Universities

Overview
The complainant, Mr C, was a PhD student at Queen Margaret University (the University). He raised concerns that his Director of Studies (the Director of Studies) had claimed that his supervisors had doubts as to the quality of his work, following a meeting on 5 May 2005. Mr C complained that his supervisors had not expressed to him any doubts as to the quality of his work. He was also unhappy that the Director of Studies alleged that there had been research misconduct by him. Mr C said that he only became aware of these issues when he had sight of a letter written by the Director of Studies to a third party in April 2008. Mr C also had concerns about the way the University handled the subsequent investigation into his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that: (a) the Director of Studies claimed wrongly that Mr C was aware of his supervisors' doubts as to the quality of his work, following a meeting on 5 May 2005 (upheld); (b) the Director of Studies alleged inappropriately that there had been research misconduct by Mr C (not upheld); and (c) the University failed to take into account the evidence available to them when investigating Mr C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the failure to ensure that he was made aware of his supervisory team’s concerns adequately, in line with the Research Degree Regulations in force at the time (RDR) (2002) and the Research Degrees Code of Practice (CoP);
• (ii) reinforce with all staff involved with research degree supervision the importance of dealing with any concerns which might arise during the course of a student's research, in line with the current RDR;
• (iii) ensure that all staff involved with research degree supervision are fully aware of the provisions of the new CoP when it is published; and
• (iv) reinforce with all staff involved in responding to student complaints the importance of providing a full response to complaints; in particular, that the response includes details of any evidence considered during their investigation.

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

Overview
The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns that his daughter, Ms C, was not treated appropriately by her Practice Teacher (Practice Teacher 2) while on placement for her University course. Mr C also complained that Glasgow Caledonian University (the University) failed to act in an appropriate manner when considering Mr C's complaint.

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

• (a) the conduct of Practice Teacher 2 towards Ms C was inappropriate (not upheld);
• (b) the University failed to respond to questions put to them by Mr C (not upheld);
• (c) the University passed a complaint from the Council about Ms C to the Scottish Social Services Council when there was no requirement for them to do so and did not refer a complaint made by Mr C about Practice Teacher 2 to the Scottish Social Services Council (not upheld);
• (d) the way in which the University considered Mr C's complaint and conducted their investigation was not in line with their procedures (partially upheld);
• (e) the University interviewed Ms C for a number of hours without telling her the purpose of the interview (not upheld).
   

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that the University consider reviewing their complaints procedures to take into account complaints where there are one or more aspects which concern allegations of bullying or harassment, to ensure that such allegations are properly considered under the relevant policy.

The University have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) was a post/graduate student at the University of Glasgow (the University) studying for a doctorate in a science subject. He complained about aspects of the supervision of his study and about the way his appeal and complaint were handled.

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

• (a) did not provide adequate supervision for Mr C's PhD (not upheld);
• (b) did not provide an agreed placement (not upheld);
• (c) did not appropriately consider concerns about a key reagent (not upheld);
• (d) did not handle an academic appeal properly (not upheld);
• (e) did not handle a complaint properly (upheld); and
• (f) did not maintain adequate records in relation to Mr C's progress (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

• (i) reinforce the good practice of maintaining a written record of significant events, such as decisions about a student's placement;
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for shortcomings in their handling of his complaint;
• (iii) take steps to ensure that complainants are given clear and accurate advice about the status of their complaints; and
• (iv) considers whether there are situations where it should be obligatory that accurate records are kept of meetings when supervisors are discussing serious concerns about the progress of a student.

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

Overview

The complainant Ms C was concerned that Edinburgh's Telford College (the College) did not provide her with appropriate support while she was a student in 2006/2007. In particular, Ms C said that tutorial provision was inadequate; she was unhappy with circumstances surrounding her audition for a higher-level course; and the way she had been told she was not successful in this application. Ms C was also unhappy with the way the College dealt with her subsequent complaint.

 Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the College did not provide Ms C with appropriate support (partially upheld, to the extent that information provided to students was inaccurate);
• (b) the College did not deal appropriately with Ms C's audition process and communication about this (partially upheld, to the extent that there was inconsistency in the way students were informed about the outcome of their auditions); and
• (c) the College mishandled their response to Ms C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the College:

• (i) ensure the information provided to students about tutorials and the role of the Course Tutor is in line with current practice;
• (ii) apologise to Ms C for the failure to ensure that the course handbook explained clearly the role of the Course Tutor for her course;
• (iii) review their policy surrounding the methods used to inform applicants of the results of auditions;
• (iv) apologise to Ms C for the inconsistency which occurred in the way applicants were informed; and
• (v) review the support and guidance given to staff investigating complaints;
• (vi) apologise to Ms C for the failings identified in their handling of her complaint.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the way in which his resubmitted dissertation was assessed by the University of Edinburgh (the University). He also complained that the University had not updated their records with his up-to-date address.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the University failed to independently mark Mr C's resubmitted dissertation (not upheld);
• (b) Mr C had previously made a complaint against one of the examiners who marked his dissertation (not upheld); and
• (c) the University failed to timeously update their records of Mr C's address (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

• (i) ensure that the Appeals Sub-Committee use clear language in their reports;
• (ii) consider whether it would be appropriate to clarify in the Code of Practice for Taught Postgraduate Programmes that dissertations resubmitted after minor changes will not be independently marked; and
• (iii) apologise to Mr C for their failure to timeously update all of their records of his address when he informed them of his change of address.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was a student at The Robert Gordon University (the University) taking a course of professional study for a regulated health profession.  The University took disciplinary action against him for supplying fraudulent evidence to mitigate the late submission of a piece of work on the grounds that this was a serious instance of non-academic misconduct.  He was removed from his course.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the punishment for an incident of misconduct was disproportionate and prejudicial to Mr C's future career prospects (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained that the University of Glasgow (the University) did not ensure that a Masters course applied quality assurance measures, or use proper procedures in relation to assessments.  Mr C also complained that the University did not deal with his complaint appropriately.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) defective procedures were used for dealing with assessments within a University Department (the Department), specifically relating to assessments submitted for a Masters course (partially upheld to the extent that the first Course Convener failed to abide by the relevant regulations and, in error, allowed Mr C to proceed to dissertation before he had completed the work for the four modules);
• (b) there was a failure to apply quality assurance procedures to the Masters course (partially upheld to the extent that Department staff acted contrary to regulations in not holding Boards of Examiners for the Masters course); and
• (c) Mr C's complaint was poorly handled by the University (partially upheld to the extent that the Senior Senate Assessor for Student Complaints did not arrange a meeting with Mr C on the conclusion of his review of Mr C’s complaint).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the administrative error in failing to adhere to the regulations for progression to the dissertation;
• (ii) reflect on the events relating to Mr C’s complaint and ensure that staff adhere to regulations to avoid another situation where a taught postgraduate student is allowed to proceed to dissertation before assignments for modules have been completed and marked;
• (iii) consider the feasibility of recording assessments received from students, to minimise the chances of pieces of work being lost;
• (iv) ensure that students receive clear communication from staff on the deadlines for resubmission of work;
• (v) ensure that courses/programmes adhere to the current Code of Assessment in respect of holding Boards of Examiners.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was a post-graduate student at the University of Glasgow (the University).  After her status was upgraded from that of a masters to a doctoral candidate, she was transferred to a different department.  A progress meeting in that department decided that Ms C's work to date was not of sufficient standard to allow her to continue as a doctoral candidate.  She appealed this decision and complained about aspects of the University's administration and supervision during her period of study.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the University accepted a research topic that was not viable (not upheld);
• (b) the University incorrectly upgraded Ms C to status as a PhD student when she did not have the knowledge necessary to complete it (not upheld);
• (c) the supervision of Ms C's PhD was inadequate (upheld to the extent that the University did not apologise for shortcomings they identified);
• (d) review meetings were improperly conducted (not upheld); and
• (e) there were shortcomings in the University's handling of Ms C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the University make a formal apology to Ms C for a standard of supervision which fell short of that to which she was entitled.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that the University of Glasgow (the University) inappropriately brought their consideration of his appeal and complaints to a halt and inappropriately expelled him.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the University inappropriately brought their consideration of Mr C's appeal and complaints to a halt and inappropriately expelled him, in breach of paragraph 28.2.1 of the University's Code of Appeals and paragraph 31.2.1 of the University's Complaints Procedure (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) claimed that she had been unfairly removed from her course at the University of Abertay Dundee (the University) and that the University had failed to follow procedures in removing her.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Ms C was unfairly withdrawn from her degree programme at the University and that there were procedural failings leading up to her withdrawal (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Although the complaint has not been upheld, the Ombudsman recommends, to ensure future continuing improvement, that the University:

• (i) consider that records should be made of meetings with students, especially failing students, who are being counselled on their academic performance and where there is a likelihood that they could be withdrawn;
• (ii) reflect on the wording of the standard resit letter to see if it is as clear as it could be; and
• (iii) consider whether final decision letters at the conclusion of an unsuccessful appeal should give a fuller explanation of why an appeal is not upheld, rather than simply saying there are ‘no grounds’ for an appeal – an explanation of why there are no grounds might be helpful for the appellant.

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