SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the university's handling of a late application they made for extenuating circumstances after their personal circumstances impacted on their attendance at university. C considered that, in handling their application, the university had failed to follow their procedures, failed to communicate clearly and accurately, and failed to ensure their appeal guidelines were clear. We found that the university had departed from their normal procedures on a number of occasions, but to the benefit of C, allowing for additional late appeals than were required by the regulations. On balance, we considered that the university had communicated clearly and accurately, despite incorrectly suggesting a request for additional information had been made at one stage. We also considered that their appeal guidelines were reasonably clear, given the complex subject matter and academic audience, and were encouraged by the support made available to students wishing to appeal, as well as the procedures for reviewing guideline content. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201901820 as a PDF (24.22 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mr C complained on behalf of his son (Mr A) that Mr A was unreasonably excluded from the university and that the investigation into the alleged misconduct was inadequate. We found that the university had reasonably followed their disciplinary and appeals procedures including keeping to timescales and providing an opportunity for Mr A to respond to the allegations brought against him. We also found that reasonable adjustments were made, including extending timescales for Mr A to respond and allowing additional parties to attend the disciplinary committee meeting to support Mr A if required. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201803887 as a PDF (23.61 KB) Updated: May 22, 2019

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201609703 as a PDF (10.94 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Miss A), a student at the university. Mr C's complaints were about the university's handling of the Fitness to Practise (FtP) process in relation to Miss A, and the university's handling of his complaint. We found that, in general terms, the FtP regulations were followed by the university. However, we had to consider whether the university's handling of this matter was reasonable. We had specific concerns about the introduction of new evidence at an investigatory meeting and an apparent lack of contemporaneous documentary evidence in relation to concerns about Miss A's fitness to practise. We also had concerns about Miss A and her student adviser not being given a copy of the investigatory meeting notes to check for accuracy and an apparent failure to provide an FtP panel hearing with information from Mr C. Given these concerns, we concluded that the university's handling of the FtP process in relation to Miss A was unreasonable and, therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We had some minor concerns about the university's handling of Mr C's complaint, in particular that the university did not provide us with a complaint file of all evidence considered in respect of the complaint. Nevertheless, the university's written response to Mr C dealt with each of the points he made. Having considered the complaint correspondence between Mr C and the university, overall we regarded the response Mr C received was reasonable in the circumstances, as it sought to outline the facts relevant to the points made in his complaint and to provide a proportionate response giving the university's definitive position. We did not see evidence to conclude that the university's handling of Mr C's complaint was unreasonable and therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C, an MP, complained on behalf of her constituent (Ms A). The complaint was that the university's promotional material about a degree course was unreasonable, as Ms A felt she was not told that her degree would not help her with her chosen career. We found that, while technically correct, the university's information was ambiguous. In dealing with the complaint, the university admitted their website could have been clearer and changed their published information to clarify it. In addition, the university offered Ms A a goodwill payment. While Ms A's circumstances were unfortunate, in our view there was no certainty she could have achieved more from the university's handling of her complaint, and we found that the university acted reasonably to clarify the information. On balance, we concluded that the university's promotional material about the degree was reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Ms A's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201602917 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that the university failed to follow the procedure and timescales for a student nursing fitness to practise hearing. She also said that there was a delay in signing off placement booklets, and that the university wrongly told her she would not be entitled to further bursary funds. We found that the university did follow the fitness to practise regulations. Where there was deviation from the timescales this was not significant and, in part, was done at Mrs C's request. We also found that the placement booklets could not be signed off until after the conclusion of the fitness to practise process. Finally, we found that Mrs C was not entitled to bursary funding as there was no medical reason for her period of study being extended; rather, it was due to academic failure. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201508522 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained about the university regarding charges for repairs required to her previous accommodation. She disputed that she was responsible for the damage in question and was unhappy that she had not been provided with evidence to support the charges. On investigation, we found that the university had failed to photograph the damage, in line with their procedures. We also considered that the level of detail recorded about the damage was insufficient to justify recharging the repairs. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Mrs C, who is a student association representative, made a complaint on behalf of a student (Mr A). Mr A had lodged an academic appeal (on the grounds of extenuating circumstances) which was only partly upheld by the university. Mrs C had submitted a formal request to the university (on behalf of Mr A) for a review of the decision to only partially uphold the academic appeal. However, this request had been refused. As a result of the university upholding its original decision, Mr A was not able to continue his studies. Mrs C and Mr A felt that the university had failed to reasonably consider Mr A's circumstances both in terms of the original appeal and the subsequent request for a review. Our investigation found that the university had not accurately taken into account all relevant information in order to consider the complete picture of Mr A's circumstances and to give his appeal fair consideration. Although they had allowed a late application claiming extenuating circumstances, they had not responded fully to that claim, and we found that the whole process was not reasonably followed.

Ms C complained about the way in which the university handled her academic appeal. The officer handling her appeal chose to process it as a complaint. We found that the officer had not followed the procedure appropriately. We found that written records of communications between the officer and Ms C and other academic members of staff had not been kept. We found this unreasonable, as it made it difficult to impartially assess what Ms C had been told. We also found that the officer had used a complaints process that did not comply with the university’s own complaints procedure, and we were critical of this. We made a number of recommendations to address the fact that procedures were not appropriately followed in Ms C’s case. We did not uphold Ms C's other complaints, including that she had not been told she could consult with an independent student advice service, as we found that she could reasonably have obtained a copy of the university’s complaints process herself. We also did not uphold her complaint that she was graduated in her absence without her consent, as the university provided evidence that Ms C had been sent the date of her graduation ceremony in writing. We also accepted their position that should a student’s appeal change a degree award, they would be invited to another ceremony as long as they had not crossed the stage during a previous ceremony.

Mr C, an international distance learning student on a postgraduate course at the university, complained that the initial communication of a change of assessment method was not communicated to him with reasonable clarity and within a reasonable timescale. He also complained that the university did not reasonably communicate the remit of the mitigating circumstances board to him; and did not reasonably communicate the decision of the mitigating circumstances board, and the consequences of that decision, to him. In addition, Mr C complained that the university’s response to his request for an academic appeal was not reasonable, both in terms of content and response time. We found from looking at the evidence that the university knew about the proposed change at least two months before they told Mr C. Mr C was sent an email about the change eight weeks before the examination. Given his circumstances, our view was that this was a tight timescale for him to make the necessary arrangements to sit the examination abroad. Taking this into account, and as the university’s mitigating circumstances board accepted that communication of the change of assessment method may not have been as clear and timely as could reasonably be expected, we upheld this complaint. We also found that the university focused on Mr C’s apparent misunderstanding of what constituted mitigating circumstances, and how it was not the appropriate process to use. Instead, the university said Mr C could have used the student complaints procedure. However, Mr C did raise concerns, both with staff and via comments on the mitigating circumstances form, but at no point was he directed to the appropriate process. We accepted that Mr C had a responsibility be familiar with university processes. In addition, we found that Mr C asked for clarification of the mitigating circumstances board’s decision, and what that meant for him. The university missed the opportunity to clarify the situation and, instead, simply told

Ms C complained that although she was accepted on to a university course, the university later told her that she would not be able to complete the course due to her disability. Ms C said that when applying she had declared in her application form that she had cerebral palsy. Ms C also complained about the way in which the university handled her complaint. Although this is the sort of issue that we might consider further, we decided under Section 7 of the SPSO Act 2002 not to investigate Ms C's complaint as she is now taking legal action against the university. Related reading View Decision Report 201100184 as a PDF (13.45 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018