SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the support they received as a disabled student while attending the university. C said that the university failed to put appropriate reasonable adjustments in place to meet their needs. However, the university were satisfied that appropriate support and reasonable adjustments were put in place. We highlighted to C that the purpose of our investigation was not to assess each individual measure taken by the university or interaction C had with staff and decide whether they were reasonable. Given the circumstances, we considered it reasonable to expect that some measures may not be successful and that there may be disagreement over what actions were put in place or how they are delivered. We concluded that the university made appropriate efforts to assess what support and reasonable adjustments should be put in place. Where the university concluded that certain adjustments suggested by C went beyond what they considered reasonable, we were satisfied that appropriate explanations were provided. In light of this, we did not uphold this complaint. C also complained about the university's handling of their complaint. We did not have any concerns about the thoroughness of the university's investigation or response. However, there were significant delays to the university's complaint handing at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the process. In addition to this, the university have acknowledged that they did not provide appropriate updates to C during this time. On the basis of the delays in handling C's complaint and providing updates, we upheld this complaint. However, as the university had already taken what we considered to be appropriate action, we did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201907236 as a PDF (24.46 KB) Updated: August 18, 2021

Miss C, a student adviser, complained on behalf of a student (Miss A) regarding the university's stage 2 appeal outcome letter. She complained that the outcome letter took 20 weeks to be completed as opposed to the published timescale of four weeks; that the university did not apologise for failings they had identified through the appeal consideration; that no further reasons were given for the stage 1 appeal being turned down; and that it was not clear whether the additional evidence provided at stage 2 was taken into account. We considered that the delay in the stage 2 outcome letter being issued was unreasonable, although we noted that the university had apologised for this and had made changes to prevent this occurring in the future. We accepted that it will not always be appropriate to put information about lessons learned in the academic appeal outcome letter; however, we considered that any failings identified in appeal should be formally apologised for, either in the outcome letter or in a separate letter. We also considered that the stage 2 appeal outcome letter could have stated more clearly that all additional evidence had been considered. We upheld Miss C's complaint.

Mr C had a number of concerns about the way the university handled a disciplinary process and an appeal process. Mr C was subject to an allegation that he had committed academic misconduct in relation to a coursework submission. Mr C was invited to attend a disciplinary meeting to discuss the allegation. Mr C wished to bring his mother to the meeting; however, the university informed him that he could not do this under their policy. Following the conclusion of the meeting, Mr C was found guilty of collusion and a penalty was applied. Mr C appealed the outcome of the appeal process. An informal meeting was arranged, to which Mr C brought his mother and university staff for support. No procedural failing was identified during the appeals process and Mr C was informed that grounds did not exist for the appeal to be considered. We found that the university failed to consider making a reasonable adjustment in relation to the policy for who may accompany a student to a disciplinary meeting. We also found that the university failed to document their consideration of part of Mr C's appeal and provide him with a reason for their decision on this point. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaints about the disciplinary and appeal processes.

Miss C, a student advisor, complained on behalf of a student (Ms A) about how Ms A's academic appeals were handled. Ms A was enrolled on a masters course at the university. Ms A was given an alternative exit award of a postgraduate diploma. Ms A submitted a Stage 1 and a Stage 2 academic appeal. We found that the university failed to check the date that Ms A received her result before issuing their Stage 1 academic appeal response and that the university failed to consider the reason why Ms A's Stage 1 academic appeal was late. We also found that they failed to acknowledge Ms A's Stage 2 academic appeal within ten days and failed to keep Ms A updated on the progress of her Stage 2 academic appeal contrary to the university's policy. The assessor appeal response form also was not completed for Ms A's Stage 2 academic appeal. We upheld Miss C's complaints.

Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter (Miss A) about a number of failings by the university. During her final year at university, both of Miss A's parents were admitted to hospital unexpectedly. Miss A approached her dissertation supervisor to advise of this and the information was also passed to Miss A's academic mentor. Neither the supervisor nor the mentor advised Miss A of the university's process for having mitigating circumstances taken into account. Miss A was dissatisfied with her final degree classification and, particularly, the mark awarded for her dissertation. Following advice on the university's website, she approached her mentor to seek information about appealing these decisions. The mentor told Miss A that she could not make a complaint or an appeal at that time, but that she could graduate and then appeal her degree classification. The mentor called Miss A shortly before the scheduled graduation to advise her that the information they had given her had been incorrect. A number of complaints and an appeal were then submitted, however, Miss A said that the mentor encouraged her to drop her appeal. In considering the appeal, the university identified that a number of procedural errors had occurred. The university decided that there were mitigating circumstances that had affected Miss A's final year but that they could not measure the impact this had on her academic performance, as only her dissertation had been affected. Mrs C then brought a complaint to us. Mrs C complained that: the university did not provide reasonable academic support to Miss A during her studies; the university did not correctly signpost Miss A to the appropriate processes when she approached her dissertation supervisor with mitigating circumstances; the university provided Miss A with inaccurate information regarding complaints and appeals; Miss A's academic mentor inappropriately encouraged her to withdraw her appeal on the evening before, and the morning of, he

Mr C was removed from his PhD studies following his annual review on the basis of his academic knowledge and performance not being of the required standard to complete his studies. Mr C appealed the decision through the academic appeals process and in supporting his appeal, he complained that the university had not responded appropriately to his requests to change his academic supervisor. He considered that the university's failure to support him in this matter had had an adverse impact on his studies. The university considered this matter, together with a consideration of his academic performance, as part of the academic appeals process. The university considered that Mr C had access to supervisory support during his studies and that his academic performance was not impacted by the relationship with his supervisor. They upheld their original decision to remove him from the course. Mr C was not satisfied with this response and brought his complaint to us. Mr C complained to us that the university had failed to respond reasonably to his requests for a change of supervisor. We requested relevant documentation from the university relating to their consideration of Mr C's concerns about his supervision. The university delayed in providing information to us, and were unresponsive to several communications requesting information. The university's response explained that they had failed to appropriately consider Mr C's concerns about his relationship with his supervisor and that the university's policy was to encourage the relationship to develop over the first year and review matters at the annual review. The university acknowledged that this was not appropriate in the circumstances and that they missed signs that Mr C's relationship with his supervisor had broken down. The university accepted that the concerns about Mr C's supervisor should have been addressed through their complaints procedure rather than at an annual review and through the academic appeals p

Mrs C complained that the university had not responded reasonably to her complaints about the quality of teaching on her course, and that the university had not responded appropriately to allegations she had made that her tutor had bullied and harassed her. We found that the university had not responded to all of the issues that Mrs C raised with them about the quality of the teaching on her course. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. On the topic of bullying and harassment, we found that the university had not correctly followed their Harassment and Bullying Policy and Procedures when they dealt with Mrs C's complaint about this. We also found that in their response to Mrs C on this issue, the apologies they included were insufficient as they were qualified apologies which said that the university was sorry if Mrs C had taken offence, rather than saying they were sorry for the failings. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Ms C complained to us that the university had not followed their harassment and bullying policy and procedures for students after she made a complaint that she had been harassed and bullied by her PhD supervisor. Ms C sent the university a recording of a meeting with her supervisor with her complaint. She said that the supervisor had made her feel threatened at the meeting. The university decided that they could investigate Ms C's complaint without listening to the recording and destroyed it before they met the supervisor to discuss the matter. We found that the university had not carried out an adequate investigation into the matter. The allegations Ms C made were serious and we considered that the university should have recorded more clearly the reasons why they felt they could investigate the complaint without listening to the recording before they destroyed it. We also found that the university had not issued an adequate response to the issues Ms C had raised. The response said that they would implement the three requests she had made but did not advise her of the outcome of their investigation into her allegations. In addition, the response did not advise her of how to escalate the matter if she considered that the outcome was not satisfactory. In view of these failings, we upheld this aspect of her complaint. Ms C also complained that the university had not followed their complaints policy. The university's complaints policy states that it is important to be clear from the start of the investigation exactly what is being investigated and to ensure that both the person making the complaint and the complaints officer understand the scope of the investigation. However, there was no evidence that the university had contacted Ms C to discuss the scope of the investigation before issuing their response to her. We did not consider that the university's email to her was an adequate response to the issues she had raised. In addition, the university did not

Ms C was enrolled as a postgraduate student at the university. During and in the period following her course, Ms C had a number of concerns, including about supervision, the administration of the programme, assessment, communication and the cancellation of the postgraduate show. Ms C submitted a complaint to the university regarding these matters. In their complaint response the university acknowledged a number of shortcomings and outlined steps that would be taken to improve administration. The university also apologised to Ms C for the distress and inconvenience she experienced throughout the programme. In the course of our investigation, we did not find evidence that the university had failed to adequately meet Ms C's request for a new supervisor without delay. We were also satisfied that the university provided Ms C with feedback following assessment. Although Ms C felt that the university failed to address her concerns about group work on the course, we found that the university met with Ms C to discuss this issue and we were therefore satisfied that the university acted appropriately. We did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint. Ms C said that the university had failed to inform her that part of her work would not be assessed. We did not find evidence to support this, and we did not find that the university acted inappropriately. Ms C also said that an assignment posted online had changed after it had been made available to students. Similarly, we did not find evidence that this had happened. Ms C also complained that the university did not provide adequate access to workshops during the course. We did not find evidence that the university failed to follow its procedures in relation to this matter. Ms C complained that the university failed to provide her with a reasonable space in order for her to display her work for assessment. We did not find that the space given to Ms C was materially different to that afforded to other students. Ms C

Mr C complained about the university's response to allegations of plagiarism. In particular, he complained that the university had failed to follow procedures in the disciplinary process, and that they failed to follow procedures in relation to his academic appeal. The university accepted that there had been failings and made a proposal for resolution, which Mr C was unhappy with. The university agreed to re-open Mr C's complaint with a view to trying to reach a resolution, and Mr C was advised that he could bring his complaint to us in the event that he remained unhappy. Related reading View Decision Report 201603952 as a PDF (10.84 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about how the university had responded to complaints he had made to them. We began to investigate the matters but Mr C advised us that he had resolved his issues with the university. We considered whether there were grounds for us to continue our investigation in these circumstances but decided that there were not and closed the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201504380 as a PDF (10.73 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018