Universities

Case ref:

201709160
Date:

February 2019
Body:

University of Edinburgh
Sector:

Universities
Outcome:

Not upheld, no recommendations
Subject:

complaints handling

Summary

Ms C complained about the university's investigation into her complaint to them. Ms C had a number of concerns including the length of time that the university's investigation took to conclude, that the investigator was not impartial, and that the university had inappropriately told her that she was bound by confidentiality in relation to the complaint.

We found that the university's investigation into Ms C's complaint had been reasonable. We noted that the investigation was complex and involved interviews with a number of parties, and that the university had already apologised for the length of time taken to conclude the investigation. We did not find any evidence to suggest that the university's investigator was not impartial. We determined that it had been reasonable to remind Ms C that there was a need for confidentiality during the investigation, though we fed back to the university that they may wish to consider how this information is given in future investigations. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Case ref:

201800888
Date:

January 2019
Body:

University of the West of Scotland
Sector:

Universities
Outcome:

Upheld, recommendations
Subject:

academic appeal / exam results / degree classification

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that the university unreasonably removed Mr A from his course. Mr A was studying at the university and was required to attend monthly meetings with his Director of Studies (DoS). Mr A was withdrawn from his course for failing to attend three out of four of the monthly meetings. Mr A said that he had only had one unauthorised absence, the other two absences were due to medical emergencies, which could not be predicted, and he was able to provide supporting evidence of these.

The university provided evidence that Mr A would have been aware of the importance of the monthly meetings and that he should have rearranged his missed meetings. We found that Mr A could and should have rearranged two of the three missed meetings. Mr A had raised a concern that his DoS was unable to rearrange meetings, however, this was not raised in his appeal or complaint, so was not considered further.

However, we were concerned about a number of aspects of how Mr A's case had been handled. We found that the third missed meeting had occurred when Mr A was on authorised leave, and did not believe this should have been counted against him. We found that the communication with Mr A both before and after his withdrawal to be confusing. In addition, the record of the decision to withdraw Mr A did not note what evidence was considered or how it was assessed. When Mr A appealed on the basis of 'New Evidence' it was not possible to know whether the evidence was new or not, as there was no record of what was originally considered. We were concerned that this meant Mr A was not given a fair chance to appeal. Finally, the university continued to be unclear with our office about exactly why Mr A had been withdrawn from his course. For these reasons, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

Apologise to Mr A for the poor communication and lack of clarity about his withdrawal from his course. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
Reconsider Mr A's appeal, inviting him to present evidence at a hearing as he requested to do.

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

Sufficient information about what evidence was considered and how the decision was reached should be recorded when deciding to withdraw students.

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.

Case ref:

201801384
Date:

January 2019
Body:

University of Strathclyde
Sector:

Universities
Outcome:

Not upheld, no recommendations
Subject:

special needs - assessment and provision

Summary

Mr C complained that the university failed to take reasonable account of his disabilities in terms of the the impact his medication had had on his exam grades and study skills.

Our investigation found that there were a number of areas, including assessment and agreed support measure, where his needs were addressed and reasonable adjustments were put in place. Additionally, the university had exercised their discretion to allow Mr C to resit modules, in light of the difficulties he had experienced, which they were not obliged to do. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Case ref:

201708677
Date:

January 2019
Body:

University of Edinburgh
Sector:

Universities
Outcome:

Upheld, recommendations
Subject:

complaints handling

Summary

Mr C complained that the university's communication regarding his complaint was unreasonable and that they failed to conduct their investigation of his complaint to a reasonable standard.

We found that there had been delays in the university's communication and that inappropriate and unprofessional language had used by a key staff member in internal communication about Mr C. We saw evidence of Mr C's concerns having been minimised or dismissed, rather than being taken seriously with efforts being made to address them. We considered that the poor communication in respect of Mr C's complaints had a significant impact on his learning experience. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to the complaint investigation, we noted that the investigator had not consulted the supporting evidence Mr C submitted with his complaint. We considered that these documents should have been read and understood before investigative interviews were carried out, so that there was a full understanding of the matters Mr C complained about. We also found that the investigator had been overly reliant on subjective statements. We considered that the investigation fell below a reasonable standard and failed adequately to address Mr C's concerns. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

Apologise to Mr C for the standard of communication (with a recognition of the impact this had on him), for failing to consult the evidence he had submitted in support of his complaint and for being overly reliant on subjective statements. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

Staff involved with complaints should communicate in a professional manner at all times.
Staff investigating complaints should ensure that their conclusions can be supported by evidence.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

Staff involved in complaints should refer to the SPSO's Report: Making Complaints Work for Everyone. Additional support in dealing with complaints, if required, can be requested from the Complaints Standards Authority: http://www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk.

Case ref:

201801854
Date:

December 2018
Body:

University of the West of Scotland
Sector:

Universities
Outcome:

Not upheld, no recommendations
Subject:

policy / administration

Summary

Mrs C complained that the university did not inform her of an additional fee for her course. The university explained that the information supplied was for the postgraduate taught tuition fees but students are informed that an additional fee is required if the masters dissertation is completed. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We found that the university reasonably communicated with Mrs C that further fees were due in order for her to complete the masters dissertation for her course. At the point she was accepted on the course, a link to funding information was provided which explained the separate fees for the taught element and the masters dissertation. When the university responded to Mrs C's query about the fees for the full-time postgraduate course, the information provided was accurate and detailed the cost of the taught element of the course. However, it would have been good practice to have provided further information about the fees for the masters dissertation, as it was relevant to the majority of students embarking on the course. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint but provided feedback to the university on good practice.

Case ref:

201707870
Date:

December 2018
Body:

Glasgow Caledonian University
Sector:

Universities
Outcome:

Not upheld, no recommendations
Subject:

academic appeal / exam results / degree classification

Summary

Mr C complained that the university's handling of his academic appeal was unreasonable. Mr C said that university staff marking his work were biased against him because of a previous disciplinary matter.

We found that the university acted in line with their Academic Appeals Policy and Procedure. In their response to Mr C's academic appeal, the university explained why Mr C's supervisor, who had given evidence in relation to the disciplinary matter, had been involved with the marking due to the need for supervisors to provide specific comments. They also explained that other staff, who had no involvement with the previous disciplinary matter, had been allocated to mark his work to ensure impartiality. In addition, an external examiner had reviewed Mr C's work and approved the mark awarded, as well as the overall degree classification.

We found that the university's handling of Mr C's academic appeal was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Report no:

201003198
Date:

December 2011
Body:

The Robert Gordon University
Sector:

Universities

Overview
The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns about how The Robert Gordon University (the University) dealt with her admission to the University, examinations, assessment for a learning difficulty, and graduation. Ms C was also concerned about how the University had handled her complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the University:

(a) failed to consider Ms C for a place in second year in 2005 (upheld);
(b) scheduled a sitting of final examinations: in August 2009, when they were aware Ms C could not sit them; and in January 2010, which was unreasonably late (not upheld);
(c) failed to inform Ms C of the requirement to register for graduation prior to the deadline (upheld);
(d) failed to assess Ms C for a learning difficulty (upheld);
(e) failed to deal with Ms C's complaints appropriately (not upheld); and
(f) between June and September 2010, delayed providing the documentation necessary to validate Ms C's qualification in her home country (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

(i) ensure there is formal administration and record-keeping for dealing with advanced entry applications across the institution, to prevent this situation from happening again;
(ii) remind School Offices of the need to be proactive in assisting students who have exceptional examination arrangements, to ensure that information on graduation registration is sent to them in good time;
(iii) review the Disability and Dyslexia Office's (DDS) recording of, and follow-up to, requests from academic staff to contact students for assessment;
(iv) in order to avoid confusion, formalise their practice on offering DDS screening to students in the final semester of their final year, incorporating the revised turnaround time for receiving assessment reports from Allied Health Professionals;
(v) clarify their understanding of the documents to be provided, and the specific requirements for such documents, for validation of the BSc (Hons) Nutrition and Dietetics in Ms C's home country; and
(vi) apologise to Ms C for the failings identified in this report.

Report no:

200801977
Date:

November 2010
Body:

University of Dundee
Sector:

Universities

Overview
The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) brought a complaint on behalf of their son, (Mr A), concerning allegations of misconduct made against him by the University of Dundee (the University). They complained that the University's investigation into his alleged misconduct was not conducted in accordance with the correct procedure, or in a manner that was fair and unbiased. They also felt that the conclusions of the investigation were unfairly punitive on Mr A.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

(a) the University did not follow their own process in reaching their decision on the allegations against Mr A (upheld);
(b) the University failed to take into account Mr A's special needs when carrying out their investigation (not upheld); and
(c) the punishment decided upon by the University was not commensurate with the allegations made against Mr A (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

(i) review their actions on Mr A's case prior to the commencement of the Ordinance 40 process with a view to improving the transparency of their information gathering in cases of potential academic dishonesty;
(ii) introduce measures to ensure that students are aware of the evidence submitted to the Boards of Internal and External Examiners for consideration;
(iii) introduce a policy of formally stating the allegation being made against a student at the commencement of the Ordinance 40 process;
(iv) apologise to Mr A and his family for the failings identified in this report prior to the commencement of the Ordinance 40 process;
(v) introduce a policy of recording their consideration of students' special circumstances in all disciplinary cases; and
(vi) remind staff chairing hearing panels that their decisions should be based solely on the evidence presented for consideration.

The University have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Report no:

200702367
Date:

December 2009
Body:

Edinburgh College of Art
Sector:

Universities

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained that Edinburgh College of Art (the College) did not handle his son (Mr A)'s academic appeals appropriately and that this disadvantaged him by delaying the start of his professional career.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

(a) there were flaws in the way the College handled the initial approach by Mr A (partially upheld to the extent that the College did not supply Mr A with a copy of the Academic Appeals Policy and Procedures (the Appeals Policy) earlier, and did not advise him of the date of the Preliminary Assessment Panel (PAP));
(b) the College attempted to influence Heriot-Watt University (the University), as the final point of appeal, inappropriately during the appeal (not upheld);
(c) the College's responses to the University during the appeals process were inadequate (upheld);
(d) advice given to Mr A following the initial appeal was inadequate and not documented (no finding);
(e) procedures identified as potentially misleading following the first appeal (ie undocumented verbal feedback to students) were not corrected before the second (not upheld);
(f) the attitude of College staff towards Mr C was not appropriate, including legal threats (not upheld); and
(g) the time taken to deal with the appeals was excessive (partially upheld to the extent that the College's failure to comply with the University's request for comment on the grounds for appeal caused some of the delay in the overall processing of the second appeal);

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the College:

(i) provide appellants with a copy of the Appeals Policy, or information on where to obtain a copy, when they first acknowledge receipt of an appeal. The College should also advise appellants of the date of the PAP, allowing reasonable time for appellants to seek advice from the Students' Representative Council General Manager and provide further information in support of their appeal;
(ii) include, in the letter issued to appellants after the PAP, an explanation of why a decision has been reached that there are no prima facie grounds for an appeal to proceed, and an explicit statement of what avenue of appeal remains open;
(iii) should not supply information to the University relating to an appeal unless that information can be supported by evidence or the information is clearly an opinion or comment given in response to such a request;
(iv) apologise to Mr A for supplying unsubstantiated information to the University regarding his attendance;
(v) should in future comply with requests for comment on the grounds for appeal from the University;
(vi) draw up and implement a clear policy for managing unacceptable behaviour. The Ombudsman encourages the College to refer to the SPSO Unacceptable Actions Policy when drawing up their own policy; and
(vii) include indicative timescales for holding the PAP and the Academic Appeals Committee in the next version of the Appeals Policy.

The College have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Report no:

200702441
Date:

December 2009
Body:

University of Strathclyde
Sector:

Universities

Overview
The father (Mr C) of a student (Mr A) complained that the supervision of Mr A's teacher training placement at a primary school was inadequately monitored. He considered that the University of Strathclyde (the University) failed to respond appropriately to Mr A's reports of bullying by the class teacher in whose class his placement took place. Mr C also complained about the University's handling of appeals and complaints about these matters.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the University:

(a) did not ensure that a placement was suitably supervised (not upheld);
(b) failed in their duty of care to Mr A with respect to a report of bullying or harassment (not upheld);
(c) did not respond adequately to a complaint about these matters (upheld); and
(d) did not conduct Mr A's appeals to the Board of Examiners, Faculty or Senate appropriately (partially upheld to the extent that the presence of the Course Director and the Vice Dean (Academic) at the Senate Appeals Committee was inappropriate and that the minutes of the Senate Appeals Committee lacked clarity).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

(i) ensure that information provided to schools about 'cause for concern' students should require schools to contact the University immediately, given the tight timescale for remedying potential problems on placement, in particular final placements;
(ii) should work with schools to ensure that, barring exceptional circumstances, all class teachers who are to mentor student teachers are in possession of the relevant documents before placement begins;
(iii) try to resolve the relationship between placement practice and the Dignity and Respect Policy, given the circumstances of this complaint;
(iv) acknowledge directly to Mr A their fault in not advising him that he might have wished to discuss his situation with one of the University's Dignity and Respect Advisers, and apologise to him for this failing.
(v) apologise to Mr A and Mr C for the shortcomings in their complaint investigation highlighted in this report and take steps to ensure that these elements of their process are properly followed in future;
(vi) apologise to Mr A and Mr C for the shortcomings in their handling of the Senate Appeal highlighted in this report;
(vii) consider how to deal holistically with cases such as this, where bullying and harassment complaints, academic complaints and academic appeals are made at the same time, taking account of short timescales where students need to progress, graduate and/or complete professional registration;
(viii) revise relevant policies and procedures to be clear about whether adverse circumstances relating to health should be applied where there is no registered disability and no request from the student to take such circumstances into account. Policies should also be clear on the standard of proof normally required when Board of Examiners consider adverse circumstances;
(ix) revise relevant policies and procedures to be clear about who should be invited to attend Senate Appeals Committee meetings and in what capacity, with an emphasis on avoiding conflict of interest in line with paragraph 3.16 of the Academic Appeals Procedure; and
(x) ensure that there is clarity on recording the outcome in terms of whether an appeal is upheld, not upheld or if there is no finding (if no finding is appropriate in the context of an academic appeal).

The University have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Subscribe to Universities

This website uses cookies

Universities

Summary

Related reading

Summary

Recommendations

Related reading

Summary

Related reading

Summary

Recommendations

Related reading

Summary

Related reading

Summary

Related reading

Related reading

Related reading

Related reading

Related reading