Universities

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a student nurse (Miss A). During Miss A's working placements, a number of concerns were raised about her professional conduct, care skills and integrity. Miss A was asked to attend a Fitness to Practice panel hearing (a meeting used to reach a decision about a nurse's fitness to practice). The panel found that Miss A did not meet the required nursing industry standards. As a result of this, Miss A's studies were terminated. Mr C complained that the university denied Miss A the right to an appeal against the decision. He also complained that the university did not take into account relevant evidence submitted in support of her case and did not provide clear information about the format and potential consequences of the panel hearing.

Our investigation found that the university provided Miss A with a copy of their panel procedure before the date of her hearing. This included details of potential recommendations that the panel could make, including terminating a student's studies. We also found that students were told about fitness to practice issues and the panel's involvement through lectures and course documentation.

Although we found that Miss A was not told in advance that the hearing would be conducted via video link, we did not regard this to be unreasonable in the circumstances. Finally, we were satisfied that the university appropriately considered Miss A's further supporting evidence before deciding not to proceed with the appeal. We found that, while the new evidence supported Miss A's position on one of the issues initially presented to the Fitness to Practice panel, the number of remaining issues were still considered significant enough to terminate her studies.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was unreasonably evicted from university accommodation because the university failed to properly and fairly consider his appeal against their decision to terminate his tenancy.

Although we had obtained the relevant papers and records, we needed more information in order to investigate the complaint, but Mr C was unavailable as he had gone abroad. We asked him if he wanted to give his consent for someone else to act on his behalf, but did not receive a reply. We were, therefore, unable to come to a decision on his complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the way in which the university handled her academic appeal. The officer handling her appeal chose to process it as a complaint. We found that the officer had not followed the procedure appropriately. We found that written records of communications between the officer and Ms C and other academic members of staff had not been kept. We found this unreasonable, as it made it difficult to impartially assess what Ms C had been told. We also found that the officer had used a complaints process that did not comply with the university’s own complaints procedure, and we were critical of this. We made a number of recommendations to address the fact that procedures were not appropriately followed in Ms C’s case.

We did not uphold Ms C's other complaints, including that she had not been told she could consult with an independent student advice service, as we found that she could reasonably have obtained a copy of the university’s complaints process herself. We also did not uphold her complaint that she was graduated in her absence without her consent, as the university provided evidence that Ms C had been sent the date of her graduation ceremony in writing. We also accepted their position that should a student’s appeal change a degree award, they would be invited to another ceremony as long as they had not crossed the stage during a previous ceremony.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• reconsider Ms C's AP1 form through their academic appeals procedure;
• provide us with evidence that their student complaints procedure is being adhered to;
• provide us with evidence that written records of communications in relation to student complaints files are being maintained; and
• amend the student complaints procedure to highlight the supportive role that can be offered to students by the students’ association’s independent student advice service.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had not fairly and fully considered his appeal in relation to his first year assessment. Mr C failed three of four modules and was required to leave the course as a result. He went through the appeal process, and then through the complaints process as he was unhappy with the handling of his appeal. We found that the university did not acknowledge or consider some of the issues raised in his initial appeal, and we were critical of this. Mr C also provided further information in relation to an issue which was not acknowledged by the university. We were critical of this too.

When Mr C complained about the way his appeal was handled, we found the university's response more thorough. It addressed all the issues raised, but we noted that one issue (which Mr C had not pursued via the complaints process) remained outstanding in relation to the original appeal. We found that generally the other points raised about Mr C's claims of extenuating circumstances were reasonably dealt with. On balance we upheld Mr C's complaint.

We also noted the university appeared to have no guidelines in realtion to the use of proof readers and whether this would be acknowledged or taken into account in relation to the written presentation criteria for assessments, and made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• revise the assessment criteria to recognise if a disabled student has had their written work checked by a proof reader provided by the university; and
• provide a full apology to Mr C for the failings identified.
•  

Summary
Mr C raised a number of complaints, saying that his university had failed to take action following a complaint he had raised with them. He also said that they had failed to meet a commitment to keep him informed of the progress of their investigations.

We did not uphold his complaints. We found that the university had properly explained to Mr C that he had raised his concerns significantly outwith the time limits in their complaints procedure and that they could not provide him with a formal response. They did, however, explain that they had taken note of his concerns, would consider them and raise any findings with the department concerned. There was no evidence that they had given him any undertaking to inform him of their investigations or findings.

Summary
Eighteen months after being awarded a masters degree by the university, Miss C complained that she had received inappropriate supervision during her course. The university initially accepted her complaint but, after considering it, decided that it was out of time in terms of their complaints procedure. Miss C complained to us that the university handled her complaint incorrectly and failed to give proper consideration to the reasons why she said she could not complain earlier.

We obtained all the relevant correspondence and guidance, made enquiries of the university and checked their complaints procedure. In all the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint. We established that, although Miss C provided very detailed reasons why she had not felt able to complain earlier, there was no evidence to suggest that these had not been properly taken into account or that the complaints procedure had not been followed.

Summary
Mr C was a student at the university. During his third year he fell and injured his elbow. He said that his academic performance suffered as a result of the pain he was in and the medication he was taking. He completed his fourth year in June 2011 and was awarded a lower second class degree (2:2). He submitted an appeal for this to be increased to a 2:1 due to his medical situation having affected two of his third year results. The university did not accept his appeal as it referred to academic results from 2010 and there was a 20 working day deadline for submitting appeals.

Mr C complained to us that the university unreasonably applied their time limit, as his appeal concerned the 2011 decision to award him a 2:2, rather than the 2010 assessment of his third year work. The university took the view that, as honours classification is a mathematical calculation based on academic results over the third and fourth year, Mr C's appeal had to be viewed in terms of his third year results. Their appeals procedure allows for late appeals to be considered where there are exceptional circumstances preventing the student from raising their medical situation within the proper timescale. However, they did not consider Mr C's circumstances to be exceptional. Having looked at all the information, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint as we found that the university took into account the relevant evidence when deciding not to accept his appeal.

Mr C raised a further complaint that the university did not make him awarethat there was a potential remedy - to exclude his third year results from the calculation of his overall Honours classification. Although the university did not specifically advise Mr C of this, we found that their appeals procedure put no restrictions on the grounds for appeal claimed by students or the remedies sought. Ultimately, as Mr C's overall appeal was time-barred this became irrelevant. However, we were satisfied that there were no barriers to this remedy being sought or achieved if the university considered it appropriate.

Summary
Mr C's daughter was unsuccessful in her application to study medicine at the university, and started a degree course at another university. When she reapplied the following year she was again unsuccessful because the university does not allow transfers for students who have started other degree courses. Mr C complained that his daughter’s application was rejected on grounds other than merit, which he believed was in direct contradiction of the university’s admissions policy. He said that the rule concerning transfers into the school of medicine, which applied to his daughter’s application, was not adequately communicated and, as a result, both he and his daughter were misled into choosing a course of action which fell foul of that rule.

We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that the university had offered advice to applicants who were unsuccessful in their application and that Mr C's daughter had not fully taken up that offer. In addition we found that there was comprehensive advice available on the subject on the university's website.

Summary
Mr C studied remotely for a masters degree. He was required to write a dissertation over a period of two years. He proposed a topic for his dissertation and began work on it, supported by his allocated supervisor. Mr C said that he came to realise that his chosen topic had certain limitations. He requested a change of topic but was told that this would not be possible and that he would have to complete the original dissertation or withdraw from the programme. He completed the dissertation but failed. Upon being allowed to resubmit his dissertation, he again asked about a change of topic, but was again refused.

Mr C complained that his change of topic was refused based on time constraints, but felt that there was ample time to complete the required work. He believed he would have passed his masters programme had he been allowed to change topic to one more relevant to his experience and interests.

We found that, although the university's guidance does not mention a specific procedure for considering such requests, it makes it clear that the university has the ultimate say on whether a topic is acceptable. We found that Mr C was told that it was possible to change topics and that the decision was his. However, after submitting his proposed timeline, he was advised that he could not do so. He was told this in good time for completing the required work. After he asked if he could change topics for his resubmission, he was told that this was an option, but was strongly advised against changing due to the lack of support that would be available to him. We found that it was Mr C's choice not to change at this stage.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint as we were satisfied that nothing went wrong in the university's process when making the decision not to allow Mr C to change dissertation topics. We did, however, make a recommendation as, although they reached their decision quickly and did not alter it, we recognised that some of their communication with Mr C was confusing.

Recommendation
We recommended that the university:
• include in their guidance documents information on the consideration process following requests from students to change dissertation projects.

Summary
Mrs C was a student on a nursing course. In her final year, academic staff gave her misleading advice about how to complete a written assignment. One of the academic staff who gave her this advice marked the assignment and gave it an A grade. However, an internal moderator marked it as a D grade, because Mrs C had not followed the assignment guidelines. Subsequently, external moderators decided that the assignment should be awarded a C grade.

As Mrs C had completed the assignment based on the misleading advice she was given by academic staff, which was not her fault, she felt that downgrading was unjust and submitted an academic appeal. This was immediately upheld and Mrs C was told she could re-submit the assignment as a first attempt. As, however, the assignment related to a completed placement, Mrs C felt that re-submission was not viable and she told the university that she did not accept the outcome of the academic appeal. Instead, she submitted a formal complaint, asking for a thorough investigation. She asked them to recognise that re-submission was not a viable option and to award the unmoderated A grade.

The university acknowledged their error but said it was not within their powers to award an unmoderated grade, and that Mrs C would have to complete some form of assessment for the grade to change. Mrs C complained to us that the university did not respond reasonably to her complaints about the advice she was given about the written assignment.

From looking at the evidence we found that from the academic appeal onward, the university acknowledged that they were at fault because staff gave Mrs C misleading advice. This was reflected in the response to her complaint. The university explained to Mrs C why they could not award an unmoderated grade, and tried to provide resolution in line with their regulations. They also took steps to avoid this happening again. On this basis we took the view that the university responded reasonably to Mrs C's complaints.