Universities

Summary

Mr C, a lawyer, complained on behalf of his client (Ms A) regarding the university's handling of complaints she had made about an extra curricular programme provided by them. Mr C raised a number of concerns, the main points being that, Ms A had not been adequately consulted during the university's investigation, that the university had failed to disclose critical information, and that the university had failed to follow their complaints handling procedure.

We found that the university had reasonably followed their complaints handling procedure and had reasonably consulted Ms A during their investigation. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a member of his family (Mr A), who was a student with a visual impairment and an autism spectrum condition. Mr A was enrolled on an undergraduate course at the university and he required adjustments to the reading materials so that he was able to access these during his studies.

Mr C complained that the university failed to put in place adjustments for Mr A's reading materials. The university upheld aspects of Mr C's complaint and made recommendations. Mr C remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from an equalities adviser and reviewed the documentation provided by Mr C and the university. We noted that part of the adjustment agreed with Mr A involved digitising reading materials and providing these to Mr A in an accessible format.

We found that the university did not accurately calculate how long this process would take. This resulted in Mr A not receiving the materials in an accessible format within good time and caused disadvantage to Mr A. We also identified issues with the way the university communicated with Mr A about this matter, noting that he was incorrectly informed the texts would be provided on time.

We noted that the university had tried to discuss alternative IT systems to support Mr A. However, we found that the university did not adequately consider Mr A's views and his previous difficult IT experiences. In addition, one adjustment made by the university was to provide further detail to Mr A about targeted reading along with a guidance note. We did not consider that the adjustment appropriately took into account Mr A's reading requirements.

In view of the issues identified, we upheld Mr C's complaint and we made a number of recommendations, taking into account the action the university had already agreed to undertake.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr A for failing to provide him with the reading material requested. The apology should meet the standards set out inthe SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• When providing IT support for students accessing large texts, account should be taken of the individual's needs and preferred IT/reading systems.
• The university should ensure that any adjustment put in place for individuals with a disability constitute a reasonable adjustment in line with equality provisions.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Miss C complained about the university's communication with her regarding the visa she required to obtain to enter the UK to take up her place on a taught research degree. Miss C complained that the university unreasonably delayed in identifying the fact that Miss C required a Certificate of Acceptance of Study for a visa and delayed in advising her of this. We considered that the university had two opportunities to clarify Miss C's status with her and did not do so. However, we considered that it was Miss C's responsibility, prior to accepting the place on the course, to establish which visa she required and what documentation she needed to produce in order to obtain the visa. The fact she required a Certificate of Acceptance of Study from the university in order to obtain the visa was set out on the UK government's website. We noted that Miss C had accepted a place at the university in the knowledge she could not study in the UK without a visa but she delayed in providing this information to the university. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Miss C also complained that there was a delay in advising her that she required to demonstrate her ability in English by sitting a Secure English Language Test (SELTs) before she would be issued with a Certificate of Acceptance of Study. For this type of course, the UK government allows the university sponsor to determine how they evidence English language ability and it is the university's decision regarding whether or not they require a SELTS. However, we found that the university's website and correspondence did not make it clear that it requires students on this course who require a Tier 4 visa to sit an International English Language Test System (IELTS) test to prove English language ability. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for an unreasonable delay in advising her that she required to demonstrate a CEFR B2 ability in English by sitting a SELTS before she would be issued with a Certificate of Acceptance (on the basis it was not clear they only accepted IELTS (Academic) and she had other qualifications). The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Information regarding what language tests are acceptable, and when they are required, is clear and non-contradictory.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• To ensure there is awareness of the higher institution's role in determining how they choose to assess English language ability for this type of course.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university did not carry out a reasonable investigation into her complaints. In particular, Ms C was concerned that the university did not take all the relevant evidence into account, did not interview all the relevant parties and did not follow the right policies/procedures.

We found that the university had reasonably followed their complaints handling procedure, considered all the relevant evidence and made reasonable attempts to interview the witnesses specified by Ms C. While we appreciated that Ms C disagreed with the university's decisions regarding her complaints, her disagreement with their interpretation of matters and their decisions is not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing on their part. We considered that the university's investigations into Ms C's complaints were reasonable and did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university had failed to take into account all relevant information during the appeals process. Having reviewed the evidence, we were satisfied that all of the evidence was considered in line with university procedures during the appeals process. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about his withdrawal from his course. The issues we investigated related to an unreasonable failure to advise Mr C of why he was withdrawn from the course in the letter issued by the Progression and Awards Board; an unreasonable failure to advise Mr C that his appeal against the decision of the Progression and Awards Board should have been made on the grounds set out under the university's regulations on appeals; an unreasonable delay in providing Mr C with feedback following a transfer event; and also an unreasonable failure to contact Mr C when he did not attend monthly progression meetings with his director of studies, when the director of studies had supported his application for an interruption of studies.

We upheld the first complaint on the basis that the university failed to document and advise Mr C of why he had been withdrawn from the course. We considered that Mr C should have been made aware of the reasons so that he could base his appeal on this decision.

We also upheld the second complaint. This was on the basis that Mr C appealed against the decision of the school panel on the grounds that they had not applied their policy on student non-engagement properly. However, the decision to withdraw Mr C had been made by a different body, the Progression and Awards Board, and that body had the authority to make decisions regarding progress. Appeals to the Progression and Awards Board require to be raised on different grounds according to the university's regulations. We did not uphold this complaint on the basis that information about the second transfer event had been given to Mr C within a reasonable period of time. We also did not uphold the fourth complaint. Whilst there was a lack of evidence to demonstrate what communication the director of studies had with Mr C, on balance it was concluded that as a holder of a Tier 4 visa, the onus was on Mr C to meet the terms of Tier 4 visa requirements regarding university engagement.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to advise why he was withdrawn from the course; failing to advise Mr C that his appeal against the decision of the progression and awards board should have been made on the progression and awards board appeal form on the grounds set out under the University Senate Regulations 13 Student Appeals s13.3.2, and; rejecting Mr C's appeal due to non-engagement when the progression and awards board had no authority to remove him from the course on the basis of non-engagement. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• The Progression and Awards Board should clearly explain why Mr C was withdrawn from the course. Mr C should then be entitled to issue an appeal against this decision, should he choose to do so, in accordance with the university's regulations.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter (Miss A) about the support the university provided to Miss A. Miss A had lost two grandparents, following an extended period of illness. This affected her time at university and she did not pass one of the modules necessary to progress to fourth year. After having an academic appeal turned down, Miss A returned to university to retake the module. The module was due to take place in the first semester but was cancelled due to an unexpected staff absence and rescheduled to take place in the second semester. This meant that Miss A did not have any tutorials or classes during the first semester but still had financial outlays relating to her rented flat and living away from home.

Mrs C complained that, throughout this time, Miss A did not receive sufficient support from the university. She highlighted concerns about Miss A's experience of the university's personal academic tutor provision. She also complained that the university failed to provide appropriate support or guidance following the cancellation of the module.

The university had partially upheld Mrs C's original complaint and had acknowledged that they had not provided sufficient support and guidance following the cancellation of the module. In respect of the personal academic tutor provision, the university initially did not identify any failings; however, in a subsequent response, they outlined a number of improvements relating to the department's personal academic tutor provision.

We found that the personal academic tutor provision Miss A had received had not been delivered in line with the university's internal policies and guidance. In particular, we identified a lack of sufficient record-keeping and structure. We concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the delivery of the personal academic tutor provision was adequate or in line with the university's own policies and procedures.

Overall, we concluded that the university did not provide Miss A with an appropriate and reasonable level of support. The university had acknowledged some failings in response to Mrs C's complaint but had not identified failings in other areas. Furthermore, where the university had identified failings, it was not clear that a reasonable level of reflection, learning or service improvement had taken place as a result. For these reasons, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss A for failing to provide a sufficient personal academic tutor service and for failing to provide an appropriate level of support and guidance to her following the cancellation of the module. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Address Mrs C's point about the accommodation/living costs incurred while Miss A did not have any classes to attend or academic work to undertake. This response should go directly to Mrs C.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Department staff members who act as personal academic tutors should be aware of their duties and responsibilities, in line with the university's policy and guidance.
• The university should learn from Miss A's experience. When a module is cancelled, the university should make every attempt to meet the terms and conditions contained in 'essential information for students'. This includes taking steps to “mitigate any disruption arising from the change and to identify appropriate alternative arrangements.”

Summary

Miss C, a student advisor, complained on behalf of a student (Ms A) about how Ms A's academic appeals were handled. Ms A was enrolled on a masters course at the university. Ms A was given an alternative exit award of a postgraduate diploma. Ms A submitted a Stage 1 and a Stage 2 academic appeal.

We found that the university failed to check the date that Ms A received her result before issuing their Stage 1 academic appeal response and that the university failed to consider the reason why Ms A's Stage 1 academic appeal was late. We also found that they failed to acknowledge Ms A's Stage 2 academic appeal within ten days and failed to keep Ms A updated on the progress of her Stage 2 academic appeal contrary to the university's policy. The assessor appeal response form also was not completed for Ms A's Stage 2 academic appeal. We upheld Miss C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms A for failing to check the date that she received her result prior to issuing the Stage 1 Academic Appeal response; failing to consider the reason why Ms A's Stage 1 Academic Appeal was late; failing to acknowledge Ms A's Stage 2 Academic Appeal within ten days and for failing to keep her updated on the progress of her appeal; and failing to complete an Assessor Appeal Response Form for her Stage 2 Academic Appeal. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The university should check the date that results have been received before responding to academic appeals.
• The reasons why an academic appeal has been submitted late should be considered.
• In accordance with the relevant policy and procedures, academic appeals should be acknowledged within the timescales and students should be kept updated on the progress of their appeals.
• In accordance with the relevant policy and procedures, the assessor appeal response form should be completed for all Stage 2 academic appeals.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his son (Mr A) that Mr A was unreasonably excluded from the university and that the investigation into the alleged misconduct was inadequate.

We found that the university had reasonably followed their disciplinary and appeals procedures including keeping to timescales and providing an opportunity for Mr A to respond to the allegations brought against him. We also found that reasonable adjustments were made, including extending timescales for Mr A to respond and allowing additional parties to attend the disciplinary committee meeting to support Mr A if required. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a legal representative, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) who was withdrawn from his course at the university. Mr C complained that the university failed to follow their academic engagement and attendance procedures in relation to meeting with Mr A to discuss his absences, and that the university had failed to consider all of the grounds of appeal.

We found that the university had emailed Mr A regarding his absences on at least five occasions, and had met with him to discuss his absences, prior to him being withdrawn from the course. We therefore considered that the university had followed the academic engagement and attendance procedures and we did not uphold this complaint.

We also found that it was clear that Mr A had the opportunity to present his appeal to the committee and that the committee had sight of documents submitted in support of the appeal. We did not uphold this complaint.