SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about how the university handled their complaint that related to their disability and housing. We found that the university's decision to request further information from C about their disability to be reasonable and in line with their policy. We also considered it reasonable that the university asked C for further information about some serious allegations that they had made. However, we found that the complaint should have been progressed to stage 2 of their complaints handling procedure from the beginning, with the delay of 18 days, which in the specific circumstances here appeared unreasonably inflexible. On balance, we upheld this complaint as we did not believe it was properly processed and the university's communication with C could have been better.

C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of their client (A) who was formerly an international student at the university. A had a history of health issues, which had impacted on their exam performance. A was excluded from the university as they had reached the exam attempt limit (under the UK Visas and Immigration Tier 4 Regulations) and the university did not consider that there were exceptional circumstances to grant a concession. A submitted an appeal against the university’s decision; however, the university did not uphold the appeal. A remained dissatisfied with the decision to exclude them and C complained to SPSO. C raised concerns about a number of aspects of the process followed by the university. These concerns related to the university’s consideration of the medical evidence and immigration advice; the failure to offer A an interview during the exclusion process; and failure by the university to provide adequate reasons for their decision. We did not find evidence of maladministration or service failure in the way the university reached their decision to exclude A. We did not uphold C’s complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201903883 as a PDF (24.23 KB) Updated: December 16, 2020

C was enrolled on a programme at the University of Edinburgh. C complained about the university's response to reports of bullying during their placements. We found that the university took reasonable action to address C's concerns regarding the difficulties they experienced on placement, in line with the relevant university procedures. We did not find evidence that the university failed to follow their own procedures regarding the reports made by C. C complained that the university unreasonably denied them the opportunity to re-sit a small number of placements. We did not find any evidence of maladministration and procedural failings which would lead us to question the merits of the decisions taken by the university. C also complained that the university did not reasonably respond to their appeals. We did not find any evidence of maladministration or a procedural failing which would lead us to question the merits of the decisions taken by university in relation to C's appeals. We did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201800154 as a PDF (24.12 KB) Updated: October 21, 2020

C complained about the university's handling of their complaint in relation to language used by an external tutor that C felt was inappropriate. C told us they were specifically concerned that the tutor was not contacted or interviewed as part of the investigation and that it was unreasonable that correspondence between the tutor and the Dean of the relevant school was not included in the appendices of the investigation report. We found that there was no requirement for the university to contact or interview the tutor as part of the investigation or for the correspondence to be included in the investigation report but that these things would usually happen. We found that the reasons given in the report for why the university had decided not to contact or interview the tutor were inaccurate. We also found that the university did not make clear all of the reasons why the correspondence between the tutor and the Dean were not included in the report. Therefore, we considered that the university had not responded to C's complaint reasonably and upheld the complaint.

Mr C complained about the university’s handling of an academic appeal. Mr C had appealed a decision reached by the Board of Examiners following a previous academic appeal which was upheld. Mr C submitted that the calculation method used by the board of examiners was procedurally incorrect. The appeal sub-committee who considered Mr C’s appeal did not consider that he had established grounds for appeal. Mr C complained to us that the report of the appeal sub-committee contained factual inaccuracies and that it did not consider the points of appeal he had raised. We considered the appeal documentation and the relevant university policies and regulations. We found that the documentation of the board of examiner’s decision was not clear and we also noted that a member of staff had not communicated with Mr C precisely about the decision. We considered that the evidence showed that the appeal sub-committee did not give adequate consideration to the points Mr C made in his appeal. We upheld Mr C’s complaint.

Ms C complained about the university's investigation into her complaint to them. Ms C had a number of concerns including the length of time that the university's investigation took to conclude, that the investigator was not impartial, and that the university had inappropriately told her that she was bound by confidentiality in relation to the complaint. We found that the university's investigation into Ms C's complaint had been reasonable. We noted that the investigation was complex and involved interviews with a number of parties, and that the university had already apologised for the length of time taken to conclude the investigation. We did not find any evidence to suggest that the university's investigator was not impartial. We determined that it had been reasonable to remind Ms C that there was a need for confidentiality during the investigation, though we fed back to the university that they may wish to consider how this information is given in future investigations. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201709160 as a PDF (23.71 KB) Updated: February 20, 2019

Mr C complained that the university's communication regarding his complaint was unreasonable and that they failed to conduct their investigation of his complaint to a reasonable standard. We found that there had been delays in the university's communication and that inappropriate and unprofessional language had used by a key staff member in internal communication about Mr C. We saw evidence of Mr C's concerns having been minimised or dismissed, rather than being taken seriously with efforts being made to address them. We considered that the poor communication in respect of Mr C's complaints had a significant impact on his learning experience. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. In relation to the complaint investigation, we noted that the investigator had not consulted the supporting evidence Mr C submitted with his complaint. We considered that these documents should have been read and understood before investigative interviews were carried out, so that there was a full understanding of the matters Mr C complained about. We also found that the investigator had been overly reliant on subjective statements. We considered that the investigation fell below a reasonable standard and failed adequately to address Mr C's concerns. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained on behalf of his friend (Mr A) that the university failed to give reasonable consideration to the appeal he submitted on behalf of Mr A. Mr C complained that the university had failed to take account of, or give due weight to, the evidence he provided and that his correspondence had been ignored. We found that Mr C's complaint had been dealt with in accordance with the Student Appeals Regulations. All of the available documentation and correspondence provided by Mr C had been carefully considered, but the view was taken that the terms for appeal had not been met. A letter was sent explaining this fully to Mr C. While it was clear that Mr C disagreed with this decision, there was no evidence to suggest that there had been failings or shortcomings in the appeal process. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201800429 as a PDF (10.98 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained about the outcome of two academic appeals. We found that the university did not apologise for erroneously telling Mr C which section of the Procedure for Withdrawal and Exclusion of Studies he was being excluded under. We also found that the university's communication with Mr C, following a decision made by the Appeal Committee, was not sufficiently clear. While the second appeal appeared to have been processed appropriately, it was not clear, even after further enquiries of the university, what had happened following Mr C's first appeal. For this reason we upheld the complaint.

Mrs C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A). Mr A, a postgraduate student, became the subject of two misconduct investigations by the university. The first was about several allegations of misconduct related to Mr A's behaviour (case A). The second related to an allegation of academic misconduct in a paper published by Mr A at a conference (case B). Following investigation, both cases were upheld by the respective conduct investigators and both were referred to a student disciplinary committee (SDC). Following a hearing, the SDC upheld case B and most of the allegations under case A. The SDC decided to exclude Mr A permanently from the university, with no eligibility for re-admittance on any course or degree programme. Mrs C complained that the university's investigation of both cases was unreasonable, as important aspects of the process were unfair, perverse, irrational or arbitrary. Mrs C also complained that the conduct of the SDC and the disciplinary penalty imposed were unfair. Amongst other things, she raised concerns that: Mr A was not offered an interview during the investigation into case B; the SDC hearing went ahead despite Mr A submitting a medical certificate stating he was unfit to work; several witnesses who had been asked to attend the SDC (to support case A) decided at a late stage not to attend; and the SDC did not allow Mr A to have a translator or take into account that he speaks English as a second language. We found that Mr A received adequate notice of the allegations, and had a reasonable opportunity to respond. The evidence provided by the university showed that the investigators had taken into account relevant evidence and given detailed reasons for their decision, which were shared with Mr A before the hearing. We noted that the university's policy did not specifically set out how they would deal with requests for postponing an SDC hearing (for example on medical grounds), or how they would take into account stu

Mr C complained to us about the university's handling of his academic appeal. In particular, he complained that his appeal was initially considered informally by his college within the university, that the formal appeal sub-committee did not consider all aspects of his appeal and that a conflict of interest was overlooked. We found that it was not clear why a draft of Mr C's appeal was considered informally by his college, and we found that communication with Mr C about this was not clear. We made recommendations to the university to remedy this issue. However, we did not find evidence that this consideration had a detrimental impact on the consideration of Mr C's formal appeal, as he was able to submit his formal appeal within the deadline set in the regulations. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. The formal appeal sub-committee saw the evidence submitted by Mr C, as well as evidence the university administration gathered from academic staff. A member of the sub-committee suggested that Mr C's college should draw examiners' attention to programme-specific regulations, and we made a recommendation to address this point. However, the sub-committee concluded that Mr C did not meet the grounds for appeal. While we appreciated that Mr C disagreed with their decision, the sub-committee were entitled to reach their own view on the evidence available to them as part of the formal appeal process. The evidence showed that Mr C's formal appeal was handled in line with the regulations. We did not uphold this part of the complaint. In relation to a conflict of interest, Mr C did not raise this issue in his formal appeal and, based on the information we saw, there was no evidence of a conflict of interest. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained that during her time as a PhD student at the university, the university unreasonably failed to follow the code of practice for supervisors and research students. She specifically complained that the university failed to appoint a second supervisor for her, and that her main supervisor had not organised a first year review to assess her progress. Ms C also said the university unreasonably failed to follow the postgraduate assessment regulations, as her principal supervisor did not tell her about of all of the assessment practice and requirements, or the code of practice. Ms C said that the delays and the non-performance of services, together with her loss of trust and confidence in the university, resulted in her withdrawing from the course. In addition, Ms C complained about the university’s investigation of and response to her complaint. We found that there was a considerable delay in the university appointing a second supervisor for Ms C and that they failed to act in accordance with the code of practice. While we were critical of this, we noted that there were frequent supervisory meetings with Ms C’s main supervisor in line with the code of practice. The evidence also showed that the university unreasonably failed to carry out a review of Ms C's work within nine to twelve months of her enrolment, as set out in the code of practice. We therefore concluded that the university unreasonably failed to follow the code. We upheld this part of Ms C ’s complaint and made recommendations to address this. In terms of the postgraduate assessment regulations, the evidence suggested that for Ms C’s first academic year of study, it was her responsibility to be aware of the assessment practices and requirements. We also noted that the university may have provided Ms C with information on the code and regulations, including assessment practice and requirements, in a joining instruction mailing sent before Ms C started her course. We therefore considered

Mr C was a postgraduate student at the university. Two pieces of work he submitted were judged to have been plagiarised due to the style of citation and referencing used. Academic misconduct penalties were applied to the pieces of work following an investigation by the college academic misconduct officer. Mr C was unhappy with this decision and appealed to the university. Mr C was not satisfied with the outcome of this appeal and so brought his concerns to us for further investigation. Mr C complained that it was inappropriate to investigate him for academic misconduct, that the appropriate procedures had not been followed and that the penalties were unreasonable. After making enquiries with Mr C and the university, we did not uphold these complaints. We found that the academic judgement of university staff was that there had been misconduct, and the appropriate procedures had been adhered to when investigating this. We found that the penalties applied to Mr C's work were in line with the these procedures. We did identify two areas in relation to the provision of information to students that we considered could benefit from review, and we made two recommendations.

Miss C was unhappy with the honours classification of her degree. She complained to us about the university's handling of her academic appeal. The classification decision was a matter of academic judgement for the university, which could be challenged using the academic appeals process and was not in our jurisdiction. However, we noted that evidence provided by the university indicated Miss C's degree classification was based on her overall academic performance, and was not affected by administrative issues she raised. We found that the university dealt with Miss C's appeal in line with their regulations. There was evidence that Miss C's appeal submission was considered carefully and the relevant university sub-committee reached a view on it, as they were entitled to. We understood why Miss C disagreed with the outcome reached by the sub-committee, but there was no evidence to dispute that outcome, and her disagreement was not evidence of maladministration. In the absence of maladministration, we could not question the merits of the university's decision. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint. Amendment - 5 July 2017 When it was originally published on 24 May 2017 this summary incorrectly stated "The classification decision was a matter of academic judgement for the university, which could be challenged using the academic appeals process and was not in our jurisdiction" This should have read "The classification decision was a matter of academic judgement for the university. This cannot be challenged using the academic appeals process and was not in our jurisdiction." SPSO apologises for this typographical error and for any confusion caused. Related reading View Decision Report 201603727 as a PDF () Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was a Masters student. The university decided not to pass his project dissertation, as a result of which he was not awarded a masters degree. Mr C appealed the decision to the university and then complained to us. His view was that the feedback the university gave him about their decision not to pass his project dissertation was deficient. He also complained that the university had acted unreasonably by not providing feedback on his draft literary review. The university considered that Mr C's appeal was a straightforward challenge to academic judgement, which is excluded as grounds for appeal. Mr C was aware that we do not have the authority to investigate complaints about action taken by the university in the exercise of academic judgement by them. Mr C's complaint to us was that the university had acted unreasonably by failing to provide any evidence or explanation that they had considered the information he had provided to question the factual accuracy of the feedback he received. Following investigation, we concluded that we were satisfied that the university's appeals sub-committee had been provided with all relevant documents, including the documents where Mr C said he complained about the factual accuracy of the feedback, before they reached a decision on his appeal. We were satisfied that the university had provided a reasonable explanation as to why they considered that Mr C was questioning academic judgement and that the sub-committee's report provided sufficient explanation/evidence that they had considered his appeal and gave the reasons for their decision. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We also did not uphold the complaint that the university had acted unreasonably by failing to provide feedback to Mr C on his draft literary review. Mr C said he was told that he would receive feedback if the review did not meet the required standard. When this did not happen, he assumed that it had met the required standard.

Mr C complained about the marking of his dissertation. One of the markers had emailed Mr C to say that he had made a procedural error in submitting the mark he initially felt the dissertation deserved. The university rejected Mr C's subsequent complaint as the marking had been undertaken in line with their procedures. Mr C brought his complaint to us. We decided that the marker had made an error, but that it was not a procedural one, simply that an incorrect mark had been entered. However, this error was mitigated against by subsequent reconciliation of the mark with the second marker and scrutiny by an external examiner. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507737 as a PDF (10.91 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that he had been unfairly prevented from completing a university masters degree. Mr C said he had never been informed of the course-marking criteria. He had been invoiced for the third year of his studies, and paid the fees in full. The university had accepted the fees and had not offered a refund until he had complained. Mr C felt his academic appeal had been poorly handled and had taken an excessive amount of time. The university said Mr C had been informed at the end of his first year that his marks were not high enough to proceed to year three of his studies: he had met the criteria to proceed to year two (successful completion of year which would result in a postgraduate diploma level qualification) but not to proceed to the third year (masters level). They acknowledged he had been invoiced in error, and apologised for this. They noted his refund had been processed as quickly as possible and that at busy times, such as the start of the academic year, refunds could be subject to delay. The university said that Mr C's academic appeal had been delayed due to the level of workload the academic appeals section had at that time. We found that Mr C had been told at the end of the first year his marks were insufficient to proceed to year three of his studies. There was no evidence that Mr C had questioned this decision at the time. We did not uphold the complaint that the university unreasonably failed to make clear the criteria for progression. The university had accepted the invoice was issued in error, but had not provided evidence the error had been addressed. We therefore upheld the complaint that the university unreasonably invoiced Mr C and accepted payment for tuition fees for the third year of the course. However, we did not consider the time taken for the university to refund the payment to be unreasonable in the circumstances, so we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We also found that the academic appeal process had take

Mr C complained that a school at the university failed to accept his evidence of special circumstances in relation to his exams, and about the university's handling of his appeal. We found the school did consider Mr C's evidence; they decided that it was not evidence of the impact of Mr C's claimed special circumstances on his academic performance. The school did this by assessing Mr C's previous academic record and we accepted that, in this case, it was allowed for in university policy and it was a matter of academic judgement. We cannot investigate matters of academic judgement and, therefore, we could not comment on that issue. However, we were satisfied that it was reasonable in the specific circumstances for the school and the university to consider this as a matter of academic judgement, and that the school did consider Mr C's evidence. We were also satisfied that Mr C's appeal was handled in line with the relevant procedure. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201504475 as a PDF (11.01 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained about the information provided by the university in respect of the work she was required to submit for assessment at the end of the academic year. She said she asked her course tutor for information about the submission requirements but that the course tutor could not help her. She failed this aspect of the course. She said she contacted a senior secretary who advised her not to appeal but to resit the assessment in August. She felt this advice was wrong. She submitted her work in August after the deadline and, as a result, it was given a zero mark. She also said she was advised after her late submission that even though her submission was late it would still be assessed. She was also unhappy with the level of information provided by the university about the academic appeals process and about the late submission of work. Ms C was advised that she would need to resit the following year. As a result, she appealed the university's decision to give her a zero mark but her appeal was rejected. She was also unhappy with the time taken by the university to tell her their decision on her appeal. We reviewed the information available to students and noted that there was a description of the assessment submissions required for this course. Contact details were also provided for members of the academic staff who could assist where there was any doubt or confusion. We also found that there was clear information on the late submission of work and the academic appeals process online and in the student handbook. Whilst we could not say with sufficient certainty what information she was given by staff, we noted that the appeals process was clear and that she could have sought advice about this from a number of sources. We also noted that, even if she was told that her work which she submitted late would be assessed, the policy was clear in that this was not the case. However, we noted that consideration of her appeal had taken much longer than the pub

Ms C, who had Asperger's syndrome, was a student at the university. Complaints by staff and students about her behaviour were brought to her attention, and she was advised that the matter would be brought to a discipline committee if the situation continued. Subsequently, the matter was brought to the committee and, after hearing from Ms C, a decision was taken to expel her. However, the expulsion was suspended to allow Ms C to change her behaviour. Nonetheless, the unacceptable behaviour continued and Ms C's case progressed through the university's discipline process. She later appealed the expulsion decision to the university court. Ms C's unacceptable actions towards other students and staff continued, and a final decision was taken to expel her with immediate effect. Ms C considered that the university had dealt with her unfairly and that she had not been fully informed of the process. She said that the penalty of expulsion was totally disproportionate and was unreasonable because it would affect the rest of her life. We investigated Ms C's complaint and found that, as required, the university had made reasonable adjustments for Ms C's disability. They had provided her with advice and information about the discipline process. We found that the process had followed the university's own guidance, about which Ms C had been made aware. Ms C had been given advice and a number of chances to change her behaviour, but she did not do so. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201501395 as a PDF (11.28 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a postgraduate student, had complained to the university a number of times about a range of matters. When he submitted two new complaints for investigation, as he did not accept the outcome of the front-line resolution, the university responded that they had decided to restrict his access to the complaints handling procedure as they considered his level of contact to be unacceptable. Mr C complained to us about the university's refusal to consider his complaints. Our investigation considered the complaint submissions Mr C made, the university's response to them and their complaints handling procedure. We found the university had encouraged Mr C to use alternative appropriate ways to raise his concerns and had clearly explained to Mr C their decision to restrict his access in terms of the relevant points of their policy. The university did not exclude him completely from the complaints handling procedure and said they would consider any new complaints if they deemed they were sufficiently serious to warrant investigation. Related reading View Decision Report 201404931 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C appealed against the university's decision not to offer him a place. He said that he had met the conditions of his offer, but the university had used optional courses to determine his final mark for entry. He complained that this was not stipulated in his offer and when he phoned the admissions office to ask, he was given wrong information and staff there treated him badly and did not respond to the issues he raised. The university decided he had not established grounds for an appeal and considered his complaints about the unfair treatment he felt he had received. He said he had been harassed by members of staff in the admissions office who had put the phone down on his call. The university investigated and did not uphold his complaints. Our investigation examined the university's consideration of his appeal and their investigation into his complaint, along with their procedures for handling admissions appeals and complaints. We found that Mr C's dissatisfaction was based on his belief that the university had made a wrong academic decision and concluded that the university had provided detailed explanations of their position and acted in line with their procedures, so we did not uphold his complaint.

Ms C was a student at the university. She has learning difficulties, and whilst attending at the university there were a number of adjustments in place to support her in her studies. She said that during her third year her performance in a number of subjects was affected by health problems. She submitted a special circumstances claim asking the university to take these into account when determining her marks for the year. Ms C complained that the university failed to properly apply their policy and procedures when considering this claim and her subsequent academic appeal. Whilst we found that the university could have recorded more detailed information about their consideration of Ms C's case, we were generally satisfied that they reached their decision having taken all the relevant information into account. We found that Ms C's special circumstances were not dismissed, but that the university took the view that Ms C failed to demonstrate that they had had a significant impact on her academic performance. Related reading View Decision Report 201303424 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained that the university had not adequately handled her complaint of harassment by university staff. The university had dealt with this under their complaints procedure rather than under their personal harassment policy and she disputed the evidence they produced in handling it. She said that they produced documents written by staff that were not true, and had refused to meet with her to discuss this and her other concerns. The university later said that she had made false allegations about staff and the university. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints. Our investigation found that although the university dealt with the complaint about harassment under the student complaints procedure rather than the personal harassment policy, the investigation fulfilled the requirements of the policy. The matter was investigated as part of a three-fold complaint, with the intention of investigating the complaints thoroughly and reaching a conclusion that would allow Miss C to continue her studies, which was achieved. We took the view that, therefore, although not strictly in line with the policy, the investigation was in keeping with its spirit. On the complaint about failure to respond to her concerns and requests for clarification, which also related to some academic decisions, we explained to Miss C that we could only look at how the university responded to her concerns, not at the academic decisions themselves. Our investigation found that the university responded on numerous occasions, but that Miss C found it difficult to accept those responses as she did not agree with them. Our view was that they had responded in a reasonable way to her concerns and had addressed all the issues she had raised, regardless of whether Miss C agreed with what they said. Finally, in relation to Miss C's complaint that the university unreasonably accused her of making false allegations about members of staff and of harassing the university, we confirmed that the university

Mr C complained that the university had not handled his appeal fairly when he was unwell during his examination period. His illness was only correctly diagnosed later, and he produced new medical evidence to us of his ill health and the adverse effects it had on the medication he took for his additional support need. We contacted the university because they had not had the opportunity to consider the new evidence, and they agreed to explore the possibility of reopening his appeal in the light of that evidence. After considering whether there were grounds to reopen the appeal, the university decided that they could not reconsider it as Mr C had not disclosed any illness to the university either before or during his exams. Our investigation considered all the documentation provided by the university and by Mr C, including medical evidence, appeals documentation and relevant policies. We found that Mr C had not declared any special circumstances in good time as he was required to do, and that the university had considered all the evidence and his appeal in line with their policies and procedures. Related reading View Decision Report 201305631 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018