion, Mr C chose to share personal health information with staff when he was absent due to ill health, beyond the requirements of the university's procedures. However, we found that there was a lack of procedures in relation to situations other than reporting illness. We were critical of this, as it meant that information could have been shared with more people than was necessary.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• apologise for their handling of Mr C's poor health in the academic session 2012-13, for the stress this has caused him, and the potential impact on his career;
• consider applying their refund policy to Mr C's fees for the academic session 2012-13;
• undertake a full review of the events that led to the curtailment of Mr C's studies, to identify what they could have done differently, and how their policies and practices could be improved in future;
• review their policies regarding the provision of support and adjustments for students, and consider consolidating them into one document, to ensure clarity for students and staff in relation to what support is available and how it is implemented;
• ensure staff are aware of the need to minute meetings with students, particularly where performance is in question, and that these minutes should be shared with the student;
• apologise to Mr C for their handling of his sensitive personal information; and
• review their policies relating to the provision and sharing of personal sensitive information, to ensure that they clearly indicate why such information is required and who needs to have access to it.

Summary

Mr C appealed against the university's decision not to offer him a place. He said that he had met the conditions of his offer, but the university had used optional courses to determine his final mark for entry. He complained that this was not stipulated in his offer and when he phoned the admissions office to ask, he was given wrong information and staff there treated him badly and did not respond to the issues he raised. The university decided he had not established grounds for an appeal and considered his complaints about the unfair treatment he felt he had received. He said he had been harassed by members of staff in the admissions office who had put the phone down on his call. The university investigated and did not uphold his complaints. Our investigation examined the university's consideration of his appeal and their investigation into his complaint, along with their procedures for handling admissions appeals and complaints. We found that Mr C's dissatisfaction was based on his belief that the university had made a wrong academic decision and concluded that the university had provided detailed explanations of their position and acted in line with their procedures, so we did not uphold his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• consider how to re-word the terms of the conditions set to make clear what is expected when more than one course in a subject is taken.