Older Case Studies

S had been unsuccessful in her second year medical exams at the first and second attempt. Under the University's regulations, students are automatically considered by a Discretionary Panel with the power to award a discretionary third attempt. S submitted a statement to the panel detailing some family events which she felt had affected her performance. The panel did not award S a third attempt, and she submitted an appeal in which she provided further information about the family events. S's appeal was rejected, and she complained to the OIA on the grounds that the Appeal Panel had not considered her case fully. She felt that the appeal panel had not acknowledged the new evidence she had submitted about the family events.

The OIA found the University's decision not to exercise its discretion to allow a further attempt to be reasonable. From the Appeal Panel's documentation it was apparent that the full submission had been properly considered and the OIA identified no procedural irregularity in the process leading to the decision.

S was registered on a course during which one of the module convenors informed the class that one of the examinations would be marked using a "negative marking" system for the multiple choice section. When the class came to sit the examination, there was no mention of a negative marking system on the examination paper. Some students queried this, and the matter was clarified. However, S was not one of these students. Following the examination, the University decided to mark the examination using both a positive and a negative marking system, giving students the most favourable mark, to ensure none of the students were disadvantaged. S appealed on the basis of a procedural irregularity and undisclosed mitigating circumstances.

The University decided that appropriate steps had been taken to mitigate the ambiguous examination directions and that the mitigating circumstances had not been disclosed in accordance with the relevant procedures.

The OIA found that the University's decision to reject the appeal was not unreasonable: the affected section formed a small part of the examination; S had the opportunity to request clarification, but did not to do so, and S did not offer evidence in support of her claim for mitigating circumstances, nor a reason why they could not have been disclosed in accordance with the relevant procedures at the correct time.

S enrolled at the University in 2002. In 2003 the University confirmed her registration for the degree of MPhil with the possibility of transfer to PhD, with a period of registration of at least 54 months from May 2003. She was informed that if she wished to transfer to PhD the earliest date she could do so was November 2004. S made it clear to her supervisors that she wished to complete her PhD early, and changed from full-time to part-time employment to accommodate this. Her transfer from MPhil to PhD was approved in November 2004. In December 2005, with the support of her supervisors, she applied to submit her PhD earlier than the recommended submission date and this was approved by the University. In January S submitted her PhD and returned to full-time employment.

In February 2006 S had a mock viva, and a date in March 2006 was set for the examination of her thesis. However, shortly before the viva was due to take place it was postponed and the thesis was referred for further work, following a provisional recommendation from the two external examiners.

In May 2006 S submitted a complaint to the University about the cancellation of the viva and the supervision she had received. She contended that her supervisors should have told her she had not spent enough time on her thesis and advised her not to submit it. She claimed out-of-pocket expenses and loss of earnings for the period of her studies of over £50,000. The complaint progressed through a number of stages and the University sent S its final decision in September 2007. It said that the advisory team should have advised S more forcefully on the time-frame for submission, and would have been best advised not to have supported the early submission. However, it found no grounds for financial reimbursement and considered that the University had fulfilled its obligations to S.

The OIA found that the supervisory team should have been more robust in the face of S's determination to submit her thesis early, in considering whether to support her application for approval for early submission. The OIA also found that there were delays in the University's consideration of S's complaint. However, the OIA did not consider that the University was unreasonable in not compensating her for loss of earnings, as the regulations made it clear that a supervisor's agreement to submission did not guarantee the award of a degree. It still remained open to S to proceed with the PhD.

• £500 compensation in recognition of the expense S incurred in submitting her thesis, the distress she experienced due to the cancellation of her viva and the delay in dealing with her complaint.

S joined the course hoping to go on a student exchange. He achieved 46% in a module and was advised that he was not eligible to go on the exchange. He lodged a complaint which was rejected by the University.

He complained to the OIA that the University had not accurately described its exchange programme. The programme was highly regulated and it had not been advertised that participation on the exchange was subject to terms and conditions. He stated that the University had breached the Unfair Trading Act 2008 as the advertising was misleading and hid information. He only found out about the rules (terms and conditions) after he had started the course.

The OIA found that the University had not deliberately misrepresented the course. However, the University's publicity literature was unclear as to who would be able to qualify for the exchange and did not advise students that they would need to apply and meet certain academic requirements in order to be eligible. It was evident that requirements for participation on the exchange were in place prior to S beginning the course. In order to make decisions regarding the course students should have timely access to the University's rules and regulations and in this case S did not have this information to inform his choices.

The OIA could not recommend that S be given a place on the exchange programme. There was evidence to show that S's application was considered and that he was interviewed as part of the process while his appeal was pending.

Ultimately S did not meet the academic requirements to be eligible for the exchange. However, the University should amend certain publicity material to make the requirements clear to students. Students should also be given this information as soon as possible to ensure they can make informed decisions about the course.

• The University should take measures to ensure that amendments to the Progression and Assessment Regulations are confirmed and published in time for students to receive this information when they register on the course or shortly thereafter.
• The University should amend its promotional material and the website by adding a statement which alerts students to the fact that they are not automatically eligible for a place on the exchange programme, and may not get a place at their first choice institution.
• The University should offer to pay to S the sum of £750 as a result of the fact that the University failed to provide him with important course information in a timely manner and for the disappointment that he experienced as a result of the unclear publicity literature.

S appealed against marks awarded for three units in Year 2, on the grounds that the University did not implement her student support plan until Year 3 and thus failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability. S had declared a disability in relation to a serious mental illness and cognitive difficulties linked to dyslexia at the outset of her course. Because of the complexity of S's condition it took a considerable time for an effective support plan to be developed. In Year 3, after a revised support plan had been put in place, S's performance improved, and professional staff involved confirmed that the revised plan had contributed to this improvement. The University rejected S's appeal on the grounds that it had acted reasonably in applying adjustments in Year 3 and could make no retrospective allowance for earlier work.

The OIA found that the delay in achieving an optimal support plan resulted from the complexity of S's condition, rather than from any failure on the part of the University or S. The OIA found, however, that the University had acted unreasonably in dismissing her appeal without considering retrospectively the effects of her disability in the light of further information which emerged about the effectiveness of various adjustments.

• The OIA recommended that the University should review S's appeal, giving due consideration to whether it was possible to make allowances for any possible substantial disadvantage arising from limitations in the support provided at the time of the assessments concerned.
• The OIA made no recommendation about the outcome of the review, which was properly a matter of academic judgment.

The University reviewed S's appeal and decided that her marks should be raised.

S was an undergraduate student who suffered from a severe skin condition. Most of the time, S was able to manage his condition; however, occasionally he would experience chronic and debilitating "flare-ups". During the first year of his course, S applied for and was granted special examination arrangements which enabled him to sit and pass his first and second year examinations successfully. However, in the days leading up to and during his final examinations, S experienced a chronic flare-up of his condition. He submitted a special circumstances form to the University claiming that the effect of the flare-up was so severe that the examination arrangements were insufficient to address the effects of his condition. With his form, S submitted detailed medical evidence which supported his claim. The University rejected S's special circumstances claim, and subsequent appeal, on the basis that special examination arrangements were in place and to accept his special circumstances claim would amount to "double counting".

S complained to the OIA that the University failed to take proper account of his special circumstances when considering his final degree classification. In particular, he contended that the University did not take account of the fact that the alternative arrangements which were in place for his examinations (five minute rest breaks per hour) were not adequate during his final examinations. The remedy he sought was for the OIA to recommend that the University reconsider his final degree result.

There was evidence that the Board of Examiners may not have asked itself the right questions and/or may have unduly fettered its discretion when considering S's final year special circumstances claim. In particular, the OIA found that the Board of Examiners had failed to consider whether the special facilities and extra allowances provided for the student during his final year examinations were an adequate and balancing compensation for his condition.

• The University to refer S's appeal back to the Examination Board for reconsideration.

The University accepted the OIA's recommendation; the Examination Board reconsidered S's appeal and recommended that his degree classification (2:2) be upgraded to a 2:1.

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.

There is no direct equivalence between Swedish qualifications and United Kingdom qualifications. The OIA found that the University used its academic judgment, based on the expert advice of NARIC (the National Agency responsible for providing information and advice about vocational, academic and professional skills and qualifications from all over the world), to calculate a band of equivalences suitable for admissions and for the award of scholarships. This included considering S' scores in separate subjects, relevant to her degree, as well as the overall score.

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.

The penalty was within the discretionary range available to the University and the decision to expel was reasonable in all the circumstances.

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.

The University had correctly followed the assessment and appeal regulations. The University had also reacted in a flexible manner to S's pastoral problems and requests.

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.

The OIA found that S had provided contradictory and wrong information to the University about his A Level results. The offer of the place was made on the basis of the results which S had declared. The University was entitled to rescind that offer when the true results were ascertained.

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.

S had not been warned at an earlier stage that her standard of work was well below PhD level. She had therefore been deprived of the opportunity of reconsidering her position and cutting her losses. For this reason the OIA held that her complaint was partly justified. However, in determining the appropriate amount of compensation, the OIA took into account the likelihood that S would have been determined to continue and also her failure to mitigate her position by taking up the university's reasonable offer.

• £1,000 compensation

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.

There was no causal relationship between the student's medical condition/disability and her actions in causing damage to University property. The University was acting reasonably and in accordance with its procedures in taking disciplinary action against her.

However, the University ought to have obtained a breakdown of the estimated costs of reparation work and that breakdown ought to have been disclosed to the student for comment.

• the University should offer to reduce S's contribution to the reparation costs by £100.

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.

Mr A was adequately advised about the preliminary stage, but given wrong advice which led to him purchasing the further units and his complaint was not dealt with properly.

• Compensation of £3750, including an amount to account for the units Mr A had paid for unnecessarily on the basis of the University's inaccurate advice.
• The University to review staff training in relation to its complaints procedures.

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.

It was inappropriate for the University to investigate the further issues raised in August 2007 when considering a complaint about the way it had handled an appeal. However, the University did not fully address the appeal and failed to satisfactorily investigate the subsequent complaint in a timely and thorough manner.

• Compensation of £400.
• The University to reviews its appeals and complaints procedures.
• The University to ensure that its staff are appropriately trained on the appeals and complaints procedures.

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.

S' clear communications to the University should have been accepted as a mitigating circumstances application or she should have been advised to submit a formal application.

• That the case be referred back to the Examination Board to consider the mitigating circumstances. 

The University accepted the OIA's recommendation and S' degree classification was reconsidered in the light of the mitigating circumstances. She was subsequently awarded a 2.1.

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.

We found that there had been maladministration which had affected S and that while the University had acknowledged this point it had not offered a remedy. There were also delays throughout the University's procedures and this continued during the OIA's review in the provision of responses by the University.

• That the University should offer to pay S £5,000 for the detrimental effects of the University's mistakes and delays.
• That S and the University should agree a reference which acknowledged that due to the University's maladministration S had not received the support that he should have expected in his second and third years.
• That the University should review the administrative procedures for the year abroad and for the complaints system and that the University should report back to the OIA once these reviews had been completed.

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.

On the facts of this case the OIA found that there were discrepancies between S's legitimate expectations of the course arising from the published material and her experience of it. The University did not appear to have considered the core reason for S's dissatisfaction or specifically looked at the intended and actual learning opportunities. Had it done so it would have been reasonable to consider a refund of some or all of the fees.

• The OIA recommended the return of 80% of the fees for the two terms after S had left the course.

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.

The OIA found the complaint to be justified as the University had no written policy about the dictation of illegible exam scripts, there was no evidence that S was told what was required of him and at the hearing S's supporter was wrongly advised that he was unable to speak in S's defence. There was also delay and lack of notice of meetings.

• That the Board of Examiners reconsider S's case with a view to fixing a penalty that is both proportionate to the offence and reflective of the shortcomings in its procedures.
• That the University reconsider the note placed on S's record that he had admitted an offence of cheating.
• That the University pay S £100 in recognition of the procedural irregularities that had occurred.
• That the University introduces regulations or guidance relating to illegible examination scripts as soon as possible.