Universities

Summary

Mr C complained that when his appeal was rejected faculty tutors were asked for their opinions as part of the process, which he thought was unfair. He claimed that the university should not have allowed him to sit assessments because of his low attendance rate, that they had not followed their own procedures in dealing with his appeal and that they were negligent in handling his situation. When he submitted his senate appeal saying that he had new information, the university found that he had not in fact produced any new evidence and closed their consideration of his case.

Our investigation found that the university had followed all procedures properly, and had taken into account Mr C's circumstances in allowing him four attempts at the assessment. Mr C had not produced any substantial new information in relation to the appeal, as the procedure required.

Summary

Mr C said that during an incident in the university he was assaulted and prevented from leaving by university staff, who called the police. The police then detained and searched him and a fellow student. When he complained to the university about the treatment he had received, his complaint was not upheld and he complained to us that his view of events was not taken into account, and so the university did not deal with his complaint in a balanced manner.

Our investigation found that the university had interviewed all those involved and had taken account of the various views of events. In the light of the evidence they obtained, they decided not to uphold his complaint, as they were entitled to do.

Summary

Mrs C, who is a student association representative, made a complaint on behalf of a student (Mr A). Mr A had lodged an academic appeal (on the grounds of extenuating circumstances) which was only partly upheld by the university. Mrs C had submitted a formal request to the university (on behalf of Mr A) for a review of the decision to only partially uphold the academic appeal. However, this request had been refused. As a result of the university upholding its original decision, Mr A was not able to continue his studies. Mrs C and Mr A felt that the university had failed to reasonably consider Mr A's circumstances both in terms of the original appeal and the subsequent request for a review.

Our investigation found that the university had not accurately taken into account all relevant information in order to consider the complete picture of Mr A's circumstances and to give his appeal fair consideration. Although they had allowed a late application claiming extenuating circumstances, they had not responded fully to that claim, and we found that the whole process was not reasonably followed.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• apologise for not reasonably handling the appeal and review; and
• reconsider the appeal made by Mr A.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his son (Mr A). Mr A had submitted an academic appeal to the university because he felt that his work had not been considered fairly. He said that he had not received adequate support, and that he lacked confidence in the mark assigned because he felt staff were not impartial. The university found that there were no grounds to uphold his academic appeal. Mr C then complained to us that they had not reasonably investigated and considered Mr A's appeal.

Although we cannot investigate matters of academic judgement, we can look at whether the appropriate processes were followed in reaching a decision on an academic appeal. Our investigation found that the university had thoroughly investigated the circumstances of Mr A's appeal, and had ensured that adequate and appropriate support was provided and that reasonable steps had been taken to ensure impartiality and verify the marks awarded.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had not followed their policy and procedures in dealing with his complaints that another student had bullied him, and that the university had failed to protect him. He also said that the university had not observed their 'dignity and respect' policy in dealing with his complaints and had not considered his mental wellbeing or provided the support he needed.

Our investigation found it unreasonable that the university did not respond appropriately to Mr C’s complaints. They told us that they had not replied because they considered the matter to be a personal one that was outwith their area of responsibility. We also found that they did not respond when Mr C repeatedly told them that he was attending counselling, that he was not coping, and that he was experiencing detrimental effects of his prescribed medication. We found this unreasonable too, and upheld Mr C's complaints. We also found that the university had not tried to offer early mediation, as they should have done, and had not considered how to deal with the information Mr C gave them, and its potential impact.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• apologise for not addressing the initial complaint of bullying;
• remind staff of the importance of early intervention through mediation in cases of harassment and bullying;
• consider whether the recommendation they made regarding placement could have implications for discriminatory practice;
• apologise for failing to follow their policies and procedures and to take reasonable measures to address additional support needs and mental health wellbeing;
• make relevant staff aware of our decision letter and its findings; and
• consider arranging appropriate training for all staff on the mental health and wellbeing policy.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had treated him unfairly when they did not consider his academic appeal, and that this had a serious impact on progress towards completing his degree. He submitted a formal complaint about all the incidents where he considered the university had not treated him fairly and not followed their academic policies and regulations. At the final stage of his complaint he claimed that the university had not fully responded to his complaints.

Our investigation found, however, that Mr C had not met the eligibility requirements for an appeal and that the university had reasonably applied their appeals policy and procedures. We also found that they had thoroughly investigated his complaints of unfair treatment, and had taken considerable steps to assure him of their support.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the decision of a university faculty appeal committee (the FAC) not to uphold his appeal against a decision to transfer him from a PhD (doctor of philosophy) study path to a Masters course. Mr C appealed the FAC decision and submitted evidence of personal difficulties to be heard by the senate appeals committee (the SAC). He appealed on the grounds that he had new information and documentary evidence to support his view that the FAC was not given enough background information on issues raised by a supervisor. Mr C also considered that that the documentary evidence sometimes contradicted written information submitted by a supervisor. The university decided that there were no grounds for an SAC hearing and ruled that the FAC's decision stood.

Mr C complained to us that the university did not follow their appeals policy when they considered whether the senate appeal should be heard, as he said they did not accept the new documentary evidence he submitted or his statement that his supervisor's written response to the FAC was an inadequate representation of events. We did not, however, uphold his complaint. After we carefully considered all the relevant policies related to Mr C's complaint alongside all the points of his complaint, we found that the university had correctly followed their policies and procedures with the FAC appeal and had correctly followed their policies in not holding a SAC hearing.

Summary

Miss C complained to us on behalf of her son (Mr A) about the way his college treated him. Mr A has a developmental disorder and behavioural symptoms, and Miss C was concerned that the college had put in place additional requirements before accepting him on to a course, after he had withdrawn from previous courses.

Mr A withdrew from his first two courses without completing them. When he withdrew from the first course, he was assessed to identify any learning support needs. The assessment found that he would benefit from support and he was encouraged to seek this with his next course. However, Mr A did not do so, and again withdrew before completing the course. Shortly after he enrolled for a third course, he had to withdraw on medical grounds. However, he applied for the same course the following year. At this point he was told he had to complete an additional module before he could gain a place on this course, to show he could commit to a full course.

We took independent advice on this case from our equalities adviser, who said that the college needed to put in reasonable adjustments relating to Mr A's support needs during his college courses. Given Mr A's disabilities, the adviser considered that the college had not done enough to support him during his first two courses. She also noted that the level of support was less than that indicated by the college's policies.

In reviewing the evidence available, we found that Mr A had withdrawn from the third course on medical grounds, and that he had done so early enough for his place to be allocated to another student. We also noted that he and his mother had moved house to facilitate his access to the college. However, the college had no evidence relating to any discussions with Mr A at the time, either in relation to why he was withdrawing, his circumstances or what this might mean for any new application for the course. There was also no evidence that they provided appropriate guidance at this time, as required by their policies.

We upheld Miss C's complaint as we found that the college did not provide sufficient support to Mr A during his courses, and we were critical of the lack of evidence of discussions at that time or of any proactive offer of support. We also found that the college failed to take account of Mr A's full circumstances in their decision on his later application, and concluded that they had inappropriately put in place an additional requirement for him to achieve before he could access the course.

Recommendations

We recommended that the college:

• review their policies and procedures to ensure that it is clear to staff when reasonable adjustments should be considered for students with disabilities;
• consider Mr A's current application for a place on the course in light of this decision;
• ensure that significant interactions between students and staff relating to withdrawals from courses are suitably documented; and
• apologise to Mr A for the failures identified in our investigation, and to Miss C for the time and inconvenience caused in bringing this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A), who is a medical student. She said that the university had not reasonably investigated concerns about her son's attendance before they referred the matter to a progress committee. Ms C said that the concerns amounted to misunderstandings that arose over the evidence of her son's attendance on particular placements, and that there were procedural errors in respect of the committee. She said that her son had not been given clear reasons for the referral to the committee, that the meeting was convened at short notice, and that information available on the day of the committee meeting had not been sent to him in advance. Ms C said her son was completely unprepared for the meeting. The committee decided that Mr A should repeat a year of study.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Our investigation found that the referral to the progress committee was appropriate. Mr A had received a prior warning that any further absence would result in referral, and after this had taken two days sickness absence without following the agreed notification process. We did find that the committee meeting had been convened at short notice, but also that Mr A had agreed to this and had been told that the matter under discussion would be his persistent absence. We found no evidence that Mr A was unreasonably led to believe that only his most recent absences would be under discussion, and it was appropriate in the circumstances for the committee to take account of his full absence history including periods of absence in earlier academic years. Whilst the university ultimately accepted Mr A's account of his attendance on the placements, they considered that it would be appropriate for him to repeat a year of study to gain further clinical knowledge, and to remedy issues in following instructions and fulfilling professional responsibilities.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had not upheld his academic appeal about the mark he was awarded for his dissertation on a Master of Laws course. He felt his appeal had not been properly considered and examined. He raised many issues about his dissatisfaction with how the university had treated him, including application of procedures, matters of supervision, academic judgement and staff competencies. Of the issues he complained about, we were only able to consider those about how his appeal was handled, and whether the university had complied with their appeal regulations, as we cannot look at matters of academic judgment.

Our investigation reviewed the content of the appeal proceedings and the evidence gathered. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that the university had followed its procedures and regulations. In particular, we found that they had taken account of the evidence that Mr C provided and considered the points he raised when deciding whether there was enough evidence to indicate that the appeal should be taken to the next stage.