SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the university’s handling of an investigation into allegations made against them and their subsequent complaint about the matter. The allegation against C was investigated by the university’s sports association and upheld. The matter was then passed to the university’s student conduct team for consideration as to whether any further sanctions should be applied. C complained about the processes followed by the sports association. C also complained about the processes followed and the delays incurred during the university’s conduct investigation. We considered C’s complaint that the university’s investigation into the allegations made against C were unreasonable. During our investigation, we found that C had not requested an appeal of the university’s decision. In order for this office to investigate a complaint about an appeal, the student or their representative must first have completed the organisation’s appeals procedure before bringing their complaint to us. As C had not done this, our investigation was limited to considering whether the university had informed C of their right to appeal and provided them with information on how to do so. We found that the university had reasonably informed C of their right to appeal. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. We also considered whether the university’s investigation of C’s complaint was unreasonable. We found that it was reasonable for the university not to consider C’s complaint about the sports association. As an autonomous external body, it is not covered by the complaints procedure. In relation to the university’s handling of C’s complaint about the university’s code of student conduct investigation, we found that there were significant delays to the completion of the complaint investigation. We also found that the university did not reasonably provide C with updates regarding the progress of the complaint investigation, with this only being forthcoming in response to the en

C complained on behalf of a family member (A), who was a disabled student at the University of Glasgow. C was unhappy with the university's assessment of A's IT and assistive technology needs. C considered that the equipment and software recommended following the assessment were unsuitable and ineffective. We found that the documentation from the assessment included insufficient detail about how the equipment and software recommended for A was suitable for their needs. We also found that the university did not act appropriately once concerns were raised about one of the devices. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations. C also complained that the university failed to make appropriate provision for A to attend an employability event. A was unable to attend the event as they did not have support in place in time. C felt the university were responsible for this. The university upheld C's complaint in part and acknowledged that someone should have approached A about whether they would like to attend the event. We were satisfied that the university had taken steps to prevent a similar issue. We upheld C's complaint and recommended an apology. C had concerns that the university failed to treat C and A with an appropriate level of dignity and respect. The university partly upheld C's complaints in relation to this matter and made a number of recommendations. We noted that the complaint related to challenging and sensitive issues for both C and A, as well as the members of university staff involved. We were satisfied that the matter was investigated robustly by the university. We found an apology had been provided and that appropriate action had been taken in relation to the issues identified. We upheld the complaint, but did not make recommendations. C also had concerns about the arrangements made in anticipation of A's exam diet and in relation to the way the exams were conducted (including provision of breaks and access to water). We found that, in

Ms C, a postgraduate student, complained that she had paid for classes and seminars which had been cancelled due to industrial action. We found that the University had taken appropriate steps to minimise the academic impact of the industrial action by giving students advance notice of the industrial action and ensuring that students would only be assessed on work that they had an opportunity to cover in the course of their studies. We noted that students may expect to learn about a particular subject and if they do not receive the teaching they are supposed to get, it is not necessarily sufficient for the provider to purely decide not to test them on it. In light of this, we also considered whether the university had taken steps to make up for the lost teaching hours and the learning opportunities these represented. We did not consider that this had to be a like-for-like replacement of the teaching hours that were lost. During the semester affected by the industrial action, Ms C was taking three courses. These courses were formal components of Ms C’s postgraduate programme. Three of Ms C’s classes were cancelled due to the industrial action across two of the courses. Regarding two of the classes, the university offered to discuss course material with Ms C on a one-to-one basis and offered to give feedback on an essay regarding a particular topic. Regarding the third class, no steps were taken by the university to make up for the lost teaching hours. Given that the university made attempts to make up for the teaching hours lost for two out of the three classes cancelled, on balance, we did not consider the university had acted unreasonably. We also noted that five seminars out of 22 were cancelled due to the industrial action. These seminars were academic events rather than formal components of Ms C’s course. We did not consider that the university were obligated to take steps to make up for the learning opportunities lost due to the cancellation of these seminars an

Mr C was required to complete three school placements as part of his secondary teaching course. Mr C complained that the university failed to provide him with appropriate support during his course and that, after he was deemed to have failed, they did not follow their normal procedure. He was also unhappy with the way the university carried out their investigation into his complaints. The university said that they had given appropriate support to Mr C and dealt with his concerns and complaints in accordance with their stated procedures. We found that the support given to Mr C was as required and stated in their guidance documentation. There was no evidence to suggest that he had been treated unfairly in relation to others and this complaint was not upheld. In relation to complaint handling, we found that the university followed their complaints process in dealing with Mr C’s complaints. However, there were delays (about which Mr C was kept informed) and some of which were unavoidable. Nevertheless on balance, on the basis of timescale alone, this aspect of the complaint was upheld but we made no recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201808095 as a PDF (24.25 KB) Updated: February 17, 2021

C complained on behalf of their relative (A), a student at the university. A is blind and has arrangements in place to digitise course materials. A attended a law fair hosted by the university to allow students to meet prospective employers. A received a number of leaflets from law firms present and submitted these to the university for digitisation. Having not received any response to this request, C complained to the university, who informed them some months after the initial request that they did not consider responsibility to digitise the materials lay with them and that instead it was the responsibility of the law firms who provided them. They returned the leaflets around six months after initially receiving them. C complained to us that the university had mishandled the request for digitisation due to delay and refusal to accept responsibility. C said that, due to the time that had passed, A had missed out on internship opportunities detailed in the leaflets. We concluded that the question of responsibility for providing the materials in an accessible format was a complex one, which could likely only be resolved through the courts. Regardless, we considered that there had been an unreasonable delay in handling the request and returning the leaflets. As such we upheld the complaint. We also identified that the university had failed to reasonably handle C's complaints about the matter, as they did not adhere to the timescales for complaints and ultimately refused to investigate the matter fully.

C complained on behalf of their family member (A) about the way A was treated by the university. C’s complaint was regarding a support meeting which they attended with A. C said that the meeting was unreasonably cut short by university staff after a disagreement about recording the meeting; A was required to make a recording as he is blind, but university staff refused to allow this. C also held concerns regarding the handling of the complaint they subsequently made about this matter. We found that the university had unreasonably refused to allow A to record the meeting, despite this being an established practice. When C attempted to raise this with the staff, they abruptly ended the meeting, stating they considered that C’s behaviour had become unreasonable. In doing this, we found that they had not followed the university’s policies for managing unacceptable behaviour. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. In addition, we agreed that there had been failings in the handling of the complaint, including a failure by the staff involved to provide reasonably accurate statements of what had occurred, and a failure by the university to fully respond to the points of complaint raised. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

C’s family member (A) was a disabled student at the University of Glasgow. A month before A sat an exam, adjustments were agreed for the conduct of the exam. The exam was for a subject taught by a different school of the university than their core degree subject. When A sat the exam they felt some of the agreed adjustments were not made. C raised a complaint with the university about this. The university identified that the school conducting the exam had put in place previous adjustments for A’s examinations while the school of their core degree subject had put in place the adjustments agreed in the month before the exam. The university explained that this had been done in good faith and that they would ensure steps would be taken to ensure the situation did not occur again. C was dissatisfied and raised their complaints with this office. C also complained about aspects of the university’s handling of their complaints. We found that the university had endeavoured to conduct the examination with due regard to A’s needs but that, despite this, they had not adhered to two of the adjustments agreed in the month before the exam: that A could be accompanied, if they wished, during the whole examination by a Study Skills Assistant who would ensure that they were able to log on to a computer and access the correct software at the beginning of the examination; and that clear written instructions relating to the examination venue and process would be issued in advance including arrangements for breaks, access to toilet facilities and details of permitted items (including food and drink) that could be brought into the examination. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint. We also found that the university did not seek or obtain C’s agreement to an extension to the timescale for responding to their complaint, failed to explain the reason for the extension to C, failed to update C with a revised timescale for responding to their complaint proactively or within a reasonable timescale a

C complained on behalf of their family member (A) who was a disabled student at the University of Glasgow. A had encountered a number of issues which they complained about. As a result of one of those complaints, A understood an action plan for the support for their learning was to be devised. A considered they, and their representatives, had asked for a copy of this action plan. C complained that the requests for a copy of the action plan had not been fulfilled. The university concluded that the action plan had not been shared with A or their representatives as the university wished to do so at a face-to-face meeting but no mutually convenient time had been identified. C was dissatisfied and raised complaints with this office about the university’s failure to provide a copy of the action plan when it was requested and about the time the university had taken to respond to their complaints. We found that the university had not explained to A or C why they felt a meeting would be the best way to share the action plan with A, and had not provided any justification for why they felt the failure to arrange a meeting meant it was reasonable not to share the action plan with A. We decided that it was not reasonable for the university to have withheld the action plan from A in these circumstances and upheld this complaint. We found that the matters C raised in their complaints were numerous and complex and that, consequently, there was a high volume of information that had to be considered by the investigating officer and a significant number of university staff to obtain evidence from. Taking all of this into account, we concluded that the time taken for the university to respond to the complaints was reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint but we did have a number of concerns about other aspects of the university’s handling of C’s complaints and made recommendations to address these.

Ms C complained that the university failed to provide her with adequate support after the death of her parent. We found that the university had acted in line with their guidance in relation to this matter. We did not consider that the actions of the university in responding to Ms C's concerns were unreasonable. We did not uphold this complaint. Ms C also complained that the university failed to provide her with appropriate information about applying for an extension for her dissertation around this time. We found that it was unreasonable that Ms C was only told on the deadline date for her dissertation that an extension would be granted. We considered that Ms C should have been provided with clear information about this at an earlier stage. We upheld this complaint. The university said that they had taken action to prevent this from happening in the future. We asked them to provide evidence of the action taken. Finally, Ms C complained that the university provided inaccurate information about when her results would be available. We found that there had been some confusion about this issue and that the information Ms C was given should have been clearer. However, we did not find any clear evidence that Ms C was given inaccurate information and, on balance, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201806418 as a PDF (24.25 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mr C complained on behalf of a member of his family (Mr A), who was a student with a visual impairment and an autism spectrum condition. Mr A was enrolled on an undergraduate course at the university and he required adjustments to the reading materials so that he was able to access these during his studies. Mr C complained that the university failed to put in place adjustments for Mr A's reading materials. The university upheld aspects of Mr C's complaint and made recommendations. Mr C remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to us. We took independent advice from an equalities adviser and reviewed the documentation provided by Mr C and the university. We noted that part of the adjustment agreed with Mr A involved digitising reading materials and providing these to Mr A in an accessible format. We found that the university did not accurately calculate how long this process would take. This resulted in Mr A not receiving the materials in an accessible format within good time and caused disadvantage to Mr A. We also identified issues with the way the university communicated with Mr A about this matter, noting that he was incorrectly informed the texts would be provided on time. We noted that the university had tried to discuss alternative IT systems to support Mr A. However, we found that the university did not adequately consider Mr A's views and his previous difficult IT experiences. In addition, one adjustment made by the university was to provide further detail to Mr A about targeted reading along with a guidance note. We did not consider that the adjustment appropriately took into account Mr A's reading requirements. In view of the issues identified, we upheld Mr C's complaint and we made a number of recommendations, taking into account the action the university had already agreed to undertake.

Ms C complained that the university had failed to respond to her complaint within a reasonable timeframe. Ms C submitted her complaint to the university but had not received a response by the time she contacted us ten months later. We found that the university had appropriately handled the complaint at Stage 1 of their complaints process and had also kept Ms C reasonably informed of the progress of her complaint at Stage 2 of the process. However, we considered that it was unacceptable for Ms C to have still not received a response to her complaint ten months later and the university had been unable to provide an indication of when a response might be ready. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Mr C was a student on a taught postgraduate course. He complained that he did not receive reasonable supervision during his dissertation research project. Specifically, Mr C felt that his supervisor should have emailed feedback to him, and should have intervened when he experienced difficulties with his project. We found that Mr C did not raise any concerns about supervision during the course. The course handbook was clear that students were responsible for raising concerns as soon as possible. While students were also responsible for developing a level of independence in their project and laboratory work, they should not hesitate to ask their supervisor for advice when necessary. In addition, students were responsible for arranging meetings with their supervisor at least every two weeks, if not weekly, and for keeping clear records of meetings with their supervisor. The handbook is clear in terms of student responsibilities and being proactive; and specifies the role of their supervisor in providing course-related support when asked. We found no evidence that Mr C's supervisor failed to act in line with the course handbook. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201609608 as a PDF (11.15 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Ms C failed her exams and was advised by the university that she could not resit them. Ms C appealed this decision and went through three stages of the appeal process. Ms C complained that the university failed to deal with all stages of the appeals process within a reasonable period of time. We found that in relation to the second stage of her appeal, which was to the senate office, Ms C had to prompt the university to advise her that there was a delay. The university did not tell her the reason for the delay, and the decision was not issued within the timescale set out in the university's code of procedure for appeals to the senate office. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Mr C was a student on a placement at an organisation outside the university. He felt that he was bullied by staff at the organisation where he was on placement and complained to the external organisation. They investigated, and found that Mr C had been mistreated while on placement. Mr C was unhappy with the university's role in what happened and complained to them. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaints to us. He complained to us that the university had failed to follow their Dignity at Work & Study Policy and Procedure during his placement, that they had unreasonably provided incorrect information to the external organisation about his reports of mistreatment during placement, and that the university had handed his complaint in an unreasonable way. We found that the university's Dignity at Work & Study Policy and Procedure outlined what a student or university staff member should do if they thought they were being subjected to bullying by students, members of university staff, or contractors and suppliers. It did not include a specific provision for students on placement who thought they were being subjected to bullying by a member of staff employed by the placement provider. Given this, we found that the policy did not apply in Mr C's circumstances and we did not uphold this part of the complaint. We found that information about Mr C's reports of mistreatment was provided by the university to the external organisation in a phone call. Given this, we could not prove exactly what was discussed and whether the information was incorrect. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. We found that the university's investigation report on Mr C's complaint was a reasonable reflection of the relevant evidence from him, university staff, and the external organisation. The report responded to each of the main points of Mr C's complaint and reached reasonable conclusions on them. We therefore considered that the university had handled Mr C's complaint in

Miss C complained that the university failed to advise her, and other students, that the criteria for progression to honours may change. She said this was not mentioned in the pre-course open day material or in the year one student handbook which advised of the progression requirements at that time. The progression requirements were changed when she started second year and she did not achieve the required progression results at the end of second year to allow her to progress to honours. She was unhappy that she had not been told that progression grades could change, and she felt that changes to student numbers had required the school to amend the criteria upwards, which she felt was unfair. She submitted an appeal on these grounds and also on the grounds that personal circumstances had affected her studies. Her appeal was rejected. She also submitted a complaint about aspects of the course which was also rejected. As she was unhappy with this, and with the level of support provided to her by the university, she approached us. We considered the background information and could find no specific evidence to suggest that Miss C had been informed that the progression criteria could change from year to year. Although we noted a caveat in the student handbook advising that information in the handbook was subject to change and could not be guaranteed to be up-to-date, we felt that this was not sufficient to fully inform students. We felt that the information provided to students, both at the pre-course stage and post-enrolment, was not sufficient. For this reason, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, we were satisfied that the university was entitled to change the progression criteria and we were not critical on this point. We were also satisfied that the university made clear how students could access support and we noted the support given to Miss C following the notification of her results. We considered the university's handling of Miss C's appeal and were sa

Mr C made a number of complaints to us about the way the university had handled complaints he had made to them. He complained about the way in which the university had handled his complaint about two members of staff, but we found that the investigation into this matter had been reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. He also said that the university had failed to investigate this complaint in the scheduled time. We found that many of the delays had been outwith the university's control and that, where extensions for the investigation to be completed had been sought, this had been done in line with the university's complaints procedure. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C complained that the university had unreasonably stated that he was unwilling to accept a proposed solution. He also complained that they had unreasonably consulted with a member of staff about whom he had complained. We found that it had been reasonable for the university to state that he was not willing to accept a proposed solution and that there was nothing to prevent the member of staff from being involved in his complaint. We did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint. Mr C complained that the university had erroneously blocked him from registering for classes because there was a marker on his record that he was going through conduct proceedings. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and found that the university had already apologised to him for this. Mr C complained to us that the university had failed to investigate complaints about both the student conduct committee and the university senate. We found that the responses issued to Mr C about these issues had been reasonable and we did not uphold these aspects of his complaint. Mr C also complained about the actions of a member of staff at the university. Although the member of staff had referred to the wrong sections of the university's complaints procedure in respons

Ms C complained that the university failed to follow the relevant procedure in marking her dissertation. She said that the second marker should not have been able to see the first marker's comments and that the second marker had simply agreed with the first marker's comments. We found that the university's guidance did allow for the second marker to see the first marker's comments in some cases. Whilst the second marker's comments were brief, we did not consider that this amounted to unreasonable practice and therefore we did not uphold the complaint. Ms C also complained that the university failed to consider bias in dealing with her appeal. We found that the issue of bias was considered during the consideration of her appeal and that the decision made by the university on this was not unreasonable. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C complained that the university failed to agree to her request for a third marker. In their response to us on this matter, the university said that the appeal did not establish any procedural irregularity in the marking of Ms C's dissertation and that there were therefore no grounds for appointing an additional marker. They also stated that the appointment of an additional marker would have been contrary to their procedures and would have meant inconsistency of treatment for students. We considered that the university's decision on this matter was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Finally, Ms C complained that the university unreasonably decided that her appeal was about academic judgement. We found that the university had clarified to Ms C that did they did not consider the appeal to be a challenge to academic judgement. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508865 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained about a three-month suspension from her studies imposed by the University of Glasgow. As an overseas student, she felt that the suspension disproportionately put her visa at risk. She also said that it excluded her from all studies and access to her tutor, caused her to incur unnecessary accommodation and course fees and affected her access to health support services. We considered that in relation to Ms C's suspension, the university had acted in accordance with their code of student conduct procedures. We noted that when either Ms C or her solicitor contacted the university during the period of suspension with concerns related to Ms C's visa or access to her tutor, the university took reasonable steps to address these matters. In addition, Ms C had access to support services at the university by appointment. We also noted that the university had apologised to Ms C for not clarifying that she could access her student accommodation during the suspension. However, we did not consider this a significant procedural failing and noted that Ms C chose to reside elsewhere at this time. We concluded that the university had fully investigated the consequences of the suspension for Ms C and made reasonable adjustments to the code of student conduct in respect of suspensions. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507484 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the university did not follow their guidelines when considering his view that his health problems should be taken into account when awarding a grade for his project. Mr C also said the university did not tell him why his health problems did not count as a case of 'good cause'. According to the university's regulations, 'good cause' means illness or other adverse personal circumstances affecting an individual and resulting in that individual either missing an examination, failing to submit coursework on time, or clearly prejudicing their performance in the assessment. In addition, Mr C complained that the university did not follow their guidelines on the discretion to promote his degree classification. We found that the university had followed their guidelines on 'good cause'. Mr C wanted the university to tell him what else he could have done to show that his health problems were a case of 'good cause'. The university said that the various doctors' letters Mr C provided did not alter the initial conclusion reached by a board of examiners, which was that he did not have 'good cause'. We were satisfied that the university told Mr C why his submission of 'good cause' was dismissed. We also found that the university followed their guidelines when they decided not to promote Mr C's degree classification. Mr C did not accept the university's position and disagreed with it. However, these were decisions the university were entitled to reach after considering the relevant evidence. We explained to Mr C that disagreement with the university's decisions or with their interpretation of matters was not evidence of an administrative failing on their part. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201500709 as a PDF (11.37 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C, a solicitor, complained to us on behalf of her client (Mr A) about how the university had compensated him for disruption to his exams. Mr A had chronic exam anxiety. He had been assessed by the university's disability service and had been found to require a separate room for exams. He was also allowed an extra 15 minutes for each hour. The invigilator for one of Mr A's exams had been cancelled in error, which meant that the exam had started late. Mr A had been allowed the time for which the exam had been delayed plus an additional 15 minutes to compensate him for the disruption. We found that this had been reasonable and did not uphold Miss C's complaints about this. In a subsequent exam, the invigilator had been ill and had collapsed. He subsequently apologised to Mr A for the incident and offered him some extra time, but did not specify how much, as Mr A said this was not necessary. Miss C complained that the university had failed to offer Mr A any further compensation for this. We did not consider that this was unreasonable and we did not uphold Miss C's complaint about this matter. Finally, Miss C complained that the university did not follow procedure and refused to consider evidence of special circumstances outside of the current academic year when considering Mr A’s performance at his progress committee meeting. There was no evidence that the progress committee did not follow procedure in considering Mr A’s performance at the meeting and it was for them to decide what information they required. Mr A could have submitted an appeal if he considered that they had failed to take account of medical or other adverse personal circumstances. We did not uphold these aspects of Miss C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201401093 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained to the university that her son was not appropriately supported by them when he decided to withdraw from his masters course and complete a postgraduate diploma instead. She believed he was entitled to a refund of fees but the university refused his refund application. We considered the policies of the university and their investigation of her concerns. We found that the university had reasonably investigated and responded to the concerns, and had followed their policy in deciding not to make a refund. Related reading View Decision Report 201405307 as a PDF (10.83 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the university's actions, after he had a period of ill health while studying there. He complained that they did not do enough to support him through a difficult time, and did not make reasonable adjustments to enable him to continue his studies. He said this led to him having to withdraw from the course. We found that Mr C had had a number of absences, despite the expectation that he attend all elements of the course. We reviewed what the university expected of Mr C in order for him to continue to the next year of the course, and noted the meetings he had with staff and the support that he was offered in trying to overcome his situation. We sought independent advice from an equality and diversity specialist, who noted that the university had referred Mr C to sources of support. However, she said that Mr C's department did not take reasonable steps to inform and assist him. They had not implemented the university's policies about equality of access and fees refunds. She took the view that had they done so Mr C might have been able to agree an approach with the university that would have enabled him to continue his studies. She also noted that they had not sought advice from occupational health before making a decision about Mr C's future studies. We noted the difficulties for Mr C and the university in predicting how the year would progress, and in deciding what he could best do to overcome these challenges. However, we considered that the university could have done more to discuss the options with him, highlight their concerns, and review any alternative approaches available to him. We noted that an occupational health referral could have assisted with this, and we were critical of the lack of notes or minutes of meetings. Mr C also complained about the number of people that he had to inform about his health issues, saying this breached his privacy. Our review of the university's policies and procedures identified who he was required

Mr C was a registered student with a disability, with a disabled driver's parking permit. Before his end of year exams Mr C had an accident and needed knee surgery, which he discussed with department staff. He was allocated an exam room on the fourth floor of a building with no lift. He said that he suffered considerable pain throughout the exam because he had to climb the stairs. He complained that the university had not met their responsibilities to him as a disabled student, and that he should be allowed to re-sit the exam. The university investigated, but did not uphold his complaint. Our investigation considered all the university's relevant policies and procedures, including arrangements for students with disabilities, complaints handling and regulations on equality and building standards. We also examined all correspondence between Mr C and university staff, the university's records of Mr C's disability and their investigation and responses to his complaint. We found that Mr C had not told the university that he had mobility issues and needed disabled access. He had assumed that all rooms were accessible, without checking locations with which he was not familiar. The university had carried out a thorough investigation and provided detailed responses to his complaint and had clearly communicated the procedures students should follow. We did not uphold his complaint, as the university could have only put in place appropriate arrangements if they were told about the mobility difficulties that Mr C later reported. Related reading View Decision Report 201402438 as a PDF (11.33 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who was studying for a PhD (an advanced degree course), began his studies in 2006 and after some problems with his research was told by the university that his progress was unsatisfactory. He appealed that decision in 2009 and the university decided to allow him to continue his studies under certain conditions. These included weekly supervisory meetings, the production of a detailed plan for his PhD submission and quarterly reviews with his supervisors and an independent person. At a review meeting in July 2011 Mr C was again told that his progress was unsatisfactory. He lodged an appeal in September 2011 and following decisions by both a college appeals committee and a senate appeals committee his appeal was dismissed in November 2012. Mr C then complained to us. Our investigation focused only on the appeals process from July 2011. This was because the earlier process was out of time for us to investigate, and the academic decisions were outwith our jurisdiction. Mr C complained that the university's examination of his appeal in 2012 was unreasonable, and that they failed to deal with his appeal within the timescales set by their own procedures. Our investigation found, however, that the university had considered all the relevant evidence provided, including information provided by Mr C about his health and adverse personal circumstances. We also found that, although the appeals process was not completed within the timescales set within the university's procedures, there were no unavoidable delays and where delays occurred, Mr C was kept informed. Related reading View Decision Report 201300641 as a PDF (11.37 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A), who is a medical student. She said that the university had not reasonably investigated concerns about her son's attendance before they referred the matter to a progress committee. Ms C said that the concerns amounted to misunderstandings that arose over the evidence of her son's attendance on particular placements, and that there were procedural errors in respect of the committee. She said that her son had not been given clear reasons for the referral to the committee, that the meeting was convened at short notice, and that information available on the day of the committee meeting had not been sent to him in advance. Ms C said her son was completely unprepared for the meeting. The committee decided that Mr A should repeat a year of study. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Our investigation found that the referral to the progress committee was appropriate. Mr A had received a prior warning that any further absence would result in referral, and after this had taken two days sickness absence without following the agreed notification process. We did find that the committee meeting had been convened at short notice, but also that Mr A had agreed to this and had been told that the matter under discussion would be his persistent absence. We found no evidence that Mr A was unreasonably led to believe that only his most recent absences would be under discussion, and it was appropriate in the circumstances for the committee to take account of his full absence history including periods of absence in earlier academic years. Whilst the university ultimately accepted Mr A's account of his attendance on the placements, they considered that it would be appropriate for him to repeat a year of study to gain further clinical knowledge, and to remedy issues in following instructions and fulfilling professional responsibilities. Related reading View Decision Report 201301690 as a PDF (11.48 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018