SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the way the university made the decision to remove them from their course. C complained that they was not given prior notice that they might be withdrawn, that the decision was made as they returned from medical leave and that their appeal against the decision was treated as a complaint instead. We found that the university had repeatedly raised clear concerns with C about their academic progress in monthly progress reports. We also found that C should have been aware that this could have resulted in the university deciding to withdraw them. We also found that as C did not raise grounds for an appeal, it was reasonable that their concerns were considered through the university's complaints process instead. However, we were concerned about aspects of how the university handled C's withdrawal. There was no record of the decision-making process and so there was no evidence that their medical leave and health issues had been taken into account. We also found that the university should have told C the reason that they were being withdrawn, before directing them to their appeals process. We considered that this meant C was not given a fair opportunity to consider and lodge grounds for an appeal against the decision to withdraw them. For these reasons, we upheld C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the university had unreasonably withdrawn him from his course of study. He considered that, contrary to the findings of the university's appeal process, he had appropriately corresponded with the university and engaged with his studies. He was removed for not responding to correspondence and not adhering to obligations of his visa with respect to attendance, particularly that he missed a number of face-to-face meetings. We found that the university had corresponded with Mr C with respect to his studies, and a progress report for a number of months identified that he had failed to attend organised meetings. However, the university had not communicated with Mr C directly regarding his attendance or to remind him about the obligations in this regard, which was required under the university policy on student engagement. We found that whilst the university should have issued additional communications to Mr C regarding his attendance, overall, the communication was reasonable as the progress reports correctly recorded that he had not attended as he should have. Mr C should have been aware of his obligations to attend, and there was an expectation on him to raise the very difficult circumstances which had impacted on his ability to attend meetings. Overall, the communication was reasonable, Mr C confirmed he understood his obligations with respect to attendance at the subsequent hearing regarding his appeal, and the decision to remove him from his studies was reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201808647 as a PDF (24.43 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) about the university's handling of an academic appeal. Mr A was withdrawn from his degree programme because of inadequate attendance. Mr A appealed against this decision. The university did not uphold his appeal and concluded that the withdrawal decision should stand. Mr C complained to us about whether the committee who considered Mr A's appeal considered his special circumstances and the documents he submitted. We concluded that it was more likely than not that the committee considered all of the evidence provided. We did not find evidence of procedural failing and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201808010 as a PDF (23.64 KB) Updated: October 23, 2019

Ms C complained that the university failed to follow their procedures correctly when they decided that she should be removed from a course due to her lack of progress. We found that staff had made reasonable attempts to assist Ms C with determining a project topic and identifying a supervisor. However, the university were unable to provide evidence that their mitigation process had been followed appropriately when Ms C made a mitigation claim. Their records in relation to the decision that she should be removed from the course were also inadequate and there was no evidence of her supervisor's view on whether she had made sufficient progress. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also complained that the university had failed to follow their appeals and complaints procedures in response to her correspondence on the matter. We found that the university's response to Ms C's appeal contained inaccurate information. They had also failed to respond to her correspondence in line with their complaints handling procedure. Whilst the university had told Ms C that staff had reported that they had many meetings with her to discuss the matters she had raised, there were no records of these meetings. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C complained that the university did not carry out a reasonable investigation into her complaints. In particular, Ms C was concerned that the university did not take all the relevant evidence into account, did not interview all the relevant parties and did not follow the right policies/procedures. We found that the university had reasonably followed their complaints handling procedure, considered all the relevant evidence and made reasonable attempts to interview the witnesses specified by Ms C. While we appreciated that Ms C disagreed with the university's decisions regarding her complaints, her disagreement with their interpretation of matters and their decisions is not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing on their part. We considered that the university's investigations into Ms C's complaints were reasonable and did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201810707 as a PDF (23.7 KB) Updated: September 18, 2019

Mr C complained about his withdrawal from his course. The issues we investigated related to an unreasonable failure to advise Mr C of why he was withdrawn from the course in the letter issued by the Progression and Awards Board; an unreasonable failure to advise Mr C that his appeal against the decision of the Progression and Awards Board should have been made on the grounds set out under the university's regulations on appeals; an unreasonable delay in providing Mr C with feedback following a transfer event; and also an unreasonable failure to contact Mr C when he did not attend monthly progression meetings with his director of studies, when the director of studies had supported his application for an interruption of studies. We upheld the first complaint on the basis that the university failed to document and advise Mr C of why he had been withdrawn from the course. We considered that Mr C should have been made aware of the reasons so that he could base his appeal on this decision. We also upheld the second complaint. This was on the basis that Mr C appealed against the decision of the school panel on the grounds that they had not applied their policy on student non-engagement properly. However, the decision to withdraw Mr C had been made by a different body, the Progression and Awards Board, and that body had the authority to make decisions regarding progress. Appeals to the Progression and Awards Board require to be raised on different grounds according to the university's regulations. We did not uphold this complaint on the basis that information about the second transfer event had been given to Mr C within a reasonable period of time. We also did not uphold the fourth complaint. Whilst there was a lack of evidence to demonstrate what communication the director of studies had with Mr C, on balance it was concluded that as a holder of a Tier 4 visa, the onus was on Mr C to meet the terms of Tier 4 visa requirements regarding university engagement.

Mr C, a legal representative, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) who was withdrawn from his course at the university. Mr C complained that the university failed to follow their academic engagement and attendance procedures in relation to meeting with Mr A to discuss his absences, and that the university had failed to consider all of the grounds of appeal. We found that the university had emailed Mr A regarding his absences on at least five occasions, and had met with him to discuss his absences, prior to him being withdrawn from the course. We therefore considered that the university had followed the academic engagement and attendance procedures and we did not uphold this complaint. We also found that it was clear that Mr A had the opportunity to present his appeal to the committee and that the committee had sight of documents submitted in support of the appeal. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201806707 as a PDF (23.73 KB) Updated: April 17, 2019

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that the university unreasonably removed Mr A from his course. Mr A was studying at the university and was required to attend monthly meetings with his Director of Studies (DoS). Mr A was withdrawn from his course for failing to attend three out of four of the monthly meetings. Mr A said that he had only had one unauthorised absence, the other two absences were due to medical emergencies, which could not be predicted, and he was able to provide supporting evidence of these. The university provided evidence that Mr A would have been aware of the importance of the monthly meetings and that he should have rearranged his missed meetings. We found that Mr A could and should have rearranged two of the three missed meetings. Mr A had raised a concern that his DoS was unable to rearrange meetings, however, this was not raised in his appeal or complaint, so was not considered further. However, we were concerned about a number of aspects of how Mr A's case had been handled. We found that the third missed meeting had occurred when Mr A was on authorised leave, and did not believe this should have been counted against him. We found that the communication with Mr A both before and after his withdrawal to be confusing. In addition, the record of the decision to withdraw Mr A did not note what evidence was considered or how it was assessed. When Mr A appealed on the basis of 'New Evidence' it was not possible to know whether the evidence was new or not, as there was no record of what was originally considered. We were concerned that this meant Mr A was not given a fair chance to appeal. Finally, the university continued to be unclear with our office about exactly why Mr A had been withdrawn from his course. For these reasons, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C complained that the university did not inform her of an additional fee for her course. The university explained that the information supplied was for the postgraduate taught tuition fees but students are informed that an additional fee is required if the masters dissertation is completed. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us. We found that the university reasonably communicated with Mrs C that further fees were due in order for her to complete the masters dissertation for her course. At the point she was accepted on the course, a link to funding information was provided which explained the separate fees for the taught element and the masters dissertation. When the university responded to Mrs C's query about the fees for the full-time postgraduate course, the information provided was accurate and detailed the cost of the taught element of the course. However, it would have been good practice to have provided further information about the fees for the masters dissertation, as it was relevant to the majority of students embarking on the course. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint but provided feedback to the university on good practice. Related reading View Decision Report 201801854 as a PDF (23.81 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018

Ms C was a PhD student at the university. She complained that the university unreasonably withdrew her PhD registration, and that they failed to follow the appeals process appropriately. We found that the university had the authority to terminate a student’s PhD registration and that, ultimately, it was the academic judgement of university staff to do so in Ms C’s case, despite her disagreement with that judgement. By law, the SPSO must not investigate the exercise of academic judgement and, therefore, we could not reach a finding on this part of Ms C’s complaint. In relation to the appeals process, we found that the university had no appeal regulations to cover Ms C’s specific situation, which was the withdrawal of her registration. However, they had regulations dealing with appeals on examiners’ decisions in relation to research degrees. Given that the context stated in the regulations was decisions on student assessment, progression and awards, they interpreted these regulations to cover Ms C’s situation. We noted that Ms C disagreed with the university’s interpretation of their regulations. We found that their interpretation was reasonable in the circumstances. Given this, and the evidence of the university’s formal communication with Ms C, we considered that the university followed the appeals process appropriately. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201701240 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Miss C, who was a postgraduate student, was required to resit a coursework assessment. Her second submission was unsuccessful and she was withdrawn from her course. She appealed the university's decision, but her appeal was not upheld. Miss C complained to us that she had not received appropriate support during her postgraduate studies. We found that she had met with her supervisor on two occasions for assessment feedback and that the supervisor had referred her to revision guidelines and a resit session. Although Miss C provided an email trail showing her attempt to arrange a further meeting with the supervisor, she provided no evidence of having told the supervisor that she was struggling with the work, or of having persevered with trying to arrange a meeting after the supervisor declined. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Miss C further complained that the university had failed to take her health issues into account when considering her appeal. We found that the Appeal Committee had taken Miss C's medical evidence into account when considering her appeal, but had not considered it sufficient for justification of submission of a late Extenuating Circumstances Statement. She also complained that the university had failed to follow their procedures before withdrawing her from her course. We found that procedures had been followed appropriately and we did not uphold these two aspects of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201706835 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C was studying for a PhD at the university. She was concerned about the conduct of her final oral examination. She complained that her supervisor was asked to leave the examination, contrary to university regulations. She also complained that she was not permitted to finish her answers during the examination and alleged that the external examiner had made comments to her supervisor that indicated he had a bias against students of her nationality. Mrs C complained to us that there were administrative errors in the conduct of her oral exam, that some communication with her had been incorrectly headed and that the university did not respond reasonably to her complaints. We found that it would have been reasonable for Mrs C to raise concerns about her supervisor being asked to leave the examination at the time, not after the fact, and we could not reach a finding in relation to her remaining concerns about the conduct of the examination. As such, we did not uphold her complaint of administrative errors in the conduct of the examination. We found that there were two occasions where the university sent letters to Mrs C that contained incorrect headings, so we upheld the aspects of her complaint regarding this. However, we found that the university had already offered their apologies for these mistakes, and so we made no further recommendations in relation to this. We found that the university's handling of Mrs C's complaints was unreasonable. We found that the university had not properly investigated the alleged statements of the external examiner which may have indicated that he had a bias against students of Mrs C's nationality. We also found that the university had not responded reasonably to Mrs C in relation to the other matters she raised. We upheld this part of her complaint.

Ms C complained that she had been unreasonably withdrawn from her university course due to lack of attendance at classes. She also complained that communication before and after her withdrawal was unreasonable in that it was confusing and unclear. We found that the university's procedure for withdrawing students for non-engagement was not sufficiently robust. We found that evidence to support their decision to remove Ms C from the course was unsatisfactory. We also found that, when she appealed the decision, Ms C was disadvantaged by the poor explanation for their decision to withdraw her. We upheld both of Ms C's complaints.

Ms C complained that the university had unreasonably withdrawn her from her course because of poor attendance. She had been experiencing personal difficulties, which she had reported to her personal tutor. The tutor had not passed on this information to the relevant people, so her circumstances had not been taken into account before her studies were terminated. After we became involved, the university offered Ms C a meeting to discuss the options available to enable her to continue her studies. Her complaint was therefore withdrawn. Related reading View Decision Report 201700226 as a PDF (10.86 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the university's handling of his application to study an undergraduate degree, and therefore to qualify for home fee status. He said that there was unreasonable delay and confusion in assessing and classifying him for the purposes of tuition fees and that the application of the university's admissions policy was unreasonable in classifying him as an international student. At the time of his application, Mr C had lived in the UK for approximately 11 years. He had been granted leave to remain outside the immigration rules by the Home Office. In response to the university's enquiries concerning his immigration status, Mr C provided details, including copies of documentation and reference numbers. The university reached the decision that Mr C did not qualify for home fee status. Subsequently, Mr C complained to the university and they established, after making an enquiry of the Home Office, that Mr C did indeed qualify for home fee status. The university acknowledged there had been errors regarding Mr C's fee status and the time taken to resolve this. They said that they were developing a fees assessment questionnaire and collaborating with relevant educational authorities to ensure this problem did not occur again. After considering the correspondence between Mr C and the university, and the relevant guidance, we upheld Mr C's complaints. We considered the university should have acted sooner to contact the Home Office to clarify Mr C's status. We also considered that they could have communicated more clearly regarding what further information they required from Mr C.

Mr C complained that his university withdrew him from a course due to lack of engagement and about the handling of his appeal. We found the university's process for withdrawing Mr C was not applied in line with their policy and there was an issue with the accuracy of records that it was the university's responsibility to make and keep. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We found that the university followed the process for appeals appropriately. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mrs C complained that the university did not tell her sooner that the course she applied for was full. She also complained that the university did not deal with her application in line with their process, and about their handling of her complaint. We found that the university told Mrs C that the course was full as soon as they knew this to be the case, which was the day after the school exam results were issued; it was only then that it became clear to the university that the course had no places available. We also found that the university followed the correct procedure in considering Mrs C's application, and when investigating and responding to her complaint. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201504017 as a PDF (10.92 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that she had made the university aware of issues she was experiencing at home during her third year of studies in relation to childcare and illness, but they had not informed her of the mitigation process. She also complained that communication she had had with the university had not been responded to. She identified four specific emails to two members of staff which were not responded to. We found that, in the context of seeking an extension for an assignment and explaining why she had been unable to attend academic support sessions, she had informed staff on these particular occasions that she (or her child) had been unwell or had issues with childcare. It did not appear that Ms C was seeking advice or support on these issues and their impact on her studies; rather they were an explanation for the extension request or the reason for not attending meetings. Therefore, we did not consider that it was unreasonable that staff had not mentioned the mitigation process to her directly in response to these emails. The university also provided us with a copy of the student programme handbook for the course which provided details of how and when to apply for mitigation. We considered that it was Ms C's responsibility to familiarise herself with the information the university had provided. Therefore, we did not uphold her complaint. In relation to Ms C's second complaint about emails not being responded to, unfortunately, because of the length of time which had passed since these emails had been sent, both the university and Ms C were unable to provide us with sufficient evidence to allow us to establish whether the emails were received and responded to or, if they were not, whether this was unreasonable. Therefore, there were no grounds for us to uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201500986 as a PDF (11.46 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his university withdrew him from his course because he failed to attend classes, and about their handling of his appeal. We found that Mr C was warned about his lack of attendance at classes, and when he was further warned that his case was being considered by a university panel, he failed to engage properly with the process. The university followed the process for dealing with Mr C's lack of attendance and considered the evidence available to them at the time and, on that basis, decided to withdraw him from the course. We also found that the university followed the process for dealing with Mr C's appeal. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201503586 as a PDF (10.86 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his university unreasonably required him to re-attend for a whole academic year, after he failed to submit a piece of coursework for a module. Mr C was also unhappy with the university's handling of his complaint. We found that Mr C assumed he could re-sit the coursework at the end of the academic year. However, university regulations said that, in the circumstances, Mr C was required to re-attend. Mr C, as an enrolled student, was bound by university regulations and had confirmed his acceptance of them. Therefore, he had to re-attend. We did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. We found some failings in the adminstration of Mr C's complaint, where the university had not followed their complaints procedure in respect of stage one of the process. We upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C, who was a student at the university, complained about lack of supervision, lack of feedback on assessments, arrangements for presentations not being as described in course documents, and that the university's investigation of his complaint did not consider all available relevant evidence. Our investigation found that the internal investigation of Mr C's complaints had found some failings and that elements relating to the first two complaints were acknowledged and appropriate remedial action taken. Therefore, although we upheld the first two complaints, we did not need to make any recommendations. In relation to the arrangements for the presentations, there were no specific requirements set out in the course documentation and we did not uphold this complaint. We also found that the investigation of Mr C's complaint was thorough and in line with the university's complaints procedure. Mr C thought that some of his fellow students should have been interviewed during the investigation but they were not. While we understood why Mr C was not satisfied with this, we took the view that it was generally for the person conducting the investigation to decide what was relevant. There was no evidence to suggest that this was a significant omission and we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201300714 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had been diagnosed with dyslexia and visual stress. He complained that the university had not provided him with the support he needed for his additional learning needs and that his support had been reduced. This caused him great anxiety as he approached his final exams. He complained to the university but they did not uphold his complaint, and he felt that it was not reasonably handled. Our investigation found that there were a number of areas, including assessment and agreed support hours, where his needs were not addressed and reasonable adjustments were not made. We also found that his additional needs were not addressed throughout the complaints handling process, including how support records were used, and that his recognised difficulties in processing information were ignored. We upheld Mr C's complaint and made a number of recommendations to address this.

Mr C complained that the university did not allow him to submit his dissertation late. During our investigation, we considered the regulations for his course, and found that these clearly explained that any coursework submitted more than one week after the submission date would not be marked. Mr C had said that other students were given extensions for their dissertations. However, the university also told us that there is no right to an extension and that Mr C had failed to ask for an extension before the required deadline. Mr C also complained that the university failed to take his period of obligatory military service in his home country into account. We found that Mr C had raised this in both his appeal and his complaint to the university, and were satisfied that the university had taken this into account. Finally, he complained that the university did not allow him to re-register as a distance learning student. However, our investigation found that the course he had requested was not in fact available for study by distance learning. Related reading View Decision Report 201203221 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A) that the university failed to offer guidance and support on his projects during his final honours year. She also complained that the university failed to deal appropriately with her complaint. We upheld Mrs C's complaints, as our investigation found that there was a lack of documentation to show that Mr A had received adequate support and guidance, and that the project supervisor had not responded to the majority of emails about Mr A's project. We also found that there was a lack of clarity in the way the university had handled the complaint. At the time Mrs C complained, they had a four-stage complaints procedure, which is what they should have used. They had, however, subsequently approved a two-stage procedure and it was this that they tried to use. The university also failed to respond to, or try to clarify, the detail of Mrs C's complaint about adequate guidance and support.

Mrs C was a student on a nursing course. In her final year, academic staff gave her misleading advice about how to complete a written assignment. One of the academic staff who gave her this advice marked the assignment and gave it an A grade. However, an internal moderator marked it as a D grade, because Mrs C had not followed the assignment guidelines. Subsequently, external moderators decided that the assignment should be awarded a C grade. As Mrs C had completed the assignment based on the misleading advice she was given by academic staff, which was not her fault, she felt that downgrading was unjust and submitted an academic appeal. This was immediately upheld and Mrs C was told she could re-submit the assignment as a first attempt. As, however, the assignment related to a completed placement, Mrs C felt that re-submission was not viable and she told the university that she did not accept the outcome of the academic appeal. Instead, she submitted a formal complaint, asking for a thorough investigation. She asked them to recognise that re-submission was not a viable option and to award the unmoderated A grade. The university acknowledged their error but said it was not within their powers to award an unmoderated grade, and that Mrs C would have to complete some form of assessment for the grade to change. Mrs C complained to us that the university did not respond reasonably to her complaints about the advice she was given about the written assignment. From looking at the evidence we found that from the academic appeal onward, the university acknowledged that they were at fault because staff gave Mrs C misleading advice. This was reflected in the response to her complaint. The university explained to Mrs C why they could not award an unmoderated grade, and tried to provide resolution in line with their regulations. They also took steps to avoid this happening again. On this basis we took the view that the university responded reasonably to Mrs C's complaints. Relat