SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the university's handling of his academic appeal was unreasonable. Mr C said that university staff marking his work were biased against him because of a previous disciplinary matter. We found that the university acted in line with their Academic Appeals Policy and Procedure. In their response to Mr C's academic appeal, the university explained why Mr C's supervisor, who had given evidence in relation to the disciplinary matter, had been involved with the marking due to the need for supervisors to provide specific comments. They also explained that other staff, who had no involvement with the previous disciplinary matter, had been allocated to mark his work to ensure impartiality. In addition, an external examiner had reviewed Mr  C's work and approved the mark awarded, as well as the overall degree classification. We found that the university's handling of Mr C's academic appeal was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201707870 as a PDF (23.76 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201702374 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C raised allegations in her academic appeal that she was victim of racial discrimination, both in the marking and supervision of her dissertation. The university refused Mrs C's academic appeal and failed to address the allegations of racial discrimination. Mrs C complained to us that the university failed to consider and respond to her allegations of racial discrimination and that they had inappropriately appointed a member of staff to mark her dissertation. We found that the university unreasonably failed to consider the allegations raised during the academic appeals process or register them as a complaint. The university should have identified the complaint and dealt with this appropriately, as part of either the academic appeal or complaint process. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint. However, we were satisfied that this would not have affected the outcome of her academic appeal. In relation to the university staff marking her dissertation, we found that Mrs C had not raised a complaint against the member of staff in question, despite being advised to do so if she had concerns. Therefore, we found that the university did not act inappropriately when appointing the markers of her dissertation. We did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the university's handling of his complaint, and about financial redress offered to him by the university. We found that the university considered all relevant events that led to Mr C's complaint, as well as relevant evidence from Mr C and from university staff and records. Mr C disagreed with the university's conclusion but that disagreement, of itself, was not evidence of an administrative failing by the university. The university accepted that they took too long to deal with Mr C's complaint. In responding to Mr C, the university apologised for and explained the delay, and they took steps to prevent a similar situation from happening again. The university offered financial redress for periods of Mr C's study that were affected by failings they identified, rather than the whole period of study as Mr C wanted. We concluded that the university's offer was reasonable in the circumstances. Mr C requested that the money be paid directly to him, however, the university intended to pay the money directly to Mr C's financial sponsor. We concluded that the university's decision to do this was also reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201604173 as a PDF (11.1 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained in his own right and on behalf of a fellow student (Ms A). He complained that the university failed to provide parts of the course as stated on the university website and in course handbooks. We found the website did not categorically state that the specific points raised by Mr C and Ms A were core parts of the course. However, the wording was unclear and, in response to Mr C and Ms A's complaint, the university acted reasonably by removing the unclear wording. We also found that what Mr C and Ms A said was advertised but not provided was, in fact, available to students. Mr C and Ms A said they were disappointed in the standard of the course, in particular module content, and how the course was described in the module handbook compared to what was actually delivered. We found that all modules were delivered as part of the accredited programme. In terms of what specific subject matter was taught, we explained to Mr C and Ms A that we cannot investigate the exercise of academic judgement, therefore, we could not reach a finding on the specific academic issues they raised. We did not uphold the complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201605965 as a PDF (11.15 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the university failed to send his exam results to his personal email address, failed to consider technical problems that occurred during the course, and failed to follow their complaints procedure. We found that exam results are always sent to a student's university email address and not to their personal email address, and no agreement was reached with Mr C to send his results to his personal email address. In relation to technical problems, there had been a problem with downloading software from the university. This was resolved by the university to enable download, and the problem was taken into account by the course's assessment board. Mr C claimed his computer and personal email account were hacked. However, it was Mr C's responsibility to have appropriate protection for his computer and email account, something for which the university could not be held responsible. Finally, we found no evidence that the university had failed to follow their complaints procedure. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201604354 as a PDF (11.04 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained that her university failed to provide adequate guidance for her first attempt at her dissertation. She also complained that the university did not allow her to resit two assessments that she had previously passed, even though she had mitigating circumstances. We found that when dealing with her academic appeal, the university accepted that there were problems with the supervision Miss C received. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint. However, because the university had already apologised to Miss C and she had resat the failed component, we had no recommendations to make as the matter had been remedied. University regulations were clear that a student could not resit an assessment that had already been passed in order to improve their mark, even if there were mitigating circumstances. In dealing with Miss C's case, the university balanced the need to adhere to their regulations with the exercise of their academic judgement. We cannot question the exercise of academic judgement, and there was no evidence that the university failed to follow their regulations in Miss C's case. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201605940 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C failed a piece of course work on his postgraduate certificate course. His appeal against the result was not upheld. He submitted a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and received evidence that suggested the university had not followed the assessment regulations when they held assessment boards that confirmed his fail. Specifically he received an email that the external examiner had sent stating that Mr C's resubmitted work should not be a fail. Mr C complained to the university that they had not followed assessment regulations and had not followed the advice of the external examiner. He also complained that the assessment board meetings were not quorate (having the necessary number of people present for decisions to be allowed to be made) nor properly attended by relevant board members. The university investigated and did not uphold his complaints. Our investigation found that the university had not followed its regulations, although following Mr C's complaint, advice had been sought retrospectively from the examinations office, which suggested that the external examiner's views could be presented in writing. This had not been done at Mr C's assessment boards either. We found that the inability to provide evidence that the external examiner's views were presented to the assessment board constituted an act of maladministration and that Mr C was entitled to an assessment board attended by the external examiner. We also found that the only available evidence of the external examiner's view showed they disagreed with the decision to fail Mr C. We did not find evidence that the assessment boards were not quorate or that the appropriate staff members did not attend. It is not our role to consider questions of academic judgement and accordingly, it was not possible for our investigation to consider whether the correct mark was awarded, or whether the course as a whole should have been passed or not. Nor was it possible for us to ord

A decision was taken to suspend Mr C from a placement in the third year of his degree course and a fail was recorded against the placement. Mr C listed many points of dissatisfaction with the university, the majority of which were disagreement with their academic and professional judgements. Mr C said he understood that his suspension from placement would be recorded as a non-placement and that he would be allowed to undertake another placement as if it were his first attempt. He appealed the results of three courses that the university had recorded as fails. His appeal was partly upheld when the university decided that without his placement it was not possible to attempt one of his courses. His other two courses remained recorded by the university as fails and he was required to re-take them as second attempts. He did not do this as he felt he had been treated unfairly when he was suspended from his placement and a fail recorded. Our investigation considered all the correspondence between the university and Mr C, the university's appeals procedure, and the records of their investigation into his concerns. We found that the university had fully considered Mr C's circumstances and followed their procedures in dealing with his concerns and his appeal. Related reading View Decision Report 201401371 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained about the way in which the university handled her application for Recognised Prior Learning (RPL - a process in which skills and knowledge gained outside formal learning are assessed and granted formal recognition) when she was accepted onto a course. She said that their handling of her application was unnecessarily protracted and flawed. She also complained about the way her complaint about this was handled. We upheld both Miss C's complaints. During our investigation we found that the university had failed to follow their RPL guidelines, as Miss C should have been provided with a named RPL adviser to support her in making the application. We found no evidence that she was told who her adviser was. Nor was there evidence that she had been provided with written support materials, which the guidance in place at that time identified as essential elements of the RPL support system. We also found that, while the assessor of any RPL claim should not normally be the RPL adviser, in this case the person the university identified as the RPL adviser had also assessed the claim, contrary to their guidance. Although we found that the identified assessor had not formally notified Miss C of the decision on her application, nor had it been considered by the assessment board as it should have been, we were satisfied that the university had written to her explaining why she did not meet the RPL criteria. Nevertheless we considered that, as correspondence became protracted, there was a failure to adequately explain the exemptions that the university were prepared to grant, and any right of appeal that Miss C might have had. Miss C also complained that her complaint was not adequately considered. She said that the university's formal response diminished the substance of her complaint, and that they failed to offer mediation in line with their complaints procedure. We found that the university had acted in line with their complaints procedure in not offerin

Mr C complained that Glasgow Caledonian University failed to fully investigate his complaint about an incident in the student halls of residence when security staff alleged that Mr C and two other colleagues were fly posting for the student elections without permission. Having reviewed the university's investigation we were, however, satisfied that it was carried out in accordance with their own procedures and that, in light of the nature of the incident, it was a proportionate examination of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201000815 as a PDF (13.46 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018