SPSO Individual Decisions

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) who was a student at Edinburgh College. A has Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD, a developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people) and dyslexia (a common learning difficulty that can cause problems with reading, writing and spelling) and required additional support to fully access their course. C said that the college failed to provide the support that had been identified as being required for A. As a result of the lack of support, A felt that they had no option but to drop out of the course. We found that, whilst A's support needs had been appropriately assessed and shared with their lecturers, the college failed to adequately document and record the support process in a structured way. Important information about A's support package was not available due to staff absences or departures. We acknowledged that the college has since taken steps to improve their processes in this respect. A had also applied to the Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS) for funding for an upgraded laptop due to the software requirements of their course. We were critical that the college were unable to demonstrate that they presented the information that A asked to be considered by the SAAS in its entirety and without comment. As a result, we upheld this complaint.

Ms C brought a complaint to us on Ms A’s behalf about Edinburgh College. Ms A was a student at the college with a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome and is on the autism spectrum. Ms A was suspended from the college following concerns about her behaviour. Ms A was subsequently withdrawn from the course. Ms C raised concerns that the college had failed to provide Ms A with reasonable adjustments during her studies. We sought independent advice from an equalities adviser. We found that the college did make reasonable adjustments to support Ms A in accordance with their obligations. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C’s complaint. Ms C complained that the college did not reasonably follow their own policies and procedures regarding complaints that had been made about Ms A. We found that the college had failed to follow their own policies and procedures. In particular, we found that: the college did not give Ms A the full details of the reason for her suspension Ms A was not given five working days’ notice of the investigatory meeting Ms A was not made aware that she could bring representation to the investigatory meeting there was no record or minutes of the investigatory meeting Ms A was not made aware of the outcome of the investigatory meeting within five working days there is no evidence that the college responded to Ms A’s appeal against the decision to withdraw her from the course. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also complained about the way the college handled the complaint. We found that: Ms C’s complaint was not acknowledged within three working days of the college receiving the complaint there was a delay in responding to Ms C’s complaint and she was not kept updated on the progress of the complaint or provided with a revised timescale for the response. We upheld this aspect of Ms C’s complaint.

Mr C complained that the college's handling of his concerns about the behaviour of a learning support worker was unreasonable. We found that the college was aware of Mr C's support needs, how this affected him and had put in place reasonable support for him. We noted that two meetings that had been arranged to discuss Mr C's concerns were cancelled. However, we were satisfied from the evidence provided by the college that there were genuine reasons for these cancellations. Two meetings to discuss Mr C's concerns took place subsequently. We did not find evidence to make a finding that the support worker and college staff behaved inappropriately towards Mr C. We considered that upon learning of the difficulties in Mr C's relationship with the support worker, the college staff took reasonable action to try to address Mr C's concerns. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201804797 as a PDF (24.11 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Mrs C complained that there had been a lack of action by the college in response to allegations of bullying she had made concerning another student. After investigating Mrs C's complaint, the college confirmed that they considered bullying had taken place, accepted that they should have taken a more formal approach and apologised for this error. However, they said there was never any intention of suspending the other student. On investigation, we found that under the college's disciplinary procedures the bullying in question should have been classed as gross misconduct. The procedure stated that all instances of gross misconduct should lead to a suspension followed by a hearing held by a Vice Principal to decide what action was necessary. However, the college provided evidence that they had made the decision not to follow this formal procedure over concerns regarding the impact this may have on both Mrs C and the other student's well-being, as they both had specific vulnerabilities. We considered that it was within their discretion to make this decision. As such, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508308 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C, a student with additional support needs, complained about the processing of her application and the provision for her additional support needs. The college took over four months to give the correct information to a relevant third party, which delayed Miss C receiving relevant support. The access centre which assessed Miss C, while acting promptly to carry out the assessment, failed to communicate effectively after being informed Miss C had a change of address. Due to the delays in processing Miss C's application, she was without access to some of the support she needed for longer than necessary. We found that the college failed to reasonably to provide the support Miss C needed and made a recommendation relating to this. The college have acknowledged the findings of this investigation in this regard and apologised to Miss C. Communication from the college regarding what was required of Miss C in order to obtain additional support was poor. When Miss C complained about her experience regarding arranging and access to additional support, the college took longer than the target time to respond to the complaint. The time taken was deemed not to have been unreasonable given the complexity of the complaint. However, communication from the college to Miss C should have been better, and was largely reactive to contact from Miss C, rather than proactively seeking to update Miss C when the timeline had to be extended. We therefore upheld Miss C's complaint.

Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter (Miss A) about the college's failure to support Miss A's educational needs, specifically how the college and their staff dealt with Miss A during one academic year in relation to her attendance. Mrs C also complained about inaccurate information provided by the college to the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) and about the handling of and response to her complaint. We did not find evidence that the college unreasonably failed to support Miss A's educational needs or that their handling of and response to Mrs C's complaint was inadequate. We did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint. In terms of the information provided to SAAS, this did appear to be at odds with Miss A's student record. However, this resulted in a benefit to Miss A in terms of a reduced invoice from SAAS. We did not regard this as unreasonable and, therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. We did have concerns about the lack of a college procedure for the withdrawal of students on medical grounds and about staff making and keeping records of interviews carried out during the investigation of complaints. We made recommendations to address these concerns.

Mr and Mrs C complained on behalf of their son (Mr A) who is a former student at Edinburgh College. They complained that although Mr A had been diagnosed as dyslexic, the college delayed in organising the agreed support he needed. They also said that specific agreed support had not been available to him on the day of an exam and that after he received his results, he received inadequate feedback. They complained about the way the college dealt with their formal complaint about these matters. We investigated the complaint and found no evidence of a delay in the college's processing of Mr A's request for support. However, other agencies were also involved in this, over which the college had no control. In the meantime, the college updated Mr A's lecturers about his level of support but on the day of an assessment, although a computer was available it did not have a spellcheck facility. A separate room for Mr A's use was also not made available. As these things were part of Mr A's support plan, we upheld this part of the complaint. However, we found no evidence that the college had provided inadequate feedback on his assessment. Like other students, Mr A's papers were returned to him annotated with the marker's comments. When Mr and Mrs C complained, the college explored details of their concerns with them but took too long in terms of their stated complaints policy to deal with the matter. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mrs C was a student at the college. She complained about the behaviour of a member of teaching staff towards her. She also said that the staff member failed to provide agreed reasonable adjustments, that they scheduled some assessments in an inappropriate location and destroyed some of her assessment work. Mrs C also complained that the college's handling of her complaint was inadequate. We found that there was no independent evidence to support Mrs C's account of the staff member's behaviour; although this did not mean we did not believe her. However, given the lack of evidence, we could not reach a finding on this and, therefore, we could not uphold this aspect of her complaint. There was evidence to show that the staff member failed to provide agreed reasonable adjustments and scheduled some assessments in an inappropriate location, and we upheld these complaints. We did not find that the staff member destroyed some of Mrs C's assessment work; rather, the college only retained Mrs C's work for as long as was required by the Scottish Qualifications Authority. In addition, we were satisfied that the college's handling of Mrs C's complaint was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint. As the staff member had left the college, we did not make recommendations about their actions, as this would have no effect. The college have reminded staff of what constitutes inappropriate practice and to follow college procedure at all times. We were satisfied that the college have taken responsibility for what happened, and that their actions provide an assurance that this should not happen to another student. Related reading View Decision Report 201508268 as a PDF (11.33 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C said there was a lack of support during her course, and lecturers acted unreasonably in relation to a holiday she planned during term-time (first agreeing to reschedule assessments, then raising concerns about her attendance and expecting her to do the outstanding exams immediately on her return). Miss C also raised concerns about lecturers' communication on several occasions, and said the reference the college gave her was incomplete and inaccurate. When Miss C complained to the lecturer's manager, the manager arranged an impromptu meeting with Miss C and her lecturers to discuss this, without talking to Miss C first. Miss C made a further complaint, which the college investigated under their complaints handling procedure, but Miss C was concerned that they did not speak to the witnesses she had named or take into account all the evidence she gave them. The college upheld several parts of Miss C's complaint. They agreed that lecturers' communication was inappropriate on some occasions, and that Miss C's first complaint was not handled in line with college procedures. They also agreed that there was a lack of support during the first semester (as there was no learning development tutor), but they said this was beyond the college's control (as it was due to the unexpected absence of learning support staff). We investigated the issues and upheld four of Miss C's complaints. We found that lecturers failed to follow their policies for raising concerns about attendance, and we were critical that the college's response to Miss C's complaints did not refer to the relevant policies, and did not take account of Miss C's witnesses. We also found that lecturers failed to follow Miss C's learning support plan (without agreeing alternative arrangements), some of their communication was unreasonable, and some aspects of the college's reference were inaccurate or misleading. However, we found the lack of a learning development tutor during the first half of semester