Universities

Summary

Mr C complained that the university did not acknowledge that feedback on his thesis contained factual errors. We explained to Mr C that we could not investigate complaints relating to the quality of his academic work, or the quality of the academic input by members of university staff.

We found that, in dealing with Mr C's academic appeal, the university took account of the errors in the feedback. The university's appeals procedure said they had to tell a student the decision on the appeal within ten working days. However, it did not say they had to give a detailed account of how they considered the appeal and why they either accepted or rejected every individual point raised in the appeal. In Mr C's case, the university told him their decision on his appeal within the required ten working days. In doing so, the university explained why they concluded there were no grounds for Mr C's appeal, and that disagreement with academic judgement was not a valid ground for appeal. We were satisfied with how the university dealt with Mr C's appeal and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C was a registered student with a disability, with a disabled driver's parking permit. Before his end of year exams Mr C had an accident and needed knee surgery, which he discussed with department staff. He was allocated an exam room on the fourth floor of a building with no lift. He said that he suffered considerable pain throughout the exam because he had to climb the stairs. He complained that the university had not met their responsibilities to him as a disabled student, and that he should be allowed to re-sit the exam. The university investigated, but did not uphold his complaint.

Our investigation considered all the university's relevant policies and procedures, including arrangements for students with disabilities, complaints handling and regulations on equality and building standards. We also examined all correspondence between Mr C and university staff, the university's records of Mr C's disability and their investigation and responses to his complaint. We found that Mr C had not told the university that he had mobility issues and needed disabled access. He had assumed that all rooms were accessible, without checking locations with which he was not familiar. The university had carried out a thorough investigation and provided detailed responses to his complaint and had clearly communicated the procedures students should follow. We did not uphold his complaint, as the university could have only put in place appropriate arrangements if they were told about the mobility difficulties that Mr C later reported.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had failed to allow sufficient time for his submission to be marked in order that he could obtain a qualification. He told us that if he had obtained the qualification by a specific date, he would have received an increase in his salary. Mr C had missed the original deadline for submitting the work. The deadline was then extended and a further extension was subsequently agreed with Mr C. He paid the required fee and submitted the work on the date that had been agreed, which was just under six weeks before the date he needed to obtain the qualification in order to obtain the salary increase.

The university's programme guide for the course stated that students should expect to receive feedback within six weeks of the date the work is submitted. In Mr C's case, we found no evidence that he was told that he would receive the feedback within a shorter time period. The work was in fact marked and returned to Mr C with feedback just over three weeks after he submitted it. This left just over two weeks for Mr C to resubmit the work in order to obtain the qualification. However, the university told us that his submission had fallen far short of what was needed in order to pass, as could be seen by the extensive feedback provided, and it would have taken him several months to do the work required to obtain the qualification. They pointed out that, if the submission had been a marginal fail, they would have supported him if he had wished to make a resubmission and to have that result approved in time. They also said that they could not reasonably have known the extent of the corrections required, or how long it would take to bring the submission to the required standard, before Mr C submitted it.

We found that there were no unreasonable delays or failings by the university that left Mr C with insufficient time to achieve the qualification and the salary increase. He had been aware of the tight timescale, and it was his choice to submit the work at that time and pay the required fee. We were satisfied that the reason that he was unable to resubmit the work at the required standard within the deadline was because of the revisions that were required and not because of delays by the university. In view of this, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the university did not offer her a further opportunity to submit her final assignment, and that their handling of her academic appeal was inadequate.

During our investigation, we looked at university policies and regulations, and at the records of Miss C's appeal. We found that regulations allowed academic staff flexibility in setting work for re-assessment, both in terms of the form the assessment would take, and the number of attempts allowed. The evidence showed that, in dealing with Miss C's attempts at the assignment, academic staff acted in line with policy and regulations.

Miss C told us that the handling of her first stage appeal was biased, because a particular member of academic staff was involved and that her second stage appeal was not even considered. We found that the member of staff was not involved in considering the first appeal or making a decision on it, and we found no evidence of bias in consideration of that appeal. We also found that the second stage appeal was considered in line with the academic appeals procedure. In addition, Miss C told us that the university did not take account of her medical and personal circumstances, and she was not given enough time to submit her appeal. We found that, where relevant, the university did consider Miss C's circumstances during the appeal, and that she was given sufficient time to submit it in terms of the timescales set out in the academic appeals procedure.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Miss A). Miss A was studying at the university to become a teacher. Part of her course involved a practical placement in a school. During the first two days of the placement, the teacher who was mentoring Miss A made notes about her performance to discuss with her. Miss A read these notes and became upset as she found them very negative. She went to the university to explain her concerns to the course leader. As Miss A had not spoken with the teacher, she was advised to return to the school to discuss the notes. The following day Miss A met with the course leader and her tutor at the university. Her tutor planned a placement visit for the following week. Later that day, Miss A met with the head teacher at the school who subsequently decided to withdraw the placement. The university advised that there was no opportunity to switch to a different placement within the academic year and that Miss A would have to wait until the new semester to do this. Miss A was unhappy that she was unable to complete her course as planned and complained to the university. She also raised concerns about the level of support she received from the university when she told them about her problems at the school. The university advised Miss A that it was not possible to arrange an alternative placement within the academic year as these are arranged annually in advance and once students have started at a school, there is no opportunity to change unless there are extraordinary circumstances. They considered the head teacher's decision to withdraw the placement to be reasonable and based on his professional judgement.

During our investigation, we found that the relevant university handbook states that resits for failed or incomplete placements will take place in the following semester. Therefore, although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the arrangements for the placement, we did consider that the handbooks could provide clearer information to students on the withdrawal of placements by schools.

We also found that the university had provided Miss A with adequate support during her placement. Although we also did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint, we were critical that the university did not address Miss A's concerns about support when responding to her complaints, so we made a recommendation about this too.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• ensure that complaints under investigation are defined at the start of the process and that each of these receives an appropriate response; and
• ensure that future handbooks clearly explain the position on rearranging placements that have been withdrawn by the school.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the university handled his appeal against the downgrading of his degree award from Master of Business Administration to Postgraduate Diploma in Business Administration. Mr C failed two exams at his fourth attempt, and appealed to the university asking them to take into consideration a number of factors that he said affected his performance in these exams. He also said that he had been misinformed about his marks in relation to previous exams, which meant that he did not have enough time to study for his re-sits. He also said that the university had delayed in responding when he asked to defer one of his exams to increase his chances of passing them both.

We reviewed the university's application of its two-stage appeal procedure. The first stage was handled by a faculty appeal committee and we found that this committee had considered all the issues Mr C raised, in line with their policy. We noted that they had not considered the full grounds on which he made his appeal, but as he had not provided any evidence in relation to these, we considered this to be reasonable.

The second stage of the appeal procedure was made to the university senate, with an initial review by the vice-principal to consider whether there were grounds for appeal to the senate. The vice-principal considered that there were no new grounds for appeal, because Mr C had not provided any evidence of bias or prejudice at the faculty appeal stage, and there was no evidence of a breach of the appeals procedure. We found that this judgement was made in line with the appeals procedure and, overall we considered that the university had given Mr C's appeal reasonable consideration.

Summary

Ms C was a student at the university. She has learning difficulties, and whilst attending at the university there were a number of adjustments in place to support her in her studies. She said that during her third year her performance in a number of subjects was affected by health problems. She submitted a special circumstances claim asking the university to take these into account when determining her marks for the year. Ms C complained that the university failed to properly apply their policy and procedures when considering this claim and her subsequent academic appeal.

Whilst we found that the university could have recorded more detailed information about their consideration of Ms C's case, we were generally satisfied that they reached their decision having taken all the relevant information into account. We found that Ms C's special circumstances were not dismissed, but that the university took the view that Ms C failed to demonstrate that they had had a significant impact on her academic performance.

Summary

Mr C was a student with additional support needs. He complained that the university unfairly terminated his studies, and did not support him through the appeals process. Mr C's studies had previously been terminated three times, but he had successfully appealed each decision. On the fourth occasion, when the university terminated his studies Mr C appealed again, but this time the university did not uphold his appeal and he was withdrawn from his course. Mr C said that he had not been supported through the terminations and appeals process, which had caused him additional stress that affected his performance. Mr C also complained that the university failed to consider his circumstances in handling his final appeal.

Our investigation found that the university had carried out a professional assessment of Mr C when he first attended there and had put in place adjustments to which he had agreed. These adjustments were reviewed during his time at the university. We were satisfied that the university had taken action following the second termination of his studies (the subject of his complaint to us) to try to minimise the impact of the appeals process on his studies. The third and fourth terminations had occurred outwith term-time. We were satisfied that the university provided Mr C with reasonable support to meet his needs through the process of his appeals and the decisions to terminate his studies. We were also satisfied that they gave adequate consideration to all the material Mr C submitted as part of his final appeal against the fourth and final termination of his studies. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, we did make a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• consider the termination of studies procedures and confirm to us that they are satisfied that they are suitable for students diagnosed with learning difficulties.

Summary

Miss C complained that the university had not adequately handled her complaint of harassment by university staff. The university had dealt with this under their complaints procedure rather than under their personal harassment policy and she disputed the evidence they produced in handling it. She said that they produced documents written by staff that were not true, and had refused to meet with her to discuss this and her other concerns. The university later said that she had made false allegations about staff and the university.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaints. Our investigation found that although the university dealt with the complaint about harassment under the student complaints procedure rather than the personal harassment policy, the investigation fulfilled the requirements of the policy. The matter was investigated as part of a three-fold complaint, with the intention of investigating the complaints thoroughly and reaching a conclusion that would allow Miss C to continue her studies, which was achieved. We took the view that, therefore, although not strictly in line with the policy, the investigation was in keeping with its spirit.

On the complaint about failure to respond to her concerns and requests for clarification, which also related to some academic decisions, we explained to Miss C that we could only look at how the university responded to her concerns, not at the academic decisions themselves. Our investigation found that the university responded on numerous occasions, but that Miss C found it difficult to accept those responses as she did not agree with them. Our view was that they had responded in a reasonable way to her concerns and had addressed all the issues she had raised, regardless of whether Miss C agreed with what they said.

Finally, in relation to Miss C's complaint that the university unreasonably accused her of making false allegations about members of staff and of harassing the university, we confirmed that the university had said this. Our investigation was not, however, intended to determine whether the allegations were true or false, but whether the university's actions in responding to them were reasonable. Our view was that they were.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had not handled his appeal fairly when he was unwell during his examination period. His illness was only correctly diagnosed later, and he produced new medical evidence to us of his ill health and the adverse effects it had on the medication he took for his additional support need. We contacted the university because they had not had the opportunity to consider the new evidence, and they agreed to explore the possibility of reopening his appeal in the light of that evidence. After considering whether there were grounds to reopen the appeal, the university decided that they could not reconsider it as Mr C had not disclosed any illness to the university either before or during his exams.

Our investigation considered all the documentation provided by the university and by Mr C, including medical evidence, appeals documentation and relevant policies. We found that Mr C had not declared any special circumstances in good time as he was required to do, and that the university had considered all the evidence and his appeal in line with their policies and procedures.