SPSO Individual Decisions

C applied for a Collaborative Doctoral Award (CDA) programme. One of the key features of a CDA is the opportunity to work with an industry partner (IP) as well as academic staff. C complained that their supervision had been flawed and that there had been a lack of engagement with the IP. They also complained about how their complaint was handled. We considered the information both C and Glasgow School of Art (GSA) provided in support of the complaint. We found that C had regular supervision meetings which were documented as required. There is also evidence that C’s supervisors were readily available by email and responded promptly to C’s contacts. However, according to associated guidance from the Arts and Humanities Research Council Training Grant Funding Guide and their guide on CDAs, GSA should have set out the structure of the collaboration and the expectations of those involved. They did not define what a CDA is or the expectations of the IP and student. The student did not receive an induction at the IP’s business address nor was a supervisor appointed at the IP. We upheld this complaint. We were satisfied GSA had provided a reasonable response to C's complaint, which was about a number of different issues as well as supervision, and did not uphold that complaint.

Miss C complained about the university's communication with her regarding the visa she required to obtain to enter the UK to take up her place on a taught research degree. Miss C complained that the university unreasonably delayed in identifying the fact that Miss C required a Certificate of Acceptance of Study for a visa and delayed in advising her of this. We considered that the university had two opportunities to clarify Miss C's status with her and did not do so. However, we considered that it was Miss C's responsibility, prior to accepting the place on the course, to establish which visa she required and what documentation she needed to produce in order to obtain the visa. The fact she required a Certificate of Acceptance of Study from the university in order to obtain the visa was set out on the UK government's website. We noted that Miss C had accepted a place at the university in the knowledge she could not study in the UK without a visa but she delayed in providing this information to the university. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Miss C also complained that there was a delay in advising her that she required to demonstrate her ability in English by sitting a Secure English Language Test (SELTs) before she would be issued with a Certificate of Acceptance of Study. For this type of course, the UK government allows the university sponsor to determine how they evidence English language ability and it is the university's decision regarding whether or not they require a SELTS. However, we found that the university's website and correspondence did not make it clear that it requires students on this course who require a Tier 4 visa to sit an International English Language Test System (IELTS) test to prove English language ability. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.