Universities

Summary
Ms C was studying for a degree. There were problems with the course in her final year. Several students, including Ms C, appealed their honours classifications and, because of this, the university carried out an investigation. Ms C's honours classification was upgraded, but she felt it merited a further upgrade and so she appealed again, but the appeal was dismissed. Ms C complained to our office that the university failed to provide her with a reasonable explanation for their decision to upgrade her final results along with those of a number of others on her course.

We found from looking at the evidence that the university's investigation of the problems on the course indicated systemic failings in the frequency and quality of feedback from academic staff to students. The university did not tell Ms C this in their letters about her appeal, and they explained to us that such an explanation would not normally form part of appeal letters. As this was an exceptional situation, we took the view that it would have been helpful if the letters had stated the key outcome of the review about the feedback failings. This might have helped explain to Ms C why there was an apparent disparity between the feedback she received from academic staff and the honours classification she was awarded. We drew this point to the university's attention.

It was clear that Ms C wanted to know what went wrong on the course and the reasons why. However, this was different from an explanation of why the university upgraded her honours classification. The university's academic regulations did not require them to provide an explanation for the decision to award a mark, grade or honours classification. The requirement was that they notify a student in writing of the decision, which they did. The university combined this notification with the outcome of Ms C's first appeal, which was upheld due to material administrative error. This was the ground for appeal that Ms C ticked on the appeal form. Taking account of the university's responsibilities under their academic regulations we were satisfied that, in the circumstances, they did provide Ms C with a reasonable explanation for their decision to upgrade her final results.

Summary
Miss C was a student at the university. She complained that guidance on how to complete a piece of coursework was made available to students after the date that it was due to be handed in. She also complained about the university's failure to limit noise outside their buildings during classes and exams. Miss C was ultimately expelled from the university. She attempted to appeal this in line with the university's disciplinary procedure, but received no response to her appeal.

We found that students on Miss C's course were potentially disadvantaged by the university's failure to provide the coursework guidance in advance of the hand-in date. We did not consider that they should have done any more to restrict the level of noise outside campus premises. Although we found no evidence that the university deliberately ignored Miss C's appeal, we recommended that they consider clarifying their disciplinary procedure's guidance on how to submit an appeal.

Recommendations
We recommended that the university:
• apologise to Miss C; and
• consider reviewing their Code of Discipline to include guidance to students as to how to submit an appeal against the Disciplinary Committee's decision.

Summary
Mr C made a complaint to the university and proceeded through the first two stages of their complaints procedure. As he remained dissatisfied at the conclusion of the second stage of the complaints procedure he submitted a third stage complaint.

When approaching the escalated stage, the university decided that it did not meet the criteria for consideration at stage three. Mr C did not provide the required new information (which was any evidence that there was bias or prejudice on the part of those who dealt with the complaint or that showed a breach of the complaints procedure).

The university gave Mr C their decision with a further explanation in relation to some of his points of complaint. They informed him of his right to approach the SPSO if he remained dissatisfied. Mr C complained to us about the university’s actions, saying that that they had failed to provide access to the university’s complaints procedure.

We found that the university had considered Mr C’s appeal submission and that they had reached a discretionary decision, as they are entitled to do, that the criteria for an appeal had not been met. We decided, therefore, that we would not consider his complaints further.
 

Summary
Mr C, an international distance learning student on a postgraduate course at the university, complained that the initial communication of a change of assessment method was not communicated to him with reasonable clarity and within a reasonable timescale. He also complained that the university did not reasonably communicate the remit of the mitigating circumstances board to him; and did not reasonably communicate the decision of the mitigating circumstances board, and the consequences of that decision, to him. In addition, Mr C complained that the university’s response to his request for an academic appeal was not reasonable, both in terms of content and response time.

We found from looking at the evidence that the university knew about the proposed change at least two months before they told Mr C. Mr C was sent an email about the change eight weeks before the examination. Given his circumstances, our view was that this was a tight timescale for him to make the necessary arrangements to sit the examination abroad. Taking this into account, and as the university’s mitigating circumstances board accepted that communication of the change of assessment method may not have been as clear and timely as could reasonably be expected, we upheld this complaint.

We also found that the university focused on Mr C’s apparent misunderstanding of what constituted mitigating circumstances, and how it was not the appropriate process to use. Instead, the university said Mr C could have used the student complaints procedure. However, Mr C did raise concerns, both with staff and via comments on the mitigating circumstances form, but at no point was he directed to the appropriate process. We accepted that Mr C had a responsibility be familiar with university processes. In addition, we found that Mr C asked for clarification of the mitigating circumstances board’s decision, and what that meant for him. The university missed the opportunity to clarify the situation and, instead, simply told Mr C that his claim was valid. Therefore, on balance, we upheld this complaint.

We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint about the academic appeal, as we found from looking at the correspondence and the appeal regulations that the university’s response was reasonable in terms of content and response time.

Recommendations
We recommended that the university:
• apologise to Mr C for failing to communicate with him about the change in assessment method for a module with reasonable clarity and within a reasonable timescale;
• in future, inform students in writing: of proposed changes to assessment, as soon as formal proposals are made; and confirmed changes to assessment, as soon as confirmation is obtained. This information should include detail about the changes; and
• in light of this case, clarify their guidance to students and staff on what the mitigating circumstances process can and cannot be used for.
 

Summary
Ms C enrolled on a professional development course at the college. Shortly after starting, Ms C’s former employer paid fees to the college for the course. Ms C complained that the college did not reasonably communicate changes in course provision, the consequences of which meant she felt that she was due a refund of some of the fees. Ms C also complained that the college did not reasonably communicate the contact details of the course tutor to her, and did not respond reasonably to correspondence about her complaint.

We found from looking at the evidence that the college did not reasonably inform Ms C, in terms of timeliness or detail, about the situation regarding changes in course provision. In addition, the college acknowledged that the change in the course tutor’s contact details was not communicated to Ms C. Therefore, we upheld these complaints.

The college also acknowledged that they took longer than allowed for in their complaints procedure to deal with part of Ms C’s complaint, and that they failed to respond to one of Ms C’s letters. In addition, the college’s responses to Ms C’s complaint letters, specifically about her course fees, were not consistent. Although the college said their complaints procedure was available on their website, it would have been good practice at the end of each stage of the process to inform Ms C of the next stage available to her, and the deadline for accessing that stage. We found from looking at the evidence that the college did not respond reasonably to Ms C’s correspondence and, therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations
We recommended that the college:
• apologise for not reasonably communicating changes in course provision, or changes in the contact details of the course tutor;
• in future, advise interested parties in writing where a proposed course requires validation by an external body, making clear the schedule, and the consequences if validation is withheld;
• apologise for not responding reasonably to Ms C’s correspondence; and
• review their handling of the complaint, in particular the thoroughness of investigations and the content and consistency of responses, with a view to ensuring they adhere to a transparent, concise and robust complaints procedure to avoid a recurrence of this situation.
 

Summary
Mr C was a student on a taught postgraduate course at the university. He complained that teaching hours, timetable and deadlines of assignments were altered from those in the course programme without reasonable communication.

We found from looking at the evidence provided by both Mr C and the university that the course documents made it clear that changes were likely to occur and that, in the main, it was a student's responsibility to regularly check particular sources for information. There was also evidence of reasonable communication with Mr C, by email, about assignments where the dates of these were changed. In addition, the university said it would ensure that information provided to students was clearer in future.

As there was not sufficient evidence to support Mr C's claim, we did not uphold this complaint.
 

Summary
The university awarded Mr C a third class honours degree. When he reviewed his marks, he found that in three of the courses he had achieved a common assessment score of 11. He understood that, if he had achieved a mark of 12 in any of the courses, he would have been awarded a 2:2 degree overall. Mr C drew this to the attention of his subject department, and it was discovered Mr C should have been treated as a ‘borderline’ student, and had his course papers reviewed by an external examiner.

Mr C appealed through the university appeals process. The university corrected the procedural irregularity and arranged for Mr C’s work to be reviewed by an external examiner. Mr C also felt that, as a borderline student, he should have the opportunity to be invited for viva (an oral examination). The external examiner, however, confirmed that Mr C’s work demonstrated a third class performance, and said that Mr C was not eligible for viva. Mr C went to the final stage of appeal and requested a hearing, but this was refused on the grounds that his appeal was based on academic merit rather than other mitigating or extenuating circumstances.

Although the Ombudsman cannot consider matters of academic judgment (such as the level of degree awarded) we reviewed whether the university followed its procedures correctly, and whether it had returned Mr C to the position in which he would have been but for the error occurring. We found that the university did so, that the review by the external examiner was appropriate and sufficient, and that Mr C did not meet the criteria set to be invited for viva. We did not uphold his complaint, although we did recommend that the university apologise to him for their initial failure to correctly follow their procedure, as there was no evidence that they apologised during the appeals process.

Recommendation
We recommended that the university:
• provide Mr C with a full apology for initially failing to follow the examination procedure correctly.
 

Summary
Mr C complained to the university about the lack of guidance provided during a period of work that was required for his degree. He remained dissatisfied with the university’s response and complained to us. He also raised with us his concerns about how the university had handled his complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaints but noted that the university have since made changes to their procedures that address Mr C's concerns and seek to avoid this happening again. We, therefore, made no recommendations.
 

Summary
Mrs C's son, Mr A, applied to the college for a place on an automotive engineering course. There was an apparent mix up with his application and he did not get a place. By the time this came to light, the course was full and Mr A was offered a place on another course. Mrs C complained to the college about the mix up and they apologised. However, due to paperwork having been mislaid, they were unable to explain what had happened.

Mrs C complained to us that the college had failed to investigate and explain the mix up. Our enquiries revealed that they had tried, unsuccessfully, to locate the missing paperwork. They advised us that they have since made changes to their application system to minimise paperwork being transferred between departments and to avoid a similar future situation. As we were satisfied that the college had fully investigated the matter in search of an explanation, offered an apology and taken appropriate remedial action, we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Ms C complained that although she was accepted on to a university course, the university later told her that she would not be able to complete the course due to her disability. Ms C said that when applying she had declared in her application form that she had cerebral palsy. Ms C also complained about the way in which the university handled her complaint.

Although this is the sort of issue that we might consider further, we decided under Section 7 of the SPSO Act 2002 not to investigate Ms C's complaint as she is now taking legal action against the university.