Universities

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A) that the university failed to offer guidance and support on his projects during his final honours year. She also complained that the university failed to deal appropriately with her complaint.

We upheld Mrs C's complaints, as our investigation found that there was a lack of documentation to show that Mr A had received adequate support and guidance, and that the project supervisor had not responded to the majority of emails about Mr A's project. We also found that there was a lack of clarity in the way the university had handled the complaint. At the time Mrs C complained, they had a four-stage complaints procedure, which is what they should have used. They had, however, subsequently approved a two-stage procedure and it was this that they tried to use. The university also failed to respond to, or try to clarify, the detail of Mrs C's complaint about adequate guidance and support.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• ensure that the 'usual practice' of students taking minutes of supervision meetings be communicated to students more clearly;
• remind the academic supervisor of the importance of managing email communication with students; and
• ensure that their complaints procedure is adhered to in future and that the quality of responses is monitored.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his son (Mr A) who has Asperger's (a form of autism, in which people may find difficulty in social relationships and in communicating), that university staff had not been made sufficiently aware of his needs as a disabled student. Mr C told us that his son's disability was 'hidden', in that his condition was not obvious to those who met him. We agreed that there were some shortcomings in relation to Mr A's individual learning plan (ILP) which was not regularly updated or reviewed according to the university's policy.

We did not find evidence to support Mr C's complaints that requests for additional clinical support and for a change of supervisor had been unreasonably refused. However, Mr C also complained that his son was invited to a meeting without making its purpose clear in advance, and without inviting him to bring along a supporter or advocate. We agreed that Mr A should have been invited to bring somebody with him, particularly as his ILP identified that in difficult situations he was prone to anxiety which could overwhelm him. We also found the outcomes of meetings between the university and Mr A were not adequately recorded. This was particularly important as he had an identified need to record and confirm verbal discussions.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• arrange for a programme of staff training to raise awareness of hidden disabilities and their impacts;
• review the procedures related to the review and updating of individual learning plans (ILPs);
• make greater use of notes to record discussions, issues, changes, decisions and update ILPs, and copy for any student with any additional support needs;
• ensure that staff pay greater attention to the detail of the ILP when dealing with students with additional support needs; and
• use email to confirm arrangements for students with additional support needs arising from hidden disabilities.

Summary

Miss C complained that before her misconduct hearing, the university failed to give her a formal statement detailing the allegations of misconduct made against her. She also complained that they failed to allow her the opportunity to challenge the evidence before they rejected her appeal.

We found that, although they did not give her a written statement of the allegations, these were fully discussed with her at an earlier meeting with a senior member of staff. In terms of the appeal, the university's policies give the student the opportunity to present any new evidence they may consider relevant to their appeal, prior to its consideration. The policy does not, however, allow the student to challenge evidence at this stage. As the university did provide details of the allegations of misconduct prior to the hearing, and as Miss C was not entitled to challenge the evidence at the appeal stage, we did not uphold her complaints. We did, however, make a recommendation based on Miss C's experience.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• consider amending the academic misconduct policy to include a requirement to confirm in writing the type of academic misconduct alleged to have occurred, prior to a hearing.
• 

Summary

Mr C complained that the university failed to properly investigate his complaints about his tutor. He said that they did not consider all the evidence he submitted to them, and based their decision on matters not raised by him and on his tutor's previous performance. He also complained that university staff advised him that he had grounds to make an appeal, but that his appeal was then unreasonably rejected and he was not provided with adequate support in making his complaints.

Our investigation found that the decision made was based on all the evidence available, including the tutor's current performance. The university found that there had been a delay in providing feedback to Mr C on his independent study project and they apologised for this. They also wrote to the tutor to remind him or the requirement to give timely and professional feedback when requested by students. Following a further complaint from Mr C, the university also asked the tutor to write and apologise to Mr C, which he did.

Although Mr C was not satisfied with that letter of apology, we found that the tutor had done what was asked of him. We were also satisfied that the university had considered all the evidence that Mr C provided. On the matter of the advice given on the appeals process, we found that university staff had appropriately advised Mr C about the next stage of the complaints procedure. The fact that Mr C was given this information did not give, and should not have given, him an unrealistic expectation that any appeal he made would be upheld. In relation to the support provided to Mr C, we found that the university had, in compliance with their complaints procedure, given Mr C information about the support and assistance available and he had taken advantage of that support. Members of university staff and the students association had provided support and information to Mr C during the complaints process.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university mishandled an appeal into allegations of misconduct by his son. In particular, he complained about what he considered to be an excessive penalty of exclusion and the time taken by the hearing to reach their decision. He also complained that they unreasonably considered previous misconduct by his son (during his stay in residential student accommodation) when reaching their decision but failed to take account of the successful completion of his previous year of study and placements.

We found that the correct penalty was imposed in terms of the university's procedures as this was the second episode of non-academic misconduct. We noted that although there was some delay in arranging the hearing, this was reasonable because evidence had to be gathered beforehand. We also found that, although the university were entitled to take account of the residential accommodation misconduct, this did not have a significant bearing on their decision. In addition, the university explained that they do not take previous academic performance into account when imposing a penalty of this nature, which we accepted.

Summary

Miss A was a nursing student at the university. She was removed from her placement and then from the nursing course. Miss A’s MP (Mr C) complained that the university inappropriately removed Miss A from the nursing course; unreasonably failed to have a clear policy in place for supporting students on placements; and failed to communicate the termination of Miss A’s studies, and explain her full appeal rights, in a clear and timely manner.

We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. Our investigation found that the university had taken Miss A’s personal circumstances into account during her course. On three occasions Miss A had been offered the chance to defer her studies, but she declined. Taking this into account, as well as relevant university and nursing organisation guidance and regulations, we could not conclude that the university inappropriately removed Miss A from the course.

We found that the university were using a toolkit on dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia (all types of learning disorder) that was published by a nursing organisation. The university also had documents which showed that training specifically about dyslexia was undertaken with placement mentors.

In addition, we found that letters from the university did explain that her studies were being terminated. The university provided Miss A with copies of their appeal procedure which, in any case, she had a responsibility to be aware of as a registered student. University staff also explained the appeals process and referred Miss A to sources of advice and support.

Summary

Mr C was a PhD student at the university. Following submission of his thesis, he was accused of academic misconduct (plagiarism - passing off someone else's work as one's own) and his case was considered at a hearing by the university board of adjudication. Mr C was found guilty and the board decided that his studies should be terminated, with no right to complete his doctoral programme. Mr C appealed against the decision, but his appeal was not upheld.

Mr C raised a number of complaints about the procedure that the university followed when considering his case and about the validity of the sanction applied. He also complained that he was required to submit an electronic version of his thesis prior to his viva (oral examination) potentially making it vulnerable to copyright infringements.

We were satisfied that the university were able to demonstrate that they had followed the procedures set out in their academic misconduct policy and that the correct staff were involved at each stage. We were also satisfied that exceptional personal circumstances, disclosed by Mr C in his appeal, were adequately taken into account. Although we found that the sanction applied in Mr C's case was worded incorrectly, its intention was clearly stated and Mr C was not disadvantaged by the error.

With regard to the requirement to submit an electronic version of his thesis, we found that Mr C was asked to do this but when he declined, the university noted his position and proceeded with their review of his case. Although electronic copies are not normally required at this stage, we found the reasons for the university's request to be legitimate and their subsequent action to be reasonable.

Summary

Ms C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) who was working towards a degree of Doctor of Clinical Psychology. This was a three year course, the third year of which was assessed by practical placements and academic work, including a thesis. Ms C said that over the course of Mr A's thesis the university had failed to provide him with an adequate level of supervision in terms of their own policies and procedures.

We found no evidence that explained the exact level of supervision a student should receive. This was because the level varies from project to project and trainee to trainee. There was also no evidence that Mr A had raised any concerns about the level of supervision while he was working on his thesis, and it was clear that Mr A and his supervisor disagreed about the level of supervision that was provided. There was insufficient evidence that the level of supervision was below an adequate level in terms of the university's policies and procedures, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was a university student. He raised several issues about the results he received in a number of subjects. In particular, he was dissatisfied with the handling of his appeal against the results he obtained and complained that relevant factors were not taken into account. He was also unhappy with the university's handling of an outstanding debt that he maintained he did not owe, and said that the university had sent debt collectors to his property. He said that the university had blocked his access to university resources and was unhappy that he had not been provided with a copy of the minute of a meeting held as part of the appeals process.

We obtained all the relevant correspondence and guidance, made enquiries of the university and checked their policy and procedures on student appeals and complaints. We did not uphold most of Mr C's complaints. During our investigation we established that there was no evidence to suggest that the issues raised by Mr C had not been properly taken into account during the appeals process. We also found no evidence that the university had sent debt collectors to his property or that they had blocked his access to resources as a result of an outstanding debt. We did find that, while the university had provided a written record of the outcome of the appeal, they had failed to send a copy of the minute of a meeting held as part of the appeal due to an oversight, and we upheld this complaint.

Summary

Ms C had admitted that she consulted another student's work without referencing it when completing her dissertation. As a result, her dissertation was downgraded. She appealed this decision, saying that her health issues were not taken into account in assessing her work, but the university said that there were no grounds to take these concerns to their appeal panel.

Ms C complained to us that the university failed to adequately take into consideration her health issues when assessing her appeal and had failed to tell her that she could apply for an extension to her dissertation deadline. When we investigated, the university provided us with a number of documents that they make available to students. These included information which says that if there is a health problem, students should tell them at the time of the illness or shortly afterwards, and which explains how to request an extension to coursework deadlines and the grounds on which an extension can be granted. They also explained that, in cases of plagiarism and academic misconduct, motivation is not taken into account. As Ms C had been provided with and had access to information about how to inform the university of health issues and how to request an extension to coursework guidelines, we did not uphold her complaint.