SPSO Individual Decisions

Miss C complained that college staff did not take action to prevent her from being subjected to inappropriate behaviour from other students on her course. We found that the college had taken reasonable action in line with their policy and procedures when Miss C had experienced difficulties with other students in her class. While the record-keeping at one meeting could have been more detailed, we considered overall that the college had provided Miss C with reasonable support and taken steps to address episodes of unreasonable behaviour. Related reading View Decision Report 201602142 as a PDF (10.84 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was a college student, studying for a degree offered by a university in collaboration with the college. Mr C complained that the college did not provide him with support on the day of his final degree exam, as had been agreed. Mr C was also unhappy with how they dealt with his complaint. Mr C said a college tutor told him they should meet up 15 minutes before the exam, so the tutor could tell him where the exam was being held. The tutor said they did not make this arrangement. We did not find any written evidence that the arrangement had been made. In any event, Mr C found the exam room on time, and during the exam was provided with the support that had been agreed with the college. We, therefore, did not uphold this complaint. We found that the college carried out a thorough investigation of Mr C's complaint. However, their letter to him did not deal with the specific issues he raised and did not explain why they decided not to uphold his complaint. This is not good practice, and not in keeping with the model procedure developed by our Complaints Standards Authority. In addition, the college did not explain to Mr C that they were dealing with his complaint at stage two of their procedure. Therefore, we upheld this complaint. We also found, as the college did during their investigation, that there was a lack of clarity about telling students where their exams were being held, and so we made a recommendation to deal with this issue.

Mrs C complained that the college failed to explain why, after an admission interview, she was sent texts telling her that she had missed her interview, that the course was full and she did not have a place. She phoned to ask what had happened, and was not satisfied with the college's response. The college admitted that as a result of human error, text messages had been sent to people who should not have got them and they had apologised for this. We investigated and did not uphold her complaint, as we found that the college had adequately investigated it. They explained why this had happened and what they had done to stop it happening again. We considered the college's response to be reasonable. Mrs C also complained that the college failed to explain the bursary application process to her, and did not assist her during the process. She met with staff on several occasions about her application, and also emailed and wrote to the college. We found that when she met with staff they explained the information needed to process her bursary application and that she did receive appropriate assistance. However, we upheld her complaint about the explanation, as they did not provide the information in writing or ensure that she had access to the relevant student handbook. In addition, Mrs C was unhappy with the college's investigation of her complaint. She was concerned that it had not been investigated in an impartial way, because it was investigated by a member of staff who was part of her complaint. We upheld this complaint as we agreed that her complaint should have been investigated by another member of staff to ensure that the decision was as impartial as possible. We also noted that the final response was not signed off by the college vice-principal, as required by the college's complaints handling procedure. Overall, Mrs C felt that the college had discriminated against her because she was not born in the United Kingdom. After reviewing the information prov

Miss C, who was a student, complained that she was unfairly and hastily withdrawn from her placement (time spent in a workplace to get work experience). She said that when she complained to the college they did not follow their complaints handling procedure. The decision to remove Miss C from the placement was one that the college were entitled to make, and so our investigation focused on the administrative and procedural actions leading up to that decision, especially the handling of a meeting between Ms C and the college. Our investigation found that the college had, in considering Miss C's complaint, accepted that they should have explained why she was being called to the meeting, and that she should have been made aware of any concerns about her performance before it. As a result of the original complaint, the college had reviewed their procedures. Students will in future be advised in advance about the purpose of a meeting, and a log book has been introduced to record student progress. Miss C was concerned that two members of staff had attended the meeting, but we were satisfied that the college explained the reasons for this. We were, however, concerned that action was not taken earlier when the placement brought concerns about Miss C's progress to the college's attention, and that a number of days passed before calling Miss C to the meeting. We were satisfied that the college had considered and responded to the issues Miss C raised and had followed their procedures in handling her complaint. We did find that the question of who should attend an appeal hearing was open to misunderstanding, but we did not comment on this as the college have since introduced a two stage complaints procedure with no referral to an appeal hearing.