Recent Decisions by the OIA

Some facts have been altered slightly in order to preserve anonymity.

• Academic Appeals
• Professional Placements
• Postgraduates
• Discipline
• Contractual issues
• Accommodation
• Disability

Academic Appeals

Case 1

D was a student at the University of WW.  He was informed by the University that he had not reached the required standard to proceed to the next year of the course.  D submitted a formal appeal against this decision, citing mitigating circumstances in relation to his performance.  The University accepted the mitigating circumstances and in a letter informed him that he was to be given another opportunity to rejoin the course.  This letter gave no details of any conditions to be imposed upon D before he could resume.  It was only after several months of protracted negotiations that the position become clear and D decided that he could not fulfil the conditions imposed.  D complained to the OIA that he had not been given a full and clear response to the appeal and that the University had no right to impose conditions on his return to the course after he had won his appeal.  The OIA found the complaint justified in part.  It found that the University, as a matter of academic judgment, had the right to impose conditions upon D before allowing him to rejoin the course.  However, it found that such conditions should have been made fully clear in the original decision letter.  If that had been the case, and if D had been unhappy with such conditions, he would have been able to avail himself of the next stages of the appeals procedure.  The OIA recommended that the University allow D to re-engage with the appeals procedure and offer D £100 as compensation.

^ top ^

 Case 2

G was a student at the University of TT.  She was awarded an Upper Second class degree.  She appealed, unsuccessfully, to the University against this classification and then to the OIA on the following grounds: that the University had discriminated against her in that she had not been allowed to take a module that others in similar circumstances had been allowed to take; that the University had failed to take account of extenuating circumstances when classifying her degree; that the timing of examinations had been unreasonable; and that it had failed to comply with its own internal appeal procedures.  The OIA cannot look at issues of academic judgment.  Nevertheless it found that the complaint was justified in part.  The University had treated G inequitably in denying her an option that was allowed to others; there was confusion surrounding the question whether or not extenuating circumstances could be taken into account in deciding on the degree; the reasons given by the University in rejecting her complaint were unsubstantiated, but the University did not act improperly in relation to the timing of examinations.  None of these were grounds for reconsidering the classification of G’s degree.  The OIA recommended that the University should consider redrafting the regulations on extenuating circumstances to remove any ambiguity and pay G £400 compensation.

^ top ^

Case 3

H was a BSc student at the University of SS.  She was awarded an Upper Second class degree in 2002 but was dissatisfied with the result.  She appealed successfully to the University’s Academic Appeal Panel on the grounds that there had been a breach of assessment regulations in relation to one module and that the standards of supervision in relation to another module were defective.  On referral back of her case to the Assessment Board, she was offered the chance to retake one of the modules as if for the first time.  She rejected this offer as she was no longer in a position to do so.  She complained to the OIA that it had taken 10 months for her university appeal to be heard, and that the remedy offered was inadequate given that the university had been at fault.  She sought an upgrade of her degree to a First, or compensation.  The OIA found the complaint justified.  Her appeal had been lodged in December and referred to an internal appeals panel in April, but it did not meet until October and gave its decision the following December.  The remedy offered was inadequate in view of the time that had elapsed, whereas it might have been possible for the university to have offered H the option of a viva at an earlier stage.  It was not for the OIA to change a degree classification, which lies within the academic judgment of the university, but an offer of £3000 by the university as compensation was recommended and made.

^ top ^

Case 4

J was a part-time postgraduate student at the University of RR who had failed 3 modules 3 times.  As a result the university required that he be withdrawn from the course.  J submitted a claim for extenuating circumstances to be taken into account, claiming that the primary causes of his failures were exceptional and unexpected changes to his jobs, which affected his work.  He was unable to sleep and concentrate.  He was also suffering from stress due to a house move and the build up of his studies.  J complained to the OIA that the university had not properly considered the evidence he provided regarding his circumstances.  The complaint was found not justified, as the regulations made it clear that the student was responsible for providing full information regarding their circumstances and J had failed to do so.  The university had properly considered the evidence and applied its regulations and had found the evidence to be insufficient to support his claim.

^ top ^

Case 5

N was awarded a degree with Lower Second Class Honours by the University of NN. She appealed to the University against this classification on the ground of new evidence of extenuating circumstances that could not have been made known to the examiners before the examinations were held.  Her appeal was dismissed as being groundless and she complained to the OIA that the University had given no reasons for this decision; she asked for the examination board to be reconvened to hear her appeal and give reasons.  The University responded that medical evidence had been taken into account on two occasions prior to the final examinations and that the later evidence was not regarded as new.  No explanation of this had been given to N or to the OIA until a very late stage in the handling of the complaint.  The University had also incorrectly regarded N’s appeal as being made out of time.  The OIA found N’s complaints justified and recommended that, following the suggestion of the University, there should be one further consideration of N’s case by the examination board and that compensation of £50 should be paid to her for maladministration.

^ top ^

Case 6

X was a student on a one-year professional course at the University of DD. He became ill shortly after the start of the course and missed 4 months of study.  He failed his final examinations in June and the re-sit in August. He re-registered on the course in September and then decided to claim that there had been extenuating circumstances relating to his earlier failed examinations. A student union officer told him that he was too late to submit a claim of extenuating circumstances in relation to the two sets of exams at the end of his first year.  He failed the exams again at the end of the second year. Although the deadline for submitting extenuating circumstances had passed, X claimed that he had been too unwell to submit them before the exams in the first year and that his judgment had been affected.  The OIA agreed with the University  that X was well enough to have submitted the claim of extenuating circumstances in June of his first year, given that he had been fit enough to sit the exams.  There were no valid reasons why he could not have complied with the deadline. He was not entitled to an aegrotat pass in relation to the third attempt as he was no longer ill. The complaint was not justified.

^ top ^

Case 7

U registered as a student in 2001 and in 2005 was awarded a 2:2 degree under new university academic regulations.  He complained that his profile under the old regulations would have resulted in a 2:1 award, and that final year students had been assured that the new regulations would not affect them.  The regulations were prefaced by the statement that “It is not envisaged that any revision will disadvantage students either in their progression through or conferment of awards.”  Under the old regulations U’s marks would have resulted in an overall mark of 60.71%, the minimum requirement for a 2:1, whereas under the new calculations they amounted only to 56.98%.  The University said that there was no guarantee that U would have been awarded a 2:1 under the old regulations and that this was a matter of discretion and academic judgment  The OIA found the complaint justified in part.  The degree was properly classified as 2:2 under the new regulations but those regulations were misleading in suggesting to students that they would not be disadvantaged by their introduction.  A payment of £150 was recommended.  While the OIA has no remit over issues of academic judgment, it is for the OIA to determine whether an issue is one of academic judgment or not.

^ top ^

Professional Placements

Case 8

C was a second-year student on a BA course at the University of XX.  A practical placement was a required part of the course.  C’s performance on the placement was considered unsatisfactory and the placement was suspended.  She was offered the opportunity to repeat it so that, if it were to be satisfactorily completed, she could progress to the third year of the course.  C appealed unsuccessfully against this decision through the internal procedures of the University of XX.  C complained to the OIA about the handling of her placement and the accuracy of the marking of some coursework.  The OIA found C’s complaint not justified: the placement decisions were reasonable and proper.  The available evidence did not support C’s claims about the process of marking her coursework and it was noted that the OIA has no remit to consider matters of academic judgment.

^ top ^

Case 9

U was a graduate from a non-English speaking country registered at the University of GG to undertake a Post Graduate Certificate of Education.  She had difficulties with the first school placement and agreed on remedial actions with the University.  She then failed the second school placement and faced deregistration from the course.  She appealed to the University unsuccessfully and then to the OIA.  U complained that the support she had received on the course was inadequate and failed to take into account her special situation and needs; that the University’s complaints procedures were lengthy and unprofessional; and that there was discrimination against those whose first language was not English.  She sought an apology from the University. The OIA found that the support given was adequate for a postgraduate course and that her concerns had been properly addressed.  However, the delays in the internal complaints process were excessive (one year) and there had been substantial procedural defects.  U’s complaint was found to be justified in part and the OIA recommended that the University should apologise to her for the delay and the defects.  It also recommended that the staff should be given more training in complaints handling and that the University of KK should consider whether its appeal process was too complex.  No evidence of discrimination was found.

^ top ^

 Postgraduates

Case 10

E was a postgraduate student at the University of VV.  She complained that she had been forced to accept a topic for research which was inappropriate and adversely affected her performance; that her marks were wrongly calculated; that supervision of her dissertation was inadequate; and that she was treated badly by members of staff.  Her complaint to the University had been dismissed and she complained to the OIA.  All four parts of her complaint were found to be not justified for lack of evidence or because they lay within the academic judgment of the University or because the issues had not been raised at the relevant time.

^ top ^

Case 11

L was a graduate doctoral student at the University of PP.  She was found to have plagiarised parts of her thesis but, having regard to mitigating circumstances, was allowed to resubmit it.  On resubmission, the thesis was failed.  L appealed against this finding, and both internal and external reviewers appointed by the University found that there had been inadequate supervision. The University proposed no further action on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence about the lack of supervision.  L complained to the OIA on two grounds: first, that having followed the guidance of her supervisors, the failure must be due to unfair examination or inadequate supervision and second, that no remedy was offered by the University after an appeal that had taken a year and found in her favour. The OIA found the complaints justified.  The reasons were that the available evidence supported the view that there had been inadequate supervision, and there had been an internal finding to that effect; therefore it was unreasonable of the University to offer no compensation or other remedy to resolve L’s complaint.  Moreover, the University’s internal investigation of the complaint was protracted, lacked transparency and failed to keep L informed.  The OIA recommended that the University pay L £2500 by way of compensation.

^ top ^

Case 12

Y was registered as a doctoral student at the University of CC. She submitted her thesis for examination.  The examiners’ decision was that she had not satisfied the requirements for the award of a PhD but that she could resubmit the revised thesis for the degree of MPhil. Y sought the opportunity to resubmit a revised thesis and be reexamined for the degree of PhD. In her complaint she alleged maladministration, in that the examiners lacked impartiality and experience; discrimination, in that an examiner had been aggressive and patronizing towards her in the oral examination; and unfair practices, namely, failure to respect her freedom of though and dignity and that medical evidence affecting her performance had not been properly dealt with.  The OIA found the complaint not justified for the following reason: the conduct of the oral examination fell within the range of reasonable practice and the appointment of examiners was within the general scope of the regulations.  Their suitability was a question of academic judgment over which the OIA has no remit. The appeal procedures had been properly followed.

^ top ^

Case 13

The student A was registered as a doctoral student for 7 years.  After 2 years he transferred from MPhil to PhD status.  After 8 extensions to the deadline for his submission he withdrew voluntarily from the course and complained to the University about his supervision.  He sought compensation of £250,000; the University identified defects in the University’s procedures and offered £500.  A complained to the OIA about his supervisor’s failure to warn him that his work was not of the required standard; that he did not receive annual appraisals; and that he was not given appropriate support and communication by the university.  The OIA found the complaint justified on the grounds that there should have been earlier warnings about the failure to progress and the failure to submit written work.  Although A did not complain about his supervision during the 7 years nor did he complete a single chapter of his thesis, firmer control should have been exercised by the supervisor, who should not have repeatedly supported requests for extensions.  The student also bore responsibility and should have taken steps to ensure that his difficulties were being addressed.  The OIA recommended that the University offer £1000 compensation, improve its appraisal and upgrade procedures and show how it would monitor those procedures to ensure compliance in the future.

^ top ^

Case 14

Student X registered as a full time doctoral student in October; her research proposal was submitted in May and was deemed inadequate.  In October of the next year a revised proposal  was also found not to demonstrate the required doctoral ability.  In the following February X’s registration at the University was terminated.  X complained to the University and subsequently to the OIA about the unsatisfactory nature of the annual review and about her supervision, on the ground that it cannot have been good because her proposal failed. The OIA found the complaint to be not justified.  There was no procedural irregularity in the annual review or in the University’s internal procedures.  The standard of X’s work was an issue of academic judgment and outside the remit of the OIA Scheme.  The University had reached its decision after very careful consideration and it held the opinion, reasonably, that to allow X to continue her studies would have been unfair and irresponsible.  X objected to references by the University to the circumstances that had hampered her progress with her work, but these were held to be an unobjectionable record of the reasons for her difficulties.

^ top ^

Discipline

Case 15

A was a postgraduate student at the University of ZZ.  A admitted plagiarism in a piece of coursework.  He claimed extenuating circumstances:- he had had to work long hours in order to finance his studies, which had left him with too little time to complete the coursework in question and, as a result, he had copied a fellow student’s work.  The University found him guilty of a major offence and as a penalty required him to retake the module and pay the fees for it again.  A appealed to the University against the payment of fees and his appeal was dismissed.  A complained to the OIA which found A’s complaint not justified: the plagiarism had been correctly categorised as a major offence within the University’s regulations and the penalty imposed was fair and reasonable.

^ top ^

Case 16

B was a final year BA student at the University of YY.  He was accused of plagiarism by copying the work of a fellow student.  B admitted plagiarism and gave evidence of extenuating circumstances relating to family conditions.  He was given a zero mark for the work in question.  The University decided that B should be permitted to repeat his final year as if from scratch.  B complained through the internal procedures of the University, but his complaints were dismissed.  B then complained to the OIA on several grounds, including that the University had failed to follow its own procedures in dealing with the allegation of plagiarism.  The University acknowledged that the procedures adopted in the early stages of dealing with the plagiarism allegation did not conform to those set out in its Regulations, despite being notified by a student union representative at the time that inappropriate and prolonged departures were occurring.  The OIA found B’s complaint to be justified in part, in that the University had, as it admitted, failed to follow its own procedures in its initial handling of the allegation of plagiarism against him.  The OIA recommended that the University offer a payment of £50 to B in respect of the aspect of his complaint that was justified.

^ top ^

Case 17

M, an overseas student, registered for a Master’s degree at the University of OO. At the end of the year M was found to have brought notes into the examination hall and received a reprimand and a mark of zero for the two examinations concerned.  M was permitted to resit with a maximum award capped at Grade D.  She appealed unsuccessfully to the University against this decision.  M resat the examinations, gaining Grade D in each, and was awarded a Diploma, a lower award than the Master’s degree she had sought.  She complained to the OIA that the penalty of capping resits at Grade D was too severe; that the University had failed to take account of her mitigating circumstances and the specific social and economic consequences to her of the decision.  M sought to be allowed to proceed to the Master’s degree level.  The OIA found her complaint not justified.   The penalty applied fell within the norms recommended and was lower than it might have been under the regulations; the OIA accepted that the University had taken into account the representations concerning mitigating circumstances and had no grounds for treating M differently to other students on the basis of the potential social and economic consequences to her of failing.

^ top ^

Case 18

S was a student at the University of II who had a room in a hall of residence there.  In a student election meeting he made comments that were judged to be offensive and harassing in relation to the dean of the hall.  After a disciplinary hearing, he was fined, disallowed from residing in that hall of residence in the next academic year and required to leave it at the end of term, despite having been granted permission to stay on for an extra week after the end of term, for which he had paid.  The Vice Chancellor reviewed the situation and upheld the exclusion from the hall at the end of term. S’s appeal against the substantive penalty was pending.    In complaining to the OIA about the exclusion from the hall for the extra week and the loss of the fees paid for that week, S was represented by a lawyer and alleged procedural and human rights breaches by the University.  The OIA found his complaint not justified.  The Vice Chancellor had acted reasonably in his supervisory role, and not in breach of natural justice, (he was not to be expected to act like a court or tribunal) and it was not unreasonable for the week’s accommodation fees to be forfeited. The fact that his appeal against the week’s exclusion could only be heard after the date on which it was effective was immaterial.

^ top ^

Case 19

T was a postgraduate registered for an MA at the University of HH.  He was alleged to have plagiarised two coursework essays and not allowed to proceed on the course.  He argued that the plagiarism was unintentional, and related to misunderstandings over methods of referencing work.  The University dismissed his appeal and he complained to the OIA.  The University represented that T and all other students had been made aware of its Policy on Plagiarism, emphasising that it was a serious offence. They had been given handbooks, an introductory meeting and a seminar which included instruction on methods of referencing. They were all asked to sign a declaration that they had understood it before submitting work: T had signed a Plagiarism Declaration in relation to both pieces of work.  The OIA found that the University had acted reasonably in communicating to students its policy on plagiarism and the penalties for it.  T could not be excused if he had not read it or attended the information sessions.  His complaint was found to be not justified and the penalty of withdrawal from the course was found to be reasonable.

^ top ^

Case 20

M was a student at the University.  In October at the start of his second year he assaulted a member of the public and was suspended.  In December the University Disciplinary Panel found him guilty, expelled him and cancelled his academic credits. In February he submitted an appeal, which was heard in November, 13 months after the assault occurred.  The Appeal Panel upheld the expulsion but restored the academic credits.  M complained to the OIA on the ground that the University should not have applied an academic penalty (the cancellation of credits) to a non-academic offence, and on the ground of delay.  Had the academic credits not been (wrongly) cancelled, he might have been able to resume his studies elsewhere at the start of his third year; this, coupled with the delay in hearing his appeal meant that his studies had been delayed by a further year.  The OIA found his complaint justified: under the university regulations the Disciplinary Panel was not entitled to withhold academic credits for a purely disciplinary matter, and the time taken to address the issues was excessive. It was recommended that the University pay £750 to M in recognition of the effects of this on his prospects for seeking alternative academic opportunities in the next academic year.

^ top ^

Contractual issues

Case 21

Q was a full time undergraduate at the University of KK who accepted a job offer conditional on good references and passing her degree. One day later a tutor gave a verbal reference about Q to the employer as a result of which the employer telephoned Q and withdrew the offer.  A written reference in similar terms was given to another potential employer. Q obtained the employer’s note of the verbal reference and complained to the University and then to the OIA that the reference contained information that was misleading, inaccurate and incomplete.  Q secured another job at a slightly better salary within 5 weeks of the withdrawal of the first offer.  The University responded that it believed that the references were fair and accurate.  The OIA found inaccurate and misleading statements in both references concerning the number of resits required by Q and the maximum marks she had obtained. However, the adverse comments on general academic competence and poor attendance were reasonable. The complaint was justified in part and the OIA recommended that the university offer Q an apology for the lack of prudence and care, and compensation of £200 for the stress involved; and that there should be training for staff on the legal aspects associated with the provision of references.

^ top ^

Case 22

V was a mature student in employment who registered in 1999 for a four year part time (weekend) professional course at the University of FF.  Registration as a professional was possible only if she graduated from an accredited course. V complained that the University had failed in its duty of care to her and was in breach of contract.  She alleged that the course provided was inadequate, as evidenced by its failure to gain professional accreditation from the Governing Body of the profession.  V also alleged that the University had failed to keep her and other students informed about the progress made towards accreditation so that she could not decide whether or not to stay on the course; that the course was mismanaged and there was a lack of accountability for finding a solution.  She complained to the OIA seeking a refund of 50% of the fees, and compensation for loss of earnings and distress and inconvenience. The course was eventually accredited. V achieved professional qualification after the University arranged an external extra course for this purpose, for which it met the expenses.  After students complained in 2001, an independent reviewer had found shortcomings in the course and recommended ex gratia payments.  V remained dissatisfied and complained to the OIA in 2004.

The OIA found that there were shortcomings in the course; that the University had failed in its communication of problems to the students; and that the complaints procedure was not handled in a timely way.  The complaint was justified and the OIA recommended payment of compensation to V totalling £9000.  This consisted of £2000 for the acknowledged failings of the curriculum and educational standards provided by the University; £2000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the postponed accreditation, the uncertainties relating to the outcome, the disruption to studies and the delay in complaints handling; and £5000 for the loss of an opportunity to improve earning power through professional accreditation earlier than was possible in the circumstances.

^ top ^

Case 23

W registered for a undergraduate course in science at the University of EE.  He had chosen this particular course after carrying out research on the content of different degree courses on offer and chose this one because it offered modules he was particularly interested in.  Upon registration he was handed a copy of the curriculum and discovered that the course content was different to that shown on the website.  He complained to the OIA that the University had substantially changed the content of the course from that which was described on the website and that students were not notified of the changes until they registered on the course.  He also complained that the University had not treated his complaint seriously and that he had been forced to taken an unintended and unwanted gap year.  The University accepted that there had been changes but that there was a need to change the curriculum as topics developed and that most of the material was still available in a different form.  The OIA agreed in its decision that the course needed to change from time to time but that there was a need to inform prospective students and in particular freshers.  This was in accord with the QAA Code of Practice.  The changes to the course had been agreed before registration but no effort had been made to inform upcoming students nor was the website updated until after W complained.  The complaint was found justified.  If W had been notified of the course changes a month earlier he would have had more time to make alternative arrangements for the coming year if required.  Moreover the University’s response to W’s complaint had been confused and inadequate.  The OIA recommended that the University offer W £300 as compensation for the inconvenience suffered by him due to the University’s failings.

^ top ^

Case 24

Am American postgraduate, D, commenced her studies at an English university and arranged a US government loan.  She sent the paperwork to the university two months before the start of the course and asked it to request a loan on her behalf, as was required under the scheme.  She required proof of the loan in order to obtain her student visa enabling her to enter the UK.  The information was not provided in good time by the university.  The necessary documentation was sent by the University to her US address 2 months after the expected date in an insufficiently addressed and stamped envelope.  When the loan cheque arrived D discovered that the university had requested a loan for an amount far in excess of that which she had specified.  The university’s actions contributed to her being unable open a bank account in the UK for some months.  So she was unable to pay her tuition fees and could not register and use the library.  The University also delayed by 6 months a scholarship which it had awarded her.  D complained to the OIA that there had been administrative failures on the part of the University causing delays in the receipt of her loan money from the US, and jeopardising her visa application; and that she had been denied access to student facilities during her initial period at the University.  The complaint was found to be justified: the University should have taken greater steps to assist D and the delays were unacceptable.  It was recommended that the University pay D £750 compensation.

^ top ^

Case 25

The student A was a native Portuguese speaker and enrolled on a distance Translation Course at the University, which was designed for translation from English into the native language of the student.  The prospectus promised 24 assignments with feedback and 6 distance tutorials.  Her first tutor died unexpectedly; the replacement was temporary and the third tutor did not have a satisfactory relationship with the student, nor was his English good.  By the end of the course the student had received 2 out of 6 tutorials and one-sixth of her assignments had not received feedback.  Her complaint to the OIA was found justified and it was recommended that the University pay the student £500 in recognition of the failure to provide all of the elements of the contract and the failure to deal with the complaint in a reasonable and timely manner.

^ top ^

Accommodation

Case 26

K was an undergraduate at the University of QQ.  The HEI had sold its halls of residence to a private finance initiative company before he took up his place.  After a few weeks K quit his studies at the HEI and vacated the room in the hall of residence for which he had signed a licence agreement with the company.  The HEI refunded his tuition fees.  The company re-let his room in the hall of residence but refused to refund any rent.  It said it was not obliged to do so under the terms of the student licences.  The HEI denied any responsibility.  K’s complaint to the OIA was found justified.  The representations made by the HEI in the prospectus in relation to ownership and responsibility for the halls of residence were ambiguous; the rent was paid to the HEI; the HEI had assumed some responsibility for the letting process in promotional material inviting students to reserve a room, and holding itself out as being in association with the company; furthermore the HEI should not have put students in the position of having to enter into unfair licences.  Its own previous practice allowed refunds in certain cases and at its discretion, whereas there were no parallel clauses in the company licence.  It was recommended that the HEI refund to K the amount equivalent to rent paid during the period when the room was re-let, minus the deposit and an administration fee.

^ top ^

Case 27

R was a student at the University of JJ who accepted a room in a hall of residence from September of her first year.  The hall was undergoing refurbishment until the end of November.  In January she moved out and sought private accommodation.  A replacement tenant was found in March. The University sought payment of residence fees amounting to £900 as agreed under the licence and withdrew certain privileges from R because of non payment.  She appealed to the University and was offered an apology and an ex gratia payment of £300 for procedural irregularities in the handling of her complaint.  She remained dissatisfied with the outcome and complained to the OIA.  The grounds were that she had complained to the University in October about disruption from the refurbishment and lack of personal safety in the hall.  The University rejected the criticisms on factual grounds.  The OIA found the University’s response to be reasonable and that the payment of £300 should be accepted, the complaint being not justified.

^ top ^

Disability

Case 28

F was a student at the University of UU.  He complained that the University would not allow him to progress to the 4th year (honours level) of the course, although he was able to graduate with a general degree after three years.  F underwent an assessment that established that he suffered from dyslexia.  F complained that the University’s refusal to allow him to enter the 4th year of his course was unfair because it discriminated against him on the grounds of his disability; it applied stricter criteria to him than to others progressing to the 4th year; and it had breached its own internal appeals procedures.  His appeal to the University was dismissed.  The OIA found his complaint not justified.  The University had fulfilled the requirements of the relevant disability legislation in providing F with special assistance, but there was no requirement to award a student higher examination marks because he is disabled.  The application of criteria was fair and reasonable and the appeal process had been properly conducted.

^ top ^

Case 29

O, who had been diagnosed as dyslexic, was an undergraduate at the University of MM.  In her third year, having been granted an extension of a deadline relating to a third resit of a module,  she was due to submit a piece of work to her department at 9.30 am in the morning of a particular day; in fact the work was handed in during the afternoon.  The examination board awarded the work a mark of zero because it had been handed in late and terminated her studies.  The University dismissed her appeal. O complained to the OIA that exclusion from her degree course was a disproportionate response to handing in work late; and that her dyslexia may have had some bearing on her understanding of deadlines.  The OIA found the complaint justified. O had in fact attempted to hand in the work early in the morning but finding noone to receive it, had returned later.  Furthermore, O was not told of the consequences of late submission nor of her right to make representations about its proportionality, and it did not appear that sufficient account had been taken of the dyslexia.  The OIA recommended that O be given two months in which to submit the work and that the University pay compensation of £400 for the inconvenience and stress caused to her.  

^ top ^

Case 30

P was an undergraduate on a four-year course at the University of LL.  He suffered from a serious illness and was also dyslexic.  As part of his course, one year was spent at a university overseas.  P was awarded a Lower Second Class degree and appealed to the University against that classification on the ground that his illness had been insufficiently taken into account and that the overseas university had not made the necessary allowances for his dyslexia.  He was unsuccessful and complained to the OIA on those grounds, and also that there was a procedural irregularity in the university’s hearing of his appeal in that very short notice of an appeal hearing had been given to him.  The OIA found his complaint not justified.  The University of LL had made full allowances for the illness and had given the proper support for dyslexia.  The overseas university had not accepted the diagnosis of dyslexia. In those circumstances the onus was on P to seek support from the home university, which he had not done.  The short notice of the appeal hearing did not materially disadvantage P, who had not informed the University that he wished to find legal representation before it took place.  Nevertheless the University should ensure that reasonable notice was given to appellants in future.

^ top ^

Case 31

Student L registered on a one year Masters’ course and completed all requirements except the project due in October.  Following a severe and disabling accident, the deadline was extended to December, then July and the following December.  Two years later L was failed because he had not submitted his project.  7 years after registration he submitted the project, which was regarded as inadequate, but he was given a further year in which to submit because of his ill health and failures in communication when he returned abroad.  The re-submitted project failed; after appeal he was given another year.  Ten years after registration L asked for disability adjustments and a further extension; these were refused on the grounds of time limits.  L complained to the OIA, which found the complaint not justified.  Even though there had been some confusion about the time limits properly to be applied, the university had been generous in extending time limits and had taken into account L’s disabilities.  The University was not required by law to waive academic requirements to accommodate a disabled student.  L’s failure to achieve the degree he sought was due solely to his failure to submit a satisfactory project.  

^ top ^

Case 32

C was registered on a Physiotherapy Course at the University.  He suffered from severe physical disability and was granted extra attempts at assessments.  C did in fact progress to the next stage of his studies but complained that in making alternative arrangements for him the burdens imposed were greater and the range of choice narrower than that afforded to able students.  This element of his complaint was found justified by the OIA.  The University was also found to have failed to carry out its complaints procedures properly and in particular had failed to investigate charges by C that staff bullied him and were prejudiced against him; it did not take proper professional advice on the adjustments that should have been made for a disabled student.  The University did not follow its own procedures in rejecting the option of conciliation facilitated by the Disability Conciliation Service.  A sum of £600 in recognition of the distress caused to C was recommended.

^ top ^