Universities

Summary

Mr C complained that his postgraduate supervisors failed to follow relevant policy or procedure in relation to his supervision, and about the university's investigation of his complaint.

We found no evidence that Mr C's supervisors failed to follow relevant policy or procedure. Mr C was particularly concerned that, after his first three years of postgraduate study, the number of meetings with his supervisors reduced significantly. Mr C first raised this issue after failing his final assessment. We found no evidence that he complained about the reduction in meetings in the second three years of postgraduate study, during which the university recorded that he failed to make progress with his work or engage with his supervisors for about 18 months. In terms of the university's investigation of Mr C's complaint, we found that it was thorough and appropriate in the circumstances.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. However, we determined that the university's policy and code of practice for postgraduate students could be clearer on the level of supervision available in similar circumstances, and we made a recommendation to address this point.

Recommendations

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

• Update the policy and code for postgraduate research study to explain the level of supervision a student could expect in their writing up phase and when not paying fees.

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 had failed to respond to her complaint within a reasonable timeframe. Ms C submitted her complaint to the university but had not received a response by the time she contacted us ten months later.

We found that the university had appropriately handled the complaint at Stage 1 of their complaints process and had also kept Ms C reasonably informed of the progress of her complaint at Stage 2 of the process. However, we considered that it was unacceptable for Ms C to have still not received a response to her complaint ten months later and the university had been unable to provide an indication of when a response might be ready. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Respond to Ms C's complaint.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The university should ensure that they have the most efficient system for processing complaints, to minimise unreasonable delays in the face of limited resources.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his friend (Mr A) that the university failed to give reasonable consideration to the appeal he submitted on behalf of Mr A. Mr C complained that the university had failed to take account of, or give due weight to, the evidence he provided and that his correspondence had been ignored.

We found that Mr C's complaint had been dealt with in accordance with the Student Appeals Regulations. All of the available documentation and correspondence provided by Mr C had been carefully considered, but the view was taken that the terms for appeal had not been met. A letter was sent explaining this fully to Mr C. While it was clear that Mr C disagreed with this decision, there was no evidence to suggest that there had been failings or shortcomings in the appeal process. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university failed to provide reasonable supervision and monitoring during her full-time PhD course. Ms C withdrew from her course after she had been advised, during the thesis drafting stage, that she would not meet the standard required for a PhD. Ms C stated that the university school involved failed to adhere to a framework which had been produced by the university to ensure a student's progress was monitored. We found that the framework produced by the university could be altered by a school, however, it was intended to ensure a structure was in place for monitoring and documenting progress to ensure consistency. We found that the school did not appear to have a structured approach to supervision and there was a lack of information regarding supervision in the early years of Ms C's course. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also complained that the university failed to reasonably follow their complaints process. We found that there was not a clear distinction between the university's complaints procedure and their academic appeals procedure. The university also failed to clarify that a meeting to be held was a formal meeting where the complaint would be decided. Ms C's understanding was that this was not a formal meeting and that it was not the final stage for a decision. We also found that the university failed to send documentation with their decision including a minute of the meeting. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint but noted that the university had apologised for this failing and had taken steps to address this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to put in place a framework for assessment to monitor and document her progress which met the requirements set out in the Postgraduate Structured Management Framework for a 36 month full-time PhD programme. 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:

• A system of assessing and documenting the progress of students in accordance with the requirements set out in the Postgraduate Structured Management Framework for a 36 month full-time PhD programme should be in place.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Information provided to students should make clear the distinction between the complaints procedure and the appeals procedure. Communication should indicate the formal process to be followed under the complaints procedure at the outset.

Summary

Ms C was a PhD student at the university. She complained that the university unreasonably withdrew her PhD registration, and that they failed to follow the appeals process appropriately.

We found that the university had the authority to terminate a student’s PhD registration and that, ultimately, it was the academic judgement of university staff to do so in Ms C’s case, despite her disagreement with that judgement. By law, the SPSO must not investigate the exercise of academic judgement and, therefore, we could not reach a finding on this part of Ms C’s complaint.

In relation to the appeals process, we found that the university had no appeal regulations to cover Ms C’s specific situation, which was the withdrawal of her registration. However, they had regulations dealing with appeals on examiners’ decisions in relation to research degrees. Given that the context stated in the regulations was decisions on student assessment, progression and awards, they interpreted these regulations to cover Ms C’s situation. We noted that Ms C disagreed with the university’s interpretation of their regulations. We found that their interpretation was reasonable in the circumstances. Given this, and the evidence of the university’s formal communication with Ms C, we considered that the university followed the appeals process appropriately. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about his university’s handling of a personal circumstances application and academic appeals. Mr C said there had been breaches of university regulations.

We found no evidence of breaches of university regulations. We considered that Mr C disagreed with the academic judgement of staff assessing his work, and he disagreed with the decisions taken by the relevant committees and university staff about his personal circumstances application and academic appeals. However, his disagreement with the university’s interpretation of his evidence and their decisions was not evidence of an administrative failing on their part. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained about the university’s handling of her complaint, in particular that the university did not deal with all elements of her complaint, did not use all the supporting evidence she supplied, and wrote selective responses to the concerns she raised.

We found that the university identified several key points of complaint, which related to the key points Ms C raised in her complaint to them. The university dealt with each of these points, and considered all supporting evidence Ms C provided. While the university may not have included in their letter to Ms C every detail of the supporting evidence they considered, they included what they believed would explain the reasons for their decisions. The university carried out a thorough investigation and also made recommendations to remedy Ms C’s situation and to improve their service. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the outcome of two academic appeals.

We found that the university did not apologise for erroneously telling Mr C which section of the Procedure for Withdrawal and Exclusion of Studies he was being excluded under. We also found that the university's communication with Mr C, following a decision made by the Appeal Committee, was not sufficiently clear.

While the second appeal appeared to have been processed appropriately, it was not clear, even after further enquiries of the university, what had happened following Mr C's first appeal. For this reason we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for an error with regards to the section of the procedure under which he was excluded from his studies, and for the lack of clarity in relation to the appeals process and decisions following the Appeal Committee's decision. 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:

• The university should a) conduct an independent review of how the College Postgraduate Studies Committee's process and decision, following the Appeal Committee's decision, was communicated to Mr C and b) how the process and decision was subsequently expla

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, who had a long term medical condition, complained that the university unreasonably failed to put in place agreed reasonable adjustments for him when he was a student there. Mr C said that the university failed to comply with their duty to provide him with appropriate support and did not take into account how his medical condition affected him.

We found that the university had an appropriate policy and processes in place for supporting students with declared disabilities at the time Mr C studied there. We also considered that there was evidence that the university was responsive to the support Mr C required and the concerns he raised, and took reasonable steps to provide him with support and to put in place agreed reasonable adjustments. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.