SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C raised a number of issues with the university relating to practical matters and supervision in the first year of his post-graduate research. He then submitted more complaints about matters he was unhappy about, including a complaint about alleged bullying and harassment. Mr C complained to us that the university had not dealt with the various issues he had raised with them and had not followed their complaints handling procedures. Our investigation found that the university did not progress all the issues Mr C raised as complaints and had not followed their procedures in dealing with all the complaints he had made, and so we upheld this aspect of his complaint. He also complained that the university did not adequately investigate and respond to his complaints. We did not uphold this complaint, as we found that the university carried out thorough investigations, responded in detail to the issues they considered, and made several informal attempts to resolve the issues Mr C raised.

Mr C was very ill during the third year of his honours degree and, after being admitted to hospital, was diagnosed with a significant illness. He submitted a special circumstances application for the exams he was about to take. When some six months later, at the end of his third year, Mr C received a fail mark for a second semester subject he said he was disadvantaged because he had missed foundation knowledge due to his absence through illness. He asked for his special circumstances to be taken into account for that subject. Mr C said he was given advice and reassurances that his submission of special circumstances for that subject would be considered at the end of his fourth year. He said the advice he was given was poor and that the reassurances given at the end of his third year were misleading. When he received his final honours degree award he submitted an appeal to the university about his grading because he felt the low mark awarded in third year had impacted upon his overall grade at the end of his degree. He said the university had not properly considered the impact of his special circumstances, which he had been told they would do at the end of his final year. He complained that proper procedures had not been followed in dealing with his special circumstances and appeal. Our investigation found that the university had fully considered the impact of his special circumstances and had followed their policy and procedures in dealing with his case, so we did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201400964 as a PDF (11.28 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C said that during an incident in the university he was assaulted and prevented from leaving by university staff, who called the police. The police then detained and searched him and a fellow student. When he complained to the university about the treatment he had received, his complaint was not upheld and he complained to us that his view of events was not taken into account, and so the university did not deal with his complaint in a balanced manner. Our investigation found that the university had interviewed all those involved and had taken account of the various views of events. In the light of the evidence they obtained, they decided not to uphold his complaint, as they were entitled to do. Related reading View Decision Report 201304327 as a PDF (10.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his son (Mr A). Mr A had submitted an academic appeal to the university because he felt that his work had not been considered fairly. He said that he had not received adequate support, and that he lacked confidence in the mark assigned because he felt staff were not impartial. The university found that there were no grounds to uphold his academic appeal. Mr C then complained to us that they had not reasonably investigated and considered Mr A's appeal. Although we cannot investigate matters of academic judgement, we can look at whether the appropriate processes were followed in reaching a decision on an academic appeal. Our investigation found that the university had thoroughly investigated the circumstances of Mr A's appeal, and had ensured that adequate and appropriate support was provided and that reasonable steps had been taken to ensure impartiality and verify the marks awarded. Related reading View Decision Report 201300999 as a PDF (11.04 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the university had not upheld his academic appeal about the mark he was awarded for his dissertation on a Master of Laws course. He felt his appeal had not been properly considered and examined. He raised many issues about his dissatisfaction with how the university had treated him, including application of procedures, matters of supervision, academic judgement and staff competencies. Of the issues he complained about, we were only able to consider those about how his appeal was handled, and whether the university had complied with their appeal regulations, as we cannot look at matters of academic judgment. Our investigation reviewed the content of the appeal proceedings and the evidence gathered. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that the university had followed its procedures and regulations. In particular, we found that they had taken account of the evidence that Mr C provided and considered the points he raised when deciding whether there was enough evidence to indicate that the appeal should be taken to the next stage. Related reading View Decision Report 201205167 as a PDF (11.1 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the university did not provide adequate supervision for his research and then did not deal adequately with his complaints about this. Our investigation found that the university had met the requirements of their guidelines for research supervision, and that Mr C's complaint of poor supervision was handled under their university's complaints handling procedure and investigated thoroughly. Although Mr C disagreed with the outcome of the investigation there was no evidence of maladministration and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201203352 as a PDF (10.81 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C was studying for a law PhD, but failed to pass her first year review panel, which she needed to do before she could move into second year. She was granted a second panel, which she also failed. As a result of this, the university terminated her studies. Mrs C then complained that she was not offered an appropriate level of supervision. She felt her supervisor was not sufficiently experienced and did not have the required subject knowledge. She also complained that the university failed to appoint a second supervisor for some time. The university upheld her complaint, in so far as they did not meet the requirements in appointing a second supervisor and that her supervisor did not have sufficient experience to act as a principal supervisor, in terms of their code of practice. They took the view, however, that effective supervision was still provided, which they evidenced by the considerable correspondence between both parties as well as the supervisor's academically challenging, but supportive, comments. The university apologised to Mrs C for the failures, and recommended that the law school explore the possibility of awarding a lesser degree. The school did so, but found that she did not meet the 50 percent pass mark required for such an award. After reviewing the evidence we reached a similar decision to the university, in terms of the supervisor's experience and the failure to appoint a second supervisor. We cannot challenge matters of academic judgment so we could not comment on the quality of supervision, but we did note that the university considered that it was good, and that they had evidence to support this view. As we have no role in considering academic appeals either, we did not comment on the decision to terminate studies or whether the criteria for an award of a lesser degree were met. We did, however, note that the university had not recommended that the school award a degree (as Mrs C had claimed), they simply recommended that the poss

Ms C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) who was working towards a degree of Doctor of Clinical Psychology. This was a three year course, the third year of which was assessed by practical placements and academic work, including a thesis. Ms C said that over the course of Mr A's thesis the university had failed to provide him with an adequate level of supervision in terms of their own policies and procedures. We found no evidence that explained the exact level of supervision a student should receive. This was because the level varies from project to project and trainee to trainee. There was also no evidence that Mr A had raised any concerns about the level of supervision while he was working on his thesis, and it was clear that Mr A and his supervisor disagreed about the level of supervision that was provided. There was insufficient evidence that the level of supervision was below an adequate level in terms of the university's policies and procedures, and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201102836 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018