Recent Decisions of the OIA

Summary:
S was a first year student from Sweden, studying Bio-Chemistry, who received details of a Scholarship scheme after she arrived at the University. A mark equivalent to AAB at A level was required for an award. S had matriculated with the Swedish Slutbetyg and had achieved a mark of VG overall. S submitted an application for the Scholarship which the University rejected. S referred the case to the OIA, on the basis that she believed that the University did not understand how her qualification should be calculated against A Levels. S' mark of VG was shown as being equivalent to a range of marks from BBC to AAB while she believed it was always equivalent to the higher end of the scale.

Summary:
S was a first year student who became friends with another student, R, on commencing his course and accompanied his friend in a series of violent incidents at the University which included the sexual harassment of female students. Both students were taken through the University disciplinary procedure and admitted the incidents although S blamed R for initiating the behaviour. Both students were expelled from the University. S appealed to the University, he said that as he was only an accomplice he should have received a lesser punishment than R.

Summary:
S was an overseas student on a Geology masters. He failed some modules and then had to take a temporary withdrawal. The University offered a resit opportunity outside the normal assessment period in order to assist the student who was in danger of losing his visa. Three open-book examinations were set, which S failed. S had also failed another assessment and so was withdrawn from the degree due to having failed four modules at the final attempt. S had undisclosed mental health problems which he revealed after his failure. He appealed on the basis that he believed something sinister had occurred, as he did not believe that it was possible to fail an open book assessment. S appealed against the University's decision and asked for the return of his fees in order to take the degree at another institution.

Summary:
The University made S an unconditional offer of a place through clearing following a telephone conversation with the Admissions Tutor during which S declared his A Level results. S enrolled on the course and after a lengthy delay produced his A Level certificates; they did not reflect the results he had declared in the telephone conversation. The University wrote to S withdrawing him from the course. S responded by threatening legal action against the University. He continued to attend lectures and hand in coursework until the University refused to allow him to take his exams in the summer term. S complained that the University was in breach of contract by removing him form the course.

Summary:
S was registered for an MPhil leading to a PhD, paying substantial fees. The university soon had serious concerns about S's work but said nothing to her. In due course, her progress was reviewed to see whether it was appropriate to transfer her registration to PhD level. The university concluded that she had not got to grips sufficiently with her research to have a good prospect of reaching doctoral standard. S was adamant that her work was fine.

When S complained, the university offered her the chance of submitting a document to show how she would deal with the concerns that had been expressed about her work. If she had produced a convincing document, the university would have reconsidered its decision not to allow her to progress to PhD level. S did not take up this opportunity but instead complained to the OIA.

S made some other complaints that were not found to be valid.

Summary:
S was a first year student at the University who had a multiple personality disorder. She lived in University-owned accommodation with nine other students. Late one evening a "food fight" took place at the house which resulted in substantial damage to the house and property of some of the residents. S and another student admitted they had been involved in the incident. The other students present denied any involvement.

A disciplinary hearing was convened and the Disciplinary Panel recommended that S:

• be evicted from University accommodation,
• give an undertaking as to future good conduct;
• pay half the cost of the damage to University accommodation and compensate the other residents for the food they had lost.

S appealed against the Disciplinary Panel's decision. Whilst S's substantive appeal was dismissed the Appeal Panel allowed her to remain in University accommodation.

S complained to the OIA that her actions resulted from the effects of her medication and disability and therefore the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings was discriminatory. S also complained that she had not had the opportunity to comment on the costs of the reparation work before it was undertaken.

Summary:
Mr A wished to enrol on an MSc course and accepted an offer of a place on the MSc on the basis that he first took a preliminary stage. That stage required him to pass the first three units at the first attempt before he could progress to the rest of the course. He failed one of the first three units and sought advice as to whether he could write off his first attempt and get back on track for the MSc.

He was then wrongly advised that he could retake the failed unit at a later date. He subsequently paid for and took further units. He was advised a year later that he could not obtain the MSc because he had failed his first attempt at one of the first three units.

He complained informally to his department but he received no response, despite chasing the matter up for 8 months.  Four months further on, he submitted a formal complaint to the University.

The University accepted that it had failed to address his informal complaint and offered him a chance to progress on the course. However, Mr A and the University could not reach agreement over the timetable of the course.

Mr A complained to the OIA that the implications of the preliminary stage had not been explained to him, that incorrect advice had led him to pay for further units unnecessarily and that the University had inadequately dealt with his complaint.

Summary:
Mrs S was awarded a degree with Lower Second Class Honours. In August 2006 she submitted an appeal saying that she was unhappy with the degree classification which the University rejected two months later. S submitted another appeal raising new issues in relation to tutorial support and the treatment of certain students.

The University rejected the appeal but did not address the issue of tutorial support. Mrs S submitted a further appeal challenging the University's decision and saying that the issue of tutorial support had not been addressed. The University rejected the appeal but again failed to address the issue of tutorial support. Mrs S submitted a formal complaint to the University about the way that it had handled her appeal. The University appeared to lose its file and did not respond. Mrs S raised her complaint again and also raised further issues which had not been included in her appeal.

The University apologised for the delay in addressing the complaint and then gave reasons as to why her appeal had not previously been upheld (again not addressing the issue of tutorial support).

Mrs S complained to the OIA about the handling of her appeal and complaint and the University's failure to address the new issues raised by her in August 2007.

Summary:
S was in her third year and returned to the University's halls of residence to take her finals and complete her dissertation. The University had not informed her that major building works would be taking place around her accommodation. This work was very noisy and took place many hours of each day and seven days a week. S complained to the University throughout the academic year that it was disrupting her academic work. The University eventually moved the student to a quieter accommodation block in the last term. S appealed to the University when her marks were only 0.5% below the 2.1 threshold. The University said that it would have considered it as a mitigating circumstances claim had the student made a formal application earlier but that it was not willing to accept an appeal based on mitigating circumstances at this stage.

Summary:
S was on a 3 year degree course with a second year abroad on a University organised exchange scheme. The University threatened to de-register S while he was abroad as it had recorded S' status incorrectly at the Academic Registry. S contacted the University and attempted to update his record. Unfortunately, due to the University's mistakes he could not enrol on the third year modules in which he wished to specialise nor on the dissertation for which he had already commenced his research. S complained to the University throughout the final academic year and in particular after he achieved a 2.1 overall in his third year. S' profile had indicated that he was a first class standard at the end of his second year. S appealed on the basis of the disadvantages that he suffered throughout the third year studying subjects that he had not chosen. The University investigated the case and identified that there had been failings on the part of the University but it did not offer a remedy to S. There were delays throughout the University's investigations and subsequent significant delays in the provision of documentation once the case was referred to the OIA.

Summary: S was studying for a Master's degree. She was dissatisfied with the course and left at the end of the first term. On the basis of her experience, she did not envisage that the next two terms would improve and she considered that no practicable alternatives had been offered by the University. She requested the return of her fees for the remaining two terms. S considered that the published material about the course was misleading, and that her experience did not reflect what had been discussed at her interview. The University said that S had made an informed choice to leave the course and, as this was a voluntary decision, she was not entitled to a fee refund. The University acknowledged that there were some difficulties for students on particular options and had subsequently made changes to the unit in question.

Summary:
S was a third year undergraduate student. After sitting his final exams he returned home and was contacted by telephone and asked to return that day to dictate an illegible examination script. When dictating his answers S improved and added to his original answers. This was discovered and a disciplinary hearing was convened. S was awarded zero for his paper and the offence noted on his record. However awarding S a mark of zero did not affect his overall degree classification and so the University also reduced his degree from a lower second degree to a third. S complained that he had been doubly punished for the same offence. He also complained that he had been given no advice orally or written about what he should do when asked to dictate his script.