Universities

Summary

Mr C complained that the university did not provide adequate supervision for his research and then did not deal adequately with his complaints about this. Our investigation found that the university had met the requirements of their guidelines for research supervision, and that Mr C's complaint of poor supervision was handled under their university's complaints handling procedure and investigated thoroughly. Although Mr C disagreed with the outcome of the investigation there was no evidence of maladministration and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C had been diagnosed with dyslexia and visual stress. He complained that the university had not provided him with the support he needed for his additional learning needs and that his support had been reduced. This caused him great anxiety as he approached his final exams. He complained to the university but they did not uphold his complaint, and he felt that it was not reasonably handled.

Our investigation found that there were a number of areas, including assessment and agreed support hours, where his needs were not addressed and reasonable adjustments were not made. We also found that his additional needs were not addressed throughout the complaints handling process, including how support records were used, and that his recognised difficulties in processing information were ignored. We upheld Mr C's complaint and made a number of recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• apologise for not providing the support required to meet Mr C's needs;
• review how any failure to meet Mr C's support needs may have had a negative impact on his final year assessed work;
• review all instruments of assessment to ensure they are suitable for students with support needs; and
• review the Enabling Support ES15 form and how the Enabling Support activity log is used to ensure that students know and understand the recorded detail.

Summary

Mr C complained about the university's handling of his appeal. Mr C was withdrawn from his post-graduate research because of unsatisfactory progress. He considered the decision had been made hastily and unfairly. He appealed, and the university upheld his appeal taking into consideration some difficult circumstances he had faced. The decision, however, required him to participate in a review procedure that he had complained about in his appeal, saying it was not being properly conducted. He, therefore, did not accept the offer of resuming his post-graduate studies and brought his complaints to us. He also complained in his appeal that procedures had not been followed when he was withdrawn and so he had lost time by having to appeal that decision. Our investigation found, however, that the university had reasonably carried out the review process and followed procedures in withdrawing Mr C and we did not uphold his complaints.

Summary

Mr C failed a practical element of an examination and submitted an appeal, which the university upheld. However, Mr C was not happy with the remedy they put in place and complained to us that the university did not offer him another attempt at the whole examination without penalty.

As part of our investigation, we looked at the information provided by Mr C and the university. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that the university had acted in line with their regulations and normal practice, and Mr C had not been disadvantaged.

Summary

Miss C appealed against the university's decision to discontinue her studies and not to allow her to re-sit examinations. She submitted medical evidence she felt was not taken into account at the appeal stages and said that she was not invited to attend meetings. The university determined that there were no grounds to consider her appeal. Miss C then complained to us.

Our investigation found that throughout the appeal process her medical and personal circumstances were fully taken into account and that the university had given her numerous repeat attempts to achieve the credits needed for her degree. We did not uphold her complaint, as we found that the university had followed their appeal procedures and acted reasonably throughout the process.

Summary

Mrs C was studying for a law PhD, but failed to pass her first year review panel, which she needed to do before she could move into second year. She was granted a second panel, which she also failed. As a result of this, the university terminated her studies. Mrs C then complained that she was not offered an appropriate level of supervision. She felt her supervisor was not sufficiently experienced and did not have the required subject knowledge. She also complained that the university failed to appoint a second supervisor for some time.

The university upheld her complaint, in so far as they did not meet the requirements in appointing a second supervisor and that her supervisor did not have sufficient experience to act as a principal supervisor, in terms of their code of practice. They took the view, however, that effective supervision was still provided, which they evidenced by the considerable correspondence between both parties as well as the supervisor's academically challenging, but supportive, comments. The university apologised to Mrs C for the failures, and recommended that the law school explore the possibility of awarding a lesser degree. The school did so, but found that she did not meet the 50 percent pass mark required for such an award.

After reviewing the evidence we reached a similar decision to the university, in terms of the supervisor's experience and the failure to appoint a second supervisor. We cannot challenge matters of academic judgment so we could not comment on the quality of supervision, but we did note that the university considered that it was good, and that they had evidence to support this view. As we have no role in considering academic appeals either, we did not comment on the decision to terminate studies or whether the criteria for an award of a lesser degree were met. We did, however, note that the university had not recommended that the school award a degree (as Mrs C had claimed), they simply recommended that the possibility be explored.

As the university had already apologised to Mrs C, carried out a review of their supervisory processes and implemented changes, we made no recommendations. We did, however, arrange for them to refund fees she had paid in advance, which she had not previously reclaimed.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university did not allow him to submit his dissertation late. During our investigation, we considered the regulations for his course, and found that these clearly explained that any coursework submitted more than one week after the submission date would not be marked. Mr C had said that other students were given extensions for their dissertations. However, the university also told us that there is no right to an extension and that Mr C had failed to ask for an extension before the required deadline.

Mr C also complained that the university failed to take his period of obligatory military service in his home country into account. We found that Mr C had raised this in both his appeal and his complaint to the university, and were satisfied that the university had taken this into account. Finally, he complained that the university did not allow him to re-register as a distance learning student. However, our investigation found that the course he had requested was not in fact available for study by distance learning.

Summary

Mr C did not achieve all the passes that he needed in his Master of Business Administration course. The university decided to withdraw him from the course, and awarded him a postgraduate diploma instead. Mr C was unhappy with this and appealed. However, the university rejected his appeal. Mr C then complained that, in doing so, the university did not take into consideration medical evidence and other circumstances.

Our investigation found that the university had accepted Mr C's appeal, even although it was outwith the normal timescale, when he told them that he had not received his exam results until a month after they were issued. He had not, however, provided evidence that met the requirements of the university's policy for academic appeals and the mitigating circumstances guideline. We found that the university had appropriately followed their policy and procedures, and had clearly explained why the information he provided had not met the grounds for appeal.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, raised a complaint on behalf of Ms A about the university's handling of her academic appeal. In particular, he said that the university failed to take all relevant material into account and failed to share information with Ms A during the appeal process.

During our investigation we considered the academic appeals procedure, which had two stages - faculty appeal and senate appeal. We found that, in line with the procedures, at faculty level neither the student making the appeal or the department had any right of appearance before the committee considering the appeal. The appeal at that level was considered on the basis of written information submitted by the student and the relevant department. In this case we were satisfied, based on the available evidence, that the written information provided by Ms A was taken into account during the academic appeal.

However, while we were satisfied that they had followed the academic appeals procedure we were concerned that, while the department responded to the written submission submitted by Ms A, she was not given an opportunity to respond to the submission submitted by the department, and we made a recommendation to address this. We were aware that Ms A could have requested the information that was considered at the faculty level before submitting an appeal to senate, but had not done so.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• review their procedures for information sharing when dealing with appeals to ensure both parties have the same access to information; and
• should (if Ms A considers there are inaccuracies in the department's submission to the committee that have not been addressed and raises these with the university) provide evidence to demonstrate that they have fully considered these.

Summary

Miss C complained that the university refused to terminate her lease under their exceptional circumstances policy, when she applied for this on medical grounds. She appealed against the decision but her appeal was not upheld. Miss C took alternative accommodation but was still liable for lease payments at her university residence. She also complained that student accommodation staff did not respond to her emails and other communications alerting them to her problems.

After investigating these complaints, we did not uphold them. Our investigation found that the university had applied their policy and correctly followed their procedures. They had repeatedly given Miss C advice about the specific medical evidence she needed to obtain in support of her application, but she had not produced this. We found that staff replied promptly and helpfully to all but one email. This was about her request for a move to en-suite accommodation, as they had none to offer at the time and it was not their policy to respond to requests that could not be met. We did, however, point out that they might wish to consider how they could better respond in future to such requests.