SPSO Individual Decisions

C had enrolled on two short courses run by Queen Margaret University. They made a number of complaints to us about the action taken by the university in relation to adjustments that they requested for disabilities that affected the way they worked. C complained that the university did not initially provide them with reasonable support for the courses. We were satisfied that the university sought to make reasonable adjustments for C and that they demonstrably took account of C’s input when preparing an Individual Learning Plan (ILP). We did not uphold this complaint. C also complained that the university then unreasonably failed to provide the support that was agreed. We found that there had been a delay in providing C with a USB stick that the university had committed to provide them with and we upheld this complaint. We also found that there was no evidence of communication with C when their disability adviser was absent and that the Head of Student Services had failed to respond to C’s contact. We upheld C’s complaints about these matters. We also upheld C’s complaint that the university had failed to provide a note taker for a course. Although the equality legislation recognises that there can be more than one way to address an assessed need, in this case, the alternative arrangements did not run smoothly and did not address the matter within a reasonable timescale. We also upheld a complaint that the university had failed to provide a transcript of the course as previously agreed with C. We did not uphold C’s complaint that a lecturer had failed to respond to their contact about the course or their complaint that the university failed to deal with their complaint effectively.

Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter (Miss A) about the support the university provided to Miss A. Miss A had lost two grandparents, following an extended period of illness. This affected her time at university and she did not pass one of the modules necessary to progress to fourth year. After having an academic appeal turned down, Miss A returned to university to retake the module. The module was due to take place in the first semester but was cancelled due to an unexpected staff absence and rescheduled to take place in the second semester. This meant that Miss A did not have any tutorials or classes during the first semester but still had financial outlays relating to her rented flat and living away from home. Mrs C complained that, throughout this time, Miss A did not receive sufficient support from the university. She highlighted concerns about Miss A's experience of the university's personal academic tutor provision. She also complained that the university failed to provide appropriate support or guidance following the cancellation of the module. The university had partially upheld Mrs C's original complaint and had acknowledged that they had not provided sufficient support and guidance following the cancellation of the module. In respect of the personal academic tutor provision, the university initially did not identify any failings; however, in a subsequent response, they outlined a number of improvements relating to the department's personal academic tutor provision. We found that the personal academic tutor provision Miss A had received had not been delivered in line with the university's internal policies and guidance. In particular, we identified a lack of sufficient record-keeping and structure. We concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the delivery of the personal academic tutor provision was adequate or in line with the university's own policies and procedures. Overall, we concluded that the university did not provide Miss

Mr C made a submission of an assignment to the university. Having submitted the assignment a year previously, and failed on that occasion, the university considered this to be his second submission of this work. When the second submission was also marked as a fail, Mr C was obliged to withdraw from his course, in line with university regulations. Mr C complained that his second submission should not have been considered a second submission as his previous submission had been intended as a draft for feedback and his second submission had not been marked. We found that Mr C had not referred to his first submission as a draft until after he was aware it had been marked as a fail. We also found that he had not taken earlier opportunities to clarify that it had been intended as a draft. There was also evidence that the second submission had been marked. We did not uphold the complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201700088 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Ms C complained that the university’s investigation of her complaint about aspects of the course she was on was unreasonable. The university proposed a number of specific points of complaint to Ms C, and she accepted them as the basis for her complaint. Given this, the university made enquiries that related to the specific points of complaint, and not to other ancillary issues Ms C raised. We found that the university’s approach to their investigation was reasonable in the circumstances, as was the university’s response to Ms C. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201606885 as a PDF (10.81 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Miss A), who was a third year student at the university. At the end of the year, Miss A received her final results, which showed that she had not submitted several assignments. Miss A queried this with the school office as she said she had submitted the work electronically. However, the university could find no record of this, and they told Miss A she had to withdraw from the course. Miss A appealed against this decision but the appeal was not upheld. Miss A appealed again and provided copies of the missing assignments. While the university marked some of these, they did not uphold Miss A's appeal. Mr C complained about the conduct of the appeals process, and that Miss A had not been notified earlier about the non-submissions. He said the university gave Miss A unhelpful advice on what to include in her appeal, which meant that one of her papers was not marked. He was also unhappy that another paper was not marked (as the creation date of the electronic document was after the due date). He said Miss A had previously provided evidence of the correct creation date (in hard copy), but the university lost this. Mr C said the university should have provided more support to Miss A in making her appeal and kept her updated throughout the process. After investigating these issues, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the university had provided appropriate support and advice, and kept Miss A updated throughout the process. We considered the university's reasons for not marking two of the papers were adequate, as one of the papers was not included in the appeal, and there was no evidence the other was created before the due date. We also found the university had no duty to notify Miss A of non-submissions as their policies and guidance made it clear that students were responsible for submitting all work in hard copy and electronic format. However, we found that a member of staff gave Mr C inaccurate infor

Mr C enrolled as a student on a postgraduate course at the university. He complained that a lecturer had been dismissive of an enquiry he made during a class, which caused him to feel bullied. Mr C was dissatisfied with the university’s investigation into his complaint. He said the university had unreasonably failed to consider all relevant evidence. This included a failure to interview students who were present when the alleged bullying occurred, and a failure to obtain an audio recording of the class (which was available). Mr C left the university and received a full refund of his course fees. Our investigation found that the university had addressed Mr C's complaint about being bullied with the lecturer concerned. However, given the serious nature of the allegation, and in the interests of fairness to both Mr C and the lecturer, we considered that the university should have interviewed other students who were present. We also considered that, for the purposes of determining Mr C’s complaint, consideration should have been given to reviewing the audio recording. We found the university had unreasonably failed to consider all relevant evidence and so we upheld this part of Mr C’s complaint. Mr C also complained that the university did not have suitable policies and procedures in place for managing his allegation of bullying. Although the university did not have a specific bullying policy for students, we were satisfied that they had a number of policies and procedures in place which dealt with allegations of bullying made by students. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. As the university has a specific harassment and bullying policy and procedure in place for their employees, we recommended that they give consideration to introducing such a policy and procedure for students.

Mr C, who was a student, appealed against the results of an exam that he had not passed. The university did not uphold his appeal, and because this was his fourth unsuccessful attempt at the exam, Mr C had to withdraw from the course. Mr C was unhappy with the handling of his appeal, and complained to us. We were not able to consider his complaint at that stage, as he had not been through the second stage of the university's academic appeals process. After corresponding with us, Mr C wrote to the university to ask them to consider his appeal at the second stage, although it was over a year beyond the normal deadline for this. The university agreed to do so, and upheld his appeal, but offered him an alternative course to complete a different degree, rather than a further attempt at the exam. Mr C was not happy with the university's handling of his appeal, and complained again to us. He claimed that the university had not reasonably considered it, and had not taken his support needs into account when putting him through the second appeal. After considering the information provided, we found that the university had not followed its own policies and procedures in considering Mr C's second appeal. The appeal was considered by a single person, rather than an independent panel, and Mr C had not had an opportunity to hear and respond to the issues and evidence being considered. However, we found that the university had made reasonable adjustments to support Mr C in completing the appeals process.

Ms C complained that the university did not follow their regulations in the way they handled her PhD programme. She also complained that when she appealed against being de-registered from the programme, the university failed to respond reasonably to her appeals. The particular issues which Ms C complained about related to the way in which the university supported her with difficulties she encountered with her research, including the loss of samples and a change in blood sampling techniques. She also complained that they had not provided her with sufficient written feedback on assessments she completed for the course. When she declined to meet with staff on several occasions until they provided her with information in writing, the university started to invoke procedures for de-regulation. Ms C was unsuccessful in her appeals against her de-registration. We upheld the complaint about the way the university handled the PhD programme. Our investigation identified failings with the way in which the university provided feedback to Ms C following her assessments. Feedback was delayed, insufficient in detail, and not always in writing. We also identified issues with the sharing of other information about the conduct of research. In relation to the de-registration, our investigation found that the regulations had not been followed; insufficient notice was given of the situation, and this was followed by delays in providing responses to Ms C's appeals. However, we found that the content of the responses provided by the university was reasonable.

Mr C complained on behalf of his son (Mr A) who has Asperger's (a form of autism, in which people may find difficulty in social relationships and in communicating), that university staff had not been made sufficiently aware of his needs as a disabled student. Mr C told us that his son's disability was 'hidden', in that his condition was not obvious to those who met him. We agreed that there were some shortcomings in relation to Mr A's individual learning plan (ILP) which was not regularly updated or reviewed according to the university's policy. We did not find evidence to support Mr C's complaints that requests for additional clinical support and for a change of supervisor had been unreasonably refused. However, Mr C also complained that his son was invited to a meeting without making its purpose clear in advance, and without inviting him to bring along a supporter or advocate. We agreed that Mr A should have been invited to bring somebody with him, particularly as his ILP identified that in difficult situations he was prone to anxiety which could overwhelm him. We also found the outcomes of meetings between the university and Mr A were not adequately recorded. This was particularly important as he had an identified need to record and confirm verbal discussions.

Mr C complained that the university had not fairly and fully considered his appeal in relation to his first year assessment. Mr C failed three of four modules and was required to leave the course as a result. He went through the appeal process, and then through the complaints process as he was unhappy with the handling of his appeal. We found that the university did not acknowledge or consider some of the issues raised in his initial appeal, and we were critical of this. Mr C also provided further information in relation to an issue which was not acknowledged by the university. We were critical of this too. When Mr C complained about the way his appeal was handled, we found the university's response more thorough. It addressed all the issues raised, but we noted that one issue (which Mr C had not pursued via the complaints process) remained outstanding in relation to the original appeal. We found that generally the other points raised about Mr C's claims of extenuating circumstances were reasonably dealt with. On balance we upheld Mr C's complaint. We also noted the university appeared to have no guidelines in realtion to the use of proof readers and whether this would be acknowledged or taken into account in relation to the written presentation criteria for assessments, and made a recommendation about this.

Mr C studied remotely for a masters degree. He was required to write a dissertation over a period of two years. He proposed a topic for his dissertation and began work on it, supported by his allocated supervisor. Mr C said that he came to realise that his chosen topic had certain limitations. He requested a change of topic but was told that this would not be possible and that he would have to complete the original dissertation or withdraw from the programme. He completed the dissertation but failed. Upon being allowed to resubmit his dissertation, he again asked about a change of topic, but was again refused. Mr C complained that his change of topic was refused based on time constraints, but felt that there was ample time to complete the required work. He believed he would have passed his masters programme had he been allowed to change topic to one more relevant to his experience and interests. We found that, although the university's guidance does not mention a specific procedure for considering such requests, it makes it clear that the university has the ultimate say on whether a topic is acceptable. We found that Mr C was told that it was possible to change topics and that the decision was his. However, after submitting his proposed timeline, he was advised that he could not do so. He was told this in good time for completing the required work. After he asked if he could change topics for his resubmission, he was told that this was an option, but was strongly advised against changing due to the lack of support that would be available to him. We found that it was Mr C's choice not to change at this stage. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint as we were satisfied that nothing went wrong in the university's process when making the decision not to allow Mr C to change dissertation topics. We did, however, make a recommendation as, although they reached their decision quickly and did not alter it, we recognised that some of their communication with Mr C was confusing.

As Miss C accumulated more than four failures during her studies for an MSc in Art Therapy, she was required to withdraw from the course. She lodged an academic appeal which was unsuccessful and her stage 2 submission was not progressed to full academic appeal. Miss C complained that the appeal process was not carried out fairly and that the university delayed in responding to her appeal. From the evidence provided by Miss C, and from further details received from the university, we were satisfied that all relevant information was considered when assessing her appeal. We, therefore, did not uphold her complaint regarding the fairness of the process. Many of the concerns Miss C raised were academic matters which this office was unable to consider. It was clear, however, that the university delayed in responding to Miss C's appeal. They accepted this, and advised of steps they had since taken to create a post for the administration of complaints and appeals. The person in this new post will also be available to offer advice to students throughout the process. As we considered this action to be reasonable, we did not make any further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201100839 as a PDF (14.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018