SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C began her studies and was given a laptop by the university to assist her. The laptop went on to develop a fault and Ms C requested a repair. The university established that she had been given the laptop without having completed the normal procedures for assessing students requirements for assistance and allocating funds. After lengthy correspondence on the issue and a complaint, the university acknowledged that Ms C had a legitimate expectation that the laptop would be repaired, despite the fact that the appropriate procedures had not been followed. However, there was further delay and Ms C did not receive equipment for some time. Ms C complained that there was an unreasonable delay in repairing the laptop and in handling her complaint. Having looked at the correspondence, which included a further response to the complaint from the university and a refund of fees, we established that the university had acknowledged significant failings with respect to the handling of the complaint and the time it had taken to address issues with equipment. The university upheld these complaints and had indicated that it was taking actions to address how it handled complaints in future. We upheld these complaints but made no further recommendation for action by the university. Ms C also complained that the universities request for medical evidence from her was handled unreasonably and that they unreasonably recommended she left the course. We reviewed the communications with Ms C and found the university acted reasonably, and therefore we did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201803596 as a PDF (24.44 KB) Updated: November 18, 2020

Ms C complained that the university did not provide reasonable feedback following the re-examination of her thesis, provided inaccurate information about the timescales for submitting an appeal, did not process her appeal properly and provided her with inaccurate information about visa matters. We found that the university provided Ms C with inaccurate information about timescales for submitting her appeal. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. However, we did not make any recommendations as the university acknowledged this failure and apologised. The appeals procedure has also changed since Ms C's appeal. We found that the feedback provided to Ms C after the re-examination of her thesis was reasonable and that her appeal was processed properly. Therefore, we did not upheld these complaints. Finally, we found that Ms C had been given the wrong advice about visa matters at certain points, however there was also evidence that information provided to Ms C was on the basis of information from the Home Office, which the university were obliged to accept and pass on. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201700286 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained that the university failed to follow their assessment policy in relation to the re-assessment of his dissertation by an independent marker. He also complained about the handling of his academic appeal. We found that the university's assessment policy and related guidance did not, for Mr C's circumstances, specify how an assessment was to be re-marked or define what was meant by independent. The university explained that, in Mr C's case, an independent marker was someone who was not previously involved in marking Mr C's dissertation. We concluded that the university's explanation was reasonable, and that it was not proportionate to have a policy for every possible exceptional circumstance. We also found that the university's handling of Mr C's academic appeal was reasonable in the circumstances, as we found that they had acted in line with their assessment policy. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201608613 as a PDF (10.96 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Miss C complained that her university did not support her after she returned from suspension of studies, and about the university's handling of her academic appeal. We considered the information provided by Miss C and the university. We found that the university, in good faith, accepted certification from Miss C's GP that she was fit to return to study, and that Miss C had given the university no reason to question this until she appealed against the decision to withdraw her from study. The university provided evidence of email exchanges between Miss C and staff from after she returned from suspension and they reiterated that Miss C was certified by her GP as fit to study and that she did not inform the university of any problem at the time. They also said that there were no procedures relating to specific support in a situation where a student was returning from suspension of studies having been declared fit to return. We also found that the university dealt with Miss C's appeal in line with their procedures. On the matter of Miss C's academic appeal, we saw no evidence that the university's handling of the appeal was inadequate and we therefore did not uphold this aspect of her complaint. We were in no doubt that Miss C had health issues that had a significant impact on her, and the university were also aware of this. However, we found no evidence that the university failed to follow their procedures and, therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201502859 as a PDF (11.23 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the university did not acknowledge that feedback on his thesis contained factual errors. We explained to Mr C that we could not investigate complaints relating to the quality of his academic work, or the quality of the academic input by members of university staff. We found that, in dealing with Mr C's academic appeal, the university took account of the errors in the feedback. The university's appeals procedure said they had to tell a student the decision on the appeal within ten working days. However, it did not say they had to give a detailed account of how they considered the appeal and why they either accepted or rejected every individual point raised in the appeal. In Mr C's case, the university told him their decision on his appeal within the required ten working days. In doing so, the university explained why they concluded there were no grounds for Mr C's appeal, and that disagreement with academic judgement was not a valid ground for appeal. We were satisfied with how the university dealt with Mr C's appeal and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201405114 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained to us on behalf of a student (Miss A) who had been found guilty of collusion at an academic misconduct hearing. Miss A had appealed on the grounds that the university had not followed procedures in conducting the hearing. They had also terminated Miss A's enrolment as this was the second time a misconduct charge had been proven, which was their automatic penalty for this. Miss A said this penalty was unfair. When Miss A appealed, the university determined there were no grounds to consider the appeal. Miss C complained to us that the university did not follow their procedures in dealing with the misconduct complaint and that they unreasonably dismissed Miss A's appeal. We looked in detail at the way in which the university considered the misconduct allegation and asked for more information about what happened, and about the procedures involved. Our investigation found that the university had followed their policy and procedures in dealing with the alleged misconduct and the subsequent appeal. Although there were some minor issues about the accuracy of the record of the misconduct hearing, these did not materially affect how the university handled it. We noted that they had already taken steps to address these, so we made no recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201305935 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained that the university refused to terminate her lease under their exceptional circumstances policy, when she applied for this on medical grounds. She appealed against the decision but her appeal was not upheld. Miss C took alternative accommodation but was still liable for lease payments at her university residence. She also complained that student accommodation staff did not respond to her emails and other communications alerting them to her problems. After investigating these complaints, we did not uphold them. Our investigation found that the university had applied their policy and correctly followed their procedures. They had repeatedly given Miss C advice about the specific medical evidence she needed to obtain in support of her application, but she had not produced this. We found that staff replied promptly and helpfully to all but one email. This was about her request for a move to en-suite accommodation, as they had none to offer at the time and it was not their policy to respond to requests that could not be met. We did, however, point out that they might wish to consider how they could better respond in future to such requests. Related reading View Decision Report 201204876 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the university mishandled an appeal into allegations of misconduct by his son. In particular, he complained about what he considered to be an excessive penalty of exclusion and the time taken by the hearing to reach their decision. He also complained that they unreasonably considered previous misconduct by his son (during his stay in residential student accommodation) when reaching their decision but failed to take account of the successful completion of his previous year of study and placements. We found that the correct penalty was imposed in terms of the university's procedures as this was the second episode of non-academic misconduct. We noted that although there was some delay in arranging the hearing, this was reasonable because evidence had to be gathered beforehand. We also found that, although the university were entitled to take account of the residential accommodation misconduct, this did not have a significant bearing on their decision. In addition, the university explained that they do not take previous academic performance into account when imposing a penalty of this nature, which we accepted. Related reading View Decision Report 201201320 as a PDF (11.21 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss A was a nursing student at the university. She was removed from her placement and then from the nursing course. Miss A’s MP (Mr C) complained that the university inappropriately removed Miss A from the nursing course; unreasonably failed to have a clear policy in place for supporting students on placements; and failed to communicate the termination of Miss A’s studies, and explain her full appeal rights, in a clear and timely manner. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. Our investigation found that the university had taken Miss A’s personal circumstances into account during her course. On three occasions Miss A had been offered the chance to defer her studies, but she declined. Taking this into account, as well as relevant university and nursing organisation guidance and regulations, we could not conclude that the university inappropriately removed Miss A from the course. We found that the university were using a toolkit on dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia (all types of learning disorder) that was published by a nursing organisation. The university also had documents which showed that training specifically about dyslexia was undertaken with placement mentors. In addition, we found that letters from the university did explain that her studies were being terminated. The university provided Miss A with copies of their appeal procedure which, in any case, she had a responsibility to be aware of as a registered student. University staff also explained the appeals process and referred Miss A to sources of advice and support. Related reading View Decision Report 201103440 as a PDF (11.42 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that he was unreasonably evicted from university accommodation because the university failed to properly and fairly consider his appeal against their decision to terminate his tenancy. Although we had obtained the relevant papers and records, we needed more information in order to investigate the complaint, but Mr C was unavailable as he had gone abroad. We asked him if he wanted to give his consent for someone else to act on his behalf, but did not receive a reply. We were, therefore, unable to come to a decision on his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201103991 as a PDF (10.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C was studying for a degree. There were problems with the course in her final year. Several students, including Ms C, appealed their honours classifications and, because of this, the university carried out an investigation. Ms C's honours classification was upgraded, but she felt it merited a further upgrade and so she appealed again, but the appeal was dismissed. Ms C complained to our office that the university failed to provide her with a reasonable explanation for their decision to upgrade her final results along with those of a number of others on her course. We found from looking at the evidence that the university's investigation of the problems on the course indicated systemic failings in the frequency and quality of feedback from academic staff to students. The university did not tell Ms C this in their letters about her appeal, and they explained to us that such an explanation would not normally form part of appeal letters. As this was an exceptional situation, we took the view that it would have been helpful if the letters had stated the key outcome of the review about the feedback failings. This might have helped explain to Ms C why there was an apparent disparity between the feedback she received from academic staff and the honours classification she was awarded. We drew this point to the university's attention. It was clear that Ms C wanted to know what went wrong on the course and the reasons why. However, this was different from an explanation of why the university upgraded her honours classification. The university's academic regulations did not require them to provide an explanation for the decision to award a mark, grade or honours classification. The requirement was that they notify a student in writing of the decision, which they did. The university combined this notification with the outcome of Ms C's first appeal, which was upheld due to material administrative error. This was the ground for appeal that Ms C ticked on the appeal form. Takin