Universities

Overview

The parents (Mr and Mrs C) of a young adult (Miss C) who had applied to study dentistry at the University of Dundee (the University) complained on her behalf that she had been refused admission although they considered she had achieved the grades that were set out in her conditional acceptance.  They were also concerned that Miss C had not been considered for a pre-dental course and said they had found it difficult to have their complaints heard by the University.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The matters which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the information sent to UCAS by the University was ambiguous (not upheld);
• (b)  Miss C was not considered for entry on to the pre-dental course (not upheld); and
• (c)  Mr and Mrs C's complaints about this were not handled appropriately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

• (i)        requests UCAS review the information on conditional offers provided to students; and
• (ii)       review their complaints procedures and information provided to complainants in the light of the concerns raised in this report.

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

Overview

The complaint concerned the alleged failure by The Robert Gordon University (the University) to follow procedures when considering an appeal, including failure to consider evidence and a lack of feedback.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  failure to follow appeal procedures (not upheld);
• (b)  failure to consider evidence (not upheld); and
• (c)  lack of feedback (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman makes the general recommendation that the University include, in the final letter issued to appellants by the Academic Registrar, an explanation of why a decision has been reached that there are no prima facie grounds for an appeal to proceed.

The University have accepted the recommendation.

Overview

The complaint concerned the alleged failure by UHI Millennium Institute (UHIMI) to award a qualification due to an administration error and/or personal reasons of a member of staff.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that UHIMI failed to award Mr C a Certificate of Higher Education (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that UHIMI, in relation to making arrangements for Board of Governors Complaints Appeal Committee meetings and given the importance of this final stage of the internal appeals process, should consider inviting students to attend by sending a letter with a tear-off reply slip.  UHIMI should also consider contacting students by telephone to confirm their attendance, subject to the student having supplied UHIMI with correct and current details.

UHIMI have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complaint concerned The Robert Gordon University (the University)'s decision to reject an appeal and to allow a student to continue his course.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Assessment Boards reached their decisions on the basis of incomplete information, that agreements with staff were never implemented and that work presented was not marked (partially upheld);
• (b)  grounds for rejecting the appeal were contrary to stated University policy (not upheld);
• (c)  the course leader had a conflict of interest when acting as Chairman of the Assessment Board (not upheld); and
• (d)  the University's handling of the matter demonstrated poor information management (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the University emphasise to its academic staff the importance of following carefully the Academic Regulations when dealing with cases like Mr C's.

The University have accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation and will act on it accordingly.  She asks that they notify her when it is implemented.

Overview

A complaint was made on behalf of a student about the handling of his appeal against the University of Aberdeen's decision to terminate his candidature on a teaching course.  This included his contention that the presence as Convener of the Student Progress Committee of a member of the department in which the original decision was made amounted to an appearance of bias.  He was also unhappy about the provision and use of evidence.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The matters that have been investigated are that:

• (a) reasons given for the decision by the Student Progress Committee were inadequate (upheld);
• (b) the Student Progress Committee was not impartial (not upheld);
• (c) evidence was disclosed before the Student Progress Committee without proper notice (not upheld);
• (d) the Student Progress Committee did not consider all relevant evidence (not upheld); and
• (e) the Court Appeal Committee's handling of the appeal and the reasons given for their decision was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University issue guidance on the need to provide students with sufficient information about the reasoning behind the decision for them to make an appeal and to include in their standard letters an indication that they can request clarification if they require to do so before submitting an appeal.

The University has accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.  The Ombudsman asks that the University notify her when the recommendation has been implemented.

Overview

The complainant was dissatisfied with the Appeal Board’s decision not to uphold his appeal against the level of award granted upon completion of a post graduate qualification. The complaint was that the Appeal Board had failed to consider all relevant factors affecting the complainant’s academic performance.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is the Handling of Appeal (not upheld).

Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

Mr C raised a number of concerns about his experience as a student with the University of Paisley as part of their collaboration with a Greek institution.  He complained that the facilities in Greece were inadequate; his supervision was affected when he was given a supervisor based in Paisley; there were problems with the finance office, which meant he was unable to access online support for six months; and there were delays in responding to his complaints.

Specific Complaints and Conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  there was a lack of support services for students based in Greece (not upheld);
• (b)  the problems with the finance office led to him being unable to access online services for six months (not upheld);
• (c)  the replacement of his supervisor with a moderator based at Paisley affected the quality of supervision available to him (not upheld); and
• (d)  there were delays in dealing with Mr C's academic appeal and subsequent complaints (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant raised concerns about the complaints procedure and the way in which his complaint was investigated.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Mr C’s complaint was not properly investigated (not upheld); and
• (b)  the University’s complaints procedure is inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant was concerned about the level of supervision provided for his masters dissertation; he felt this was inadequate and said he was only supervised for part of his dissertation.

Specific complaint and conclusion

Supervision arrangements for his MSc dissertation were inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the University College reinforce to staff the importance of following their policy that, on completion of supervision, copies of the completed forms relating to the supervision are kept in the student's central file.

The University College have accepted the recommendation and will act accordingly.

University of Glasgow - complaint was from a woman (referred to in this report as Ms C) – a research assistant formerly employed by the University of Glasgow (the University) at which she was studying for a post graduate degree. Ms C made a formal complaint against the University about the quality of the supervision she received during her PhD studies and exhausted the authority’s internal complaints procedure. The complaint was dismissed formally by the University on 5 April 2005. Ms C subsequently made a request for an external review to the Ombudsman, alleging that there was administrative fault or service failure by the University which caused her injustice and hardship