Universities

Summary

Mr C was very ill during the third year of his honours degree and, after being admitted to hospital, was diagnosed with a significant illness. He submitted a special circumstances application for the exams he was about to take.

When some six months later, at the end of his third year, Mr C received a fail mark for a second semester subject he said he was disadvantaged because he had missed foundation knowledge due to his absence through illness. He asked for his special circumstances to be taken into account for that subject. Mr C said he was given advice and reassurances that his submission of special circumstances for that subject would be considered at the end of his fourth year. He said the advice he was given was poor and that the reassurances given at the end of his third year were misleading.

When he received his final honours degree award he submitted an appeal to the university about his grading because he felt the low mark awarded in third year had impacted upon his overall grade at the end of his degree. He said the university had not properly considered the impact of his special circumstances, which he had been told they would do at the end of his final year. He complained that proper procedures had not been followed in dealing with his special circumstances and appeal.

Our investigation found that the university had fully considered the impact of his special circumstances and had followed their policy and procedures in dealing with his case, so we did not uphold Mr C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues with the university relating to practical matters and supervision in the first year of his post-graduate research. He then submitted more complaints about matters he was unhappy about, including a complaint about alleged bullying and harassment.

Mr C complained to us that the university had not dealt with the various issues he had raised with them and had not followed their complaints handling procedures. Our investigation found that the university did not progress all the issues Mr C raised as complaints and had not followed their procedures in dealing with all the complaints he had made, and so we upheld this aspect of his complaint.

He also complained that the university did not adequately investigate and respond to his complaints. We did not uphold this complaint, as we found that the university carried out thorough investigations, responded in detail to the issues they considered, and made several informal attempts to resolve the issues Mr C raised.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• apologise to Mr C for not following their procedures in dealing with all his complaints; and
• consider how best to ensure consistent recording of frontline resolution complaints.

Summary

Mr C, who was a student, appealed against the results of an exam that he had not passed. The university did not uphold his appeal, and because this was his fourth unsuccessful attempt at the exam, Mr C had to withdraw from the course. Mr C was unhappy with the handling of his appeal, and complained to us. We were not able to consider his complaint at that stage, as he had not been through the second stage of the university's academic appeals process. After corresponding with us, Mr C wrote to the university to ask them to consider his appeal at the second stage, although it was over a year beyond the normal deadline for this. The university agreed to do so, and upheld his appeal, but offered him an alternative course to complete a different degree, rather than a further attempt at the exam.

Mr C was not happy with the university's handling of his appeal, and complained again to us. He claimed that the university had not reasonably considered it, and had not taken his support needs into account when putting him through the second appeal.

After considering the information provided, we found that the university had not followed its own policies and procedures in considering Mr C's second appeal. The appeal was considered by a single person, rather than an independent panel, and Mr C had not had an opportunity to hear and respond to the issues and evidence being considered. However, we found that the university had made reasonable adjustments to support Mr C in completing the appeals process.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• issue Mr C with a written apology for the failings our investigation identified;
• reconsider Mr C's stage two appeal, in line with the academic appeals regulations; and
• review the academic appeals regulations to ensure that the powers of the deputy principal in relation to stage two appeals are clearly stated.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university had not responded to her emails about feedback, as she said what she was receiving was not adequate. The university investigated her concerns but did not uphold her complaints.

Our investigation found evidence that the university had not responded directly to every email sent but had addressed the matters raised through other means. We found that the university had conducted their investigation reasonably and, although they should have responded to emails, they had addressed Ms C's concerns and did not rely on inaccurate information in responding. Although we did not uphold Ms C's complaint, we made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• consider introducing a policy to enable staff to better manage communications with students and advise us of the outcome of their consideration.

Summary

Ms C, a former student, said that the university had not made reasonable attempts to resolve issues she raised about resources. She complained to them about this, and about their decision not to accept future applications from her on the grounds of inappropriate conduct. The university did not uphold her complaints and she complained to us.

Our investigation found that the university had tried to informally resolve the issues she raised and had carried out a thorough investigation. However, they had not given her the opportunity to respond to the allegations about her conduct, and had not followed their disciplinary procedure. We, therefore, found it unreasonable that the university decided to refuse her applications without giving her the opportunity to respond to these allegations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• consider either extending the scope of the existing student disciplinary policy to include a broader range of unreasonable actions, or implement a specific unreasonable actions policy to assist staff in managing communications with students where necessary; and
• apologise for refusing to accept future applications on the basis of behaviour when they had not followed their own procedures for managing student behaviour.

Summary

Mr C, who was a student at the university, complained about lack of supervision, lack of feedback on assessments, arrangements for presentations not being as described in course documents, and that the university's investigation of his complaint did not consider all available relevant evidence.

Our investigation found that the internal investigation of Mr C's complaints had found some failings and that elements relating to the first two complaints were acknowledged and appropriate remedial action taken. Therefore, although we upheld the first two complaints, we did not need to make any recommendations. In relation to the arrangements for the presentations, there were no specific requirements set out in the course documentation and we did not uphold this complaint. We also found that the investigation of Mr C's complaint was thorough and in line with the university's complaints procedure. Mr C thought that some of his fellow students should have been interviewed during the investigation but they were not. While we understood why Mr C was not satisfied with this, we took the view that it was generally for the person conducting the investigation to decide what was relevant. There was no evidence to suggest that this was a significant omission and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Miss C, who was a student, complained that the university provided her with inadequate feedback on a resit assessment, and that their response to her complaint was inadequate.

We considered Miss C's letters, the university's file on her complaint, and relevant documents such as the course handbook. We found that the university had explained to Miss C why she failed the resit assessment and where information could be found in relevant guidelines. We also found that their investigation into her complaint was appropriate in the circumstances, and that it was adequately reflected in their letter to her.

Summary

Ms C, who was a student, asked for a training placement near her home. She explained that she needed this on the grounds of mitigating circumstances, as she had to care for a family member. The university declined her request and placed her in another location. Ms C complained to us that the university unreasonably failed to adhere to their mitigating circumstances criteria in dealing with her request.

We looked at information from Ms C and the university. The university information included their policy for allocating student placements and taking into account mitigating circumstances. It was not, however, for us to say whether Ms C's mitigating circumstances were valid, which was a decision for the university. Our role was to look at whether they dealt with Ms C's mitigating circumstances claim in line with their policy and procedures.

The university explained how the relevant committee considered Ms C's claim, and the evidence showed they did so with empathy. The university also explained why the committee decided that the circumstances Ms C detailed, and the supporting evidence she provided to them, did not meet their mitigating circumstances criteria. We found that they had considered the placement request and Miss C's mitigating circumstances claim in line with their allocation policy.

Summary

Mr C, who was studying for a PhD (an advanced degree course), began his studies in 2006 and after some problems with his research was told by the university that his progress was unsatisfactory. He appealed that decision in 2009 and the university decided to allow him to continue his studies under certain conditions. These included weekly supervisory meetings, the production of a detailed plan for his PhD submission and quarterly reviews with his supervisors and an independent person. At a review meeting in July 2011 Mr C was again told that his progress was unsatisfactory. He lodged an appeal in September 2011 and following decisions by both a college appeals committee and a senate appeals committee his appeal was dismissed in November 2012.

Mr C then complained to us. Our investigation focused only on the appeals process from July 2011. This was because the earlier process was out of time for us to investigate, and the academic decisions were outwith our jurisdiction.

Mr C complained that the university's examination of his appeal in 2012 was unreasonable, and that they failed to deal with his appeal within the timescales set by their own procedures. Our investigation found, however, that the university had considered all the relevant evidence provided, including information provided by Mr C about his health and adverse personal circumstances. We also found that, although the appeals process was not completed within the timescales set within the university's procedures, there were no unavoidable delays and where delays occurred, Mr C was kept informed.

Summary

Miss C complained to us on behalf of a student (Miss A) who had been found guilty of collusion at an academic misconduct hearing. Miss A had appealed on the grounds that the university had not followed procedures in conducting the hearing. They had also terminated Miss A's enrolment as this was the second time a misconduct charge had been proven, which was their automatic penalty for this. Miss A said this penalty was unfair. When Miss A appealed, the university determined there were no grounds to consider the appeal. Miss C complained to us that the university did not follow their procedures in dealing with the misconduct complaint and that they unreasonably dismissed Miss A's appeal.

We looked in detail at the way in which the university considered the misconduct allegation and asked for more information about what happened, and about the procedures involved. Our investigation found that the university had followed their policy and procedures in dealing with the alleged misconduct and the subsequent appeal. Although there were some minor issues about the accuracy of the record of the misconduct hearing, these did not materially affect how the university handled it. We noted that they had already taken steps to address these, so we made no recommendations.