Older Case Studies

Course/Professional Body: Social Work; General Social Care Council (GSCC)

S was enrolled on a BSc in Social Work. Before offering students a place on the course, the University required them to complete a form disclosing any previous convictions. S disclosed one motoring conviction for which she had received a 28 day ban. The University did not consider this to be serious and offered S a place on the course.

Before starting her second year placement, S was required to complete an application for an Enhanced Criminal Records Disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau, as a result of which two further motoring convictions, which S had not previously disclosed to the University, came to light. The University convened a Cause for Concern Meeting at which S explained the reasons for the non-disclosure. At the same meeting, S was asked to prepare an anonymised written explanation of the circumstances surrounding the additional convictions and the reasons why she had not disclosed them. S was informed that her written statement would be forwarded to two of the University's partner agencies who were responsible for offering placements. Their comments and S's statement would then be considered by the University's Convictions Panel ("Convictions Panel") under the University's healthcare students screening procedure ("the Screening Procedure").

The Screening Procedure required the details of offences to be outlined to partner agencies for a response as to: "…whether they would be in a position to potentially offer a placement or employ someone with the stated offences."

S's course leader sent S's statement with the University's pro forma letter to the partner agencies. The letter asked the agencies to indicate whether they would be able to offer S a placement given her circumstances; whether S met the standards of conduct they would expect of social care staff and whether "… her convictions and current concerns should preclude her from being employed within your agency."

Both partner agencies indicated that they would not offer a placement to a student in S's circumstances and when the Convictions Panel subsequently met, it decided that S should be withdrawn from her course. When S's case was referred to the University's Termination of Studies Panel, she submitted mitigating circumstances with supporting evidence in the form of medical certificates, court records relating to her convictions, testimonials from professional referees and her more detailed explanation of the events surrounding her convictions. S's course leader, who was present at the hearing, informed the Termination of Studies Panel that as the partner agencies would not offer S a placement, the case was outside of the University's control because the University could not keep a student without a placement on the course.

The Termination of Studies Panel subsequently recommended that S be withdrawn and this was later confirmed by the Exam Board. S requested a review of the decision on the grounds of material administrative error. S was subsequently notified that her appeal had been rejected.

S complained to the OIA that:

• the University did not properly consider the mitigating circumstances she submitted to the Termination of Studies Panel;
• she was told the partner agencies would be contacted via a letter containing anonymised details of her case together with a copy of her written statement. However, email correspondence between the University and one of the agencies suggested that her circumstances had been the subject of several telephone conversations. S was concerned that her anonymity had not been preserved and that a fair process had not been followed in her case.

Reasons

The Termination of Studies Panel did not meet in private at the end of the hearing to consider the evidence and this procedural flaw amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice (the duty to act fairly). The OIA found that there was no record of any decision by the Termination of Studies Panel in relation to S's mitigating circumstances and that the evidence showed the Panel had accepted the arguments made by S's course leader without properly considering S's submissions. The OIA also found that the questions put to the partner agencies in the University's pro forma letter, and the information provided to them, went beyond what was required under the Screening Procedure. This meant that the agencies were provided with information which they should not have seen and asked to provide an opinion on matters which were beyond their remit under the Screening Procedure. As a consequence, both the Convictions Panel and the Termination of Studies Panel considered opinions about S which were unfairly obtained. The OIA found that the absence of any record of the conversations between the University and one partner agency about S's case was unfair to S because of the lack of transparency.

Finally, the OIA found that the University treated S's request for a review of the Exam Board's decision as an appeal. This was incorrect as, under the University's procedures, S was entitled to present her case to an Appeals Panel for a decision to be reached about whether she should be given leave to appeal and this did not happen.

Recommendations:

• the University to reconsider S's case at a fresh Termination of Studies Panel, ensuring that procedures for hearing and considering S's evidence in private are followed and giving reasons for its decision;
• fresh opinions to be sought from different partner agencies in relation to S's case. The partner agencies to be asked only whether they would be in a position to offer a placement to someone in S's situation, and to be provided only with anonymised details of the offences and dates;
• those opinions to be requested, and presented to the Termination of Studies Panel, by someone with no previous involvement in S's case.

Observations:

The OIA made the following suggestions:

• that Enhanced Criminal Records checks be carried out before admission to the social work course, in line with the procedure for other health and social care courses and GSCC guidance;
that the University keeps clear records of all deliberations and decisions, with reasons.

Course/Professional Body: Midwifery; Nursing and Midwifery Council

S was registered on a BSc Midwifery Course which was 18 months long. Under the requirements of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) the student was required to complete the course within 2.5 years of registering. S had successfully completed the academic elements of the course.

She failed her first placement but following a successful appeal was permitted to retake the placement as if for the first time. S failed the second placement but again made a successful appeal and was allowed to take the placement again. S failed the third placement. Under the course regulations S would have been permitted a fourth attempt to pass the placement which would have constituted her second formal attempt as the first two attempts had been disregarded.

After the third placement S was referred to a Practice Enquiry Panel. This was standard practice after a failed placement. At the Practice Enquiry Panel concerns were raised by a placement midwife about S's fitness to practise. The matter was referred to a Fitness to Practise Panel. The Fitness to Practise Panel concluded that S was not fit to practise and was withdrawn from the course. S appealed against the decision. A Disciplinary Appeal Panel upheld the appeal on the grounds that there had been a material procedural irregularity in the conduct of the Fitness to Practise Panel. The case was referred back to a newly formed Fitness to Practise Panel to decide whether S was fit to practise.

The second Fitness to Practise Panel concluded that S was fit to practise and should be given another placement. Unfortunately the original Trust would not provide another placement and the University was required to find another provider. S was informed of the outcome and her attention was drawn to the NMC deadline for completion.

The University wrote to S to say that the NMC would not extend the deadline for completing the course. Any second attempt placement had to be 4 weeks in length and so there was insufficient time for S to complete the placement. The University had no option but to withdraw her from the course.

S submitted a complaint to the University and a hearing was held 3 months after submission. The Complaint Panel concluded that there had been unreasonable delays and that a letter of apology should be issued to S. It also recommended changes to Department Procedures. It recommended that S should be readmitted to the Midwifery Programme subject to a placement being offered by a Trust and other relevant checks being obtained. The Department to make every reasonable effort to support S in finding a suitable placement and to meet the cost of readmission in the event that the Strategic Health Authority was unable to fund her.

The University was unable to find a Trust that would accommodate S and therefore was unable to satisfactorily resolve S's complaint.

S complained to the OIA that:

• the first Fitness to Practise Panel took 50 days to convene instead of 20;
• the appeal took 90 days to be heard. The Appeal Panel also comprised academics who could not decide fitness to practise issues. It upheld her appeal but had to refer the decision back to the Fitness to Practise Panel;
• the second Fitness to Practise Panel declared her fit to practise but with only four weeks to run of the two and half years stipulated by the NMC she would not be able to complete the placement in time; and
• the complaint took longer than it should.

The OIA found the complaint to be justified because there were unreasonable delays in convening the first Fitness to Practise and the Appeal Panels.

S's appeal was upheld as the first Fitness to Practise Panel failed to observe the University's procedures and principles of natural justice. Had it done so S may not have been obliged to appeal. However, there was no certainty that S would pass the repeat placement or that the University would be able to find a placement for her, but S lost the opportunity to complete her midwifery course.

It was noted that the University did endeavour to obtain a time extension from the NMC and obtain an alternative placement if S chose to repeat the course. It also offered to meet the costs if S was unable to obtain funding. The University did provide an apology for the delay in arranging the first fitness to practise panel but not in relation to the delays in the appeal process.

Reasons

The OIA found the complaint to be justified because there were unreasonable delays in convening the first Fitness to Practise and the Appeal Panels.

S's appeal was upheld as the first Fitness to Practise Panel failed to observe the University's procedures and principles of natural justice. Had it done so S may not have been obliged to appeal. However, there was no certainty that S would pass the repeat placement or that the University would be able to find a placement for her, but S lost the opportunity to complete her midwifery course.

It was noted that the University did endeavour to obtain a time extension from the NMC and obtain an alternative placement if S chose to repeat the course. It also offered to meet the costs if S was unable to obtain funding. The University did provide an apology for the delay in arranging the first fitness to practise panel but not in relation to the delays in the appeal process.

Recommendations:

• to pay the sum of £1,750 in respect of S's lost opportunity to complete the midwifery course. (The sum would have been considerably higher had it not been for the uncertainty over whether a placement would have been found for S);
• to pay the sum of £250 in compensation for the stress caused by the delays to the fitness to practise proceedings, including the appeal;
• an apology for all of the delays that occurred to the fitness to practise proceedings including the appeal process;
• to review its disciplinary appeal procedures to clarify the options available to the Appeal Panel and to set out the timescales for the appeals process.

Observations:

The University has reviewed its Fitness to Practise procedures and strengthened and extended internal communication processes to include confirming professional registration deadlines to assist processing of appeals.

Course/Professional Body: Counselling

S was studying for a Postgraduate Diploma in Counselling which required students to attend a clinical placement involving a minimum of 150 practice hours and at least 40 individual weekly supervision sessions. Five months into the course S was advised that he was to be held back from his placement because of concerns about his behaviour. S began his placement a year after joining the course. He received an "unsatisfactory" final supervision report. The External Examiner who considered the report said that a second placement was not appropriate because the report raised issues of unethical working and client risk together with some doubt that an improvement in performance would be likely.

The Exam Board agreed to recommend that S fail the course at the first attempt and be denied a second attempt at the placement because reassessment would entail an unacceptable risk for clients under the University's regulations. S appealed against the decision and asked to repeat the placement. The Appeals Panel rejected his appeal.

S made a second appeal to the Review Panel which agreed to recommend that S should be allowed to repeat the placement subject to a number of conditions. As the Review Panel proposed to vary the student's result it was required to seek the view of the External Examiner. The External Examiner refused to endorse the recommendation so the decision was referred to the University's Final Review Panel. The Final Review Panel rejected the Review Panel's recommendation and upheld the Exam Board's decision not to allow a second placement.

S complained to the OIA that the University's decision to refuse him a second placement was not justified because:

• there was no evidence to support the view that a second placement posed an unacceptable risk to clients;
• he received inadequate tutorial support;
• prior to the unsatisfactory final report he was not told of the alleged deficiencies in his performance or the possible consequences. His first and second reports were that his performance was satisfactory; and
• the Appeals Process was flawed. In particular the External Examiner may have been unfairly influenced by the Department who he contacted to discuss the case with after the Review Panel. The External Examiner may therefore have taken into account matters occurring after the decision to withdraw him from the course when he advised the Review Panel that he did not support its decision that S should be allowed to repeat the placement.

Reasons

The OIA's overall finding was that S's complaint was partly justified. The OIA considered the aspect of S's complaint that the Appeal Process was flawed to be justified. No finding was made in respect of S's other substantive complaints as they were not considered in the OIA's review in order to avoid prejudicing any further action that the OIA required the University to take because S's procedural complaint was justified.

The OIA found the procedural aspect of S's complaint to be justified because while the Regulations did not prohibit the External Examiner contacting staff prior to making a recommendation to the Final Review Panel, it is a fundamental principle of procedural fairness that parties to a dispute be allowed an equal opportunity to be heard before the decision maker. Both S and the Department were able to put their case to the Review Panel but the Department could not persuade the Panel that S should not have a second placement. While it was the External Examiner who contacted the Department and the Department may not have intended to influence the External Examiner's decision, the result was that the Department had another opportunity to influence the decision maker that S should not have a second placement.

It was considered to be a rare situation where the Final Review Panel would disagree with an External Examiner as to whether a student should have a second opportunity. The consequences of not being allowed a further placement are grave. As such it is of the utmost importance that the process by which the External Examiner reached their decision complies with the principles of procedural fairness and is procedurally beyond reproach.

Recommendations:

• That the University offer to refer S's case to another External Examiner (who has not been previously involved in the case) for a recommendation as to whether or not S should be allowed a second placement.
• The new External Examiner should have all the information presented to the Review Panel and should be advised their decision should be based solely on the documentation without discussion with the Department.
• If the new External Examiner refuses to endorse the Review Panel's recommendation that S be allowed a second placement, the decision should again be made by the Final Review Panel.

Course/Professional Body: Medicine; General Medical Council

S was registered on a MBChB course. Following the submission of a report she was informed by her Supervisor that there was suspected plagiarism. S then attended a Department interview where she agreed that she had committed plagiarism. In mitigation she said that she had submitted a draft version of her report rather than the final draft. She was advised that her report would receive zero marks and that the matter was going to be referred to a Fitness to Practise Panel due to the severity of her plagiarism.

The University on recognising that S had not been advised of her appeal rights against the Department decision, decided to treat her submission to the Fitness to Practise Panel as her appeal. It did not uphold her appeal on the grounds that S was responsible for ensuring that the correct version of the report had been submitted and that the plagiarism had been evident. It concluded that the penalty was reasonable and consistent.

S complained about the following:

• that the finding of plagiarism was not sustainable and that the penalty was not proportionate;
• that the University had not followed its own procedures.

Reasons

The OIA found the complaint partly justified because the University did not discharge its obligations in line with its regulations. It failed to consider the matter of intent when measuring the seriousness of the offence and considering what penalty to impose. The complaint about the finding of plagiarism was not upheld, as in general terms the nature and extend of plagiarism is an academic judgment and therefore outside the remit of the OIA Scheme.

Recommendations:

• vacate the penalty that had been imposed;
• refer the matter back to the Department for reconsideration, ensuring that the matter of intent was considered;
• consider amending the guidance to reflect the fact that intention to deceive is relevant to the penalty that will be imposed.

Course/Professional Body: Teaching; General Teaching Council

S was registered on a PGCE course. S received a fail for her final placement portfolio because she had not achieved some of the required practical teaching standards. S complained, arguing that this was due to the inadequacy of the placement. Having acknowledged some deficiencies of the placement, the University agreed to allow S another attempt and identified an alternative placement school. S rejected the alternative on the grounds that she had been given insufficient notice and that the school was too far from her home. The University subsequently notified her that her registration was being terminated under a clause in the terms and conditions of registration which said: "The University may terminate your Registration Agreement at any time if a partner school cannot be contracted which is willing to support you for any part of the course."

S lodged a complaint about her original placement school and noted that the University had terminated her registration on the basis of a condition which was not in her contract. In response, the University argued its decision to offer her an alternative placement had been reasonable. It said that S had not received the correct contract and that as S had rejected the alternative placement, her registration would now be terminated under a different provision, on the grounds of her failure either to make satisfactory progress or to complete her course within a three year period. S's appeal under the final stage of the Complaints Procedure was rejected by the University.

S complained to the OIA that:

• there were significant problems with her final teaching placement which the University did not properly address;
• an alternative placement was offered at short notice and at a considerable distance from S's home;
• S's registration was terminated under a clause which was not in her contract and before the expiry of the time in which she was allowed to qualify.

Reasons

The OIA found that for many of the issues raised by S, there was no independent evidence that could be interpreted to support either party. The University's decision not to investigate the details of S's first complaint and to offer her an alternative placement was taken in the best interests of S. The University later carried out a detailed investigation at the final stage of the Complaints Procedure.

There was a shortage of placements and the University made an exhaustive search for an alternative school. The OIA found that although the allocated placement was further away than would have been ideal, in the circumstances it was not unreasonable to expect S to undertake the travel for a twelve-week period.

The OIA found a lack of clarity in the way the University had applied its regulations to terminate S's registration but that it was entitled to do so as S had rejected a reasonable offer of a placement. For this reason the University was justified in considering that S was responsible for her own lack of progress. The OIA found that it was reasonable for the University to conclude that it would be unlikely to find another placement for S and that there was no benefit to S in continuing her registration.

Summary

Course/Professional Body: Nursing (Mental Health); Nursing and Midwifery Council

S was studying for a DipHE in Nursing (Mental Health). During S's first placement, the Hospital made the University aware of concerns regarding S's attitude, poor motivation and use of his mobile phone. After these were discussed with S there were no further problems and he successfully completed the placement. During the second placement post-placement interview S's social skills were discussed and identified as an area for further learning because S came across as aggressive, rude and abrupt. When S failed an assignment he sought out the Tutor and told her he should have passed. The Tutor felt intimidated by S's demeanour and by the fact he had sought her out.

S was involved in an incident with a patient with a history of mental health issues. When the patient refused to return to his room, S approached the patient which escalated the situation and S physically restrained the patient. The University suspended S from his clinical placement as it was concerned his actions might constitute assault but S was able to continue attending University. A Disciplinary Panel decided that while S had mismanaged the situation he could return to his placement as he had not acted inappropriately and no further action should be taken against him.

The time taken for his hearing to proceed meant S missed his fifth placement and the start of his sixth. S visited the relevant department a few days after his hearing to find out when he could rejoin his cohort on placement. He became angry and shouted accusations of racism when he learnt that the Hospital would not allow him to start his placement until it had received formal notification that there was no sanction against him. S subsequently rejoined his cohort on the seventh placement. Towards the end S was told there were concerns that he was not achieving an adequate level of competency and his behaviour was unsatisfactory, in particular his lack of punctuality, use of his mobile phone and falling asleep at work. During a subsequent Hospital staff meeting, S's mobile phone rang despite previous instruction that mobile phones should be switched off while staff were working. After the meeting the Regulations were discussed with S and he was asked to leave the Hospital and return the following week. S became aggressive and hostile and refused to leave. After eventually doing so, S did not return to the placement. When the University was told of these events it referred S to a Fitness to Practise Panel.

The Panel concluded that the three incidents of aggression along with the other concerns that had been raised showed a pattern of unprofessional and inappropriate behaviour which was incompatible with the nursing profession. S was withdrawn from the course but was not excluded from the University. S lodged an appeal. The Appeals Panel decided that the primary cause for concern was S's perceived aggressive behaviour. S had been repeatedly told of these concerns but any improvements were not sustained. The Appeals Panel concluded that when the Fitness to Practise Panel had decided he was not fit to practise it had no option but to withdraw him.

S complained to the OIA that:

• he had not been made fully aware of the problems with, and consequences of, his behaviour;
• the Fitness to Practise Panel's decision that he should be withdrawn was too severe

Reasons

The OIA found the complaint to be not justified because there was sufficient evidence that the University explained to S the problems with his behaviour and it would have been implicit in these discussions that his conduct was incompatible with a career as a nurse.

The University did not breach its procedures in conducting the Fitness to Practise Panel or the Appeal because:

• it had concerns about his suitability to remain on the programme so it was appropriate to use the fitness to practise procedures;
• the concerns about S's behaviour were considered sufficiently serious to justify taking the case straight to the formal stage and this was not unreasonable;
• there were four panel members which constitutes a valid panel under the University regulations
• in accordance with the regulations, the Chair requested evidence and S had the opportunity to present his case;
• S was notified of the outcome of the hearings.

Observations

S complained that the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel was too severe. In the circumstances of this case, the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel was a matter of professional judgment with which the OIA cannot interfere. In deciding this the OIA took into account the judgment of Mr Justice Stanley Burnton in the case of Matthew Highham v The University of Plymouth [2005] EWHC 1492 (Admin), in particular the following:

"In deciding whether the decision should be set aside, the Court, which is less qualified to make the decision under challenge than the decision maker, must approach that decision fairly made by those qualified to make it with the respect and deference due in such circumstances."

S was studying for the award of PhD.

S submitted his thesis for examination and the examiners carried out a preliminary report prior to the viva.

The examiners decided that the thesis was not of PhD standard and S was awarded an MPhil, subject to minor amendments being completed.

S lodged an academic appeal against the decision which was heard before an Appeals Panel. S said that there had been a procedural error in the conduct of the examination. S said that his supervisor had incorrectly advised him to submit his thesis for examination, even though S considered it was not ready for submission. S also said that his supervisor informed him that, if the examiners considered the thesis was not of an acceptable standard, they would make recommendations and he would be given the opportunity to resubmit the thesis at a later stage. S also stated that he had not been informed of the reasons why his thesis did not meet the criteria for a PhD award. S believed that his PhD thesis had been judged against a different set of criteria than that set out in the University’s Regulations.

S attended the appeal hearing. The Appeal Panel rejected the appeal on the grounds that S had failed to establish the grounds of appeal.

S complained to the OIA that:

• He did not receive feedback from the examiners following the failure of his PhD.M
• He was given incorrect advice regarding the submission of his thesis by his supervisor.

The OIA found the complaint to be Not Justified.

The OIA found that there was no breach of the assessment regulations in the marking of the S’s thesis. The OIA found that S was, in fact, challenging the academic judgment of the examiners and the OIA was unable to interfere with the University’s academic judgment. The OIA was satisfied from the documents provided that the examiners had identified significant failings in the thesis. The OIA noted that it was the academic judgment of the examiners that the thesis could not meet the standard of PhD even if further work were completed. The OIA found that this decision was open to the examiners under the University’s assessment regulations.

The OIA was satisfied that it was the student’s responsibility to decide when his thesis was ready for submission as set out in the Research Handbook.

The OIA noted that students were clearly informed by the University of all possible outcomes in the examination process. The OIA considered that, in deciding when to submit their thesis for examination, all students must weigh up the likelihood that they may not reach the required PhD standard and consider the implications of all possible results which may be awarded.

The OIA found that the Appeal was conducted in accordance with the University’s procedures and the decision to reject the appeal was reasonable in the circumstances.

S was studying medicine at the University. He was born in the UK in 1989 and, in 1996, his family moved to the USA due to his mother’s employment. His mother had continued to work in the USA on temporary annual contracts since that point. S then returned to the UK in 2007 to continue his studies.

Prior to registering as a student, S was classed as an international student and was charged international fees on that basis. Following his registration at the University, S submitted a number of appeals to the University against his classification as an international student.

S stated that as he was now settled in the UK following his 18th birthday and that as the only citizenship he held was British, he intended to settle permanently in the UK. S stated that he had not lived in the UK for three years prior to his registration as a student, but he had come to the UK with a one way ticket and therefore he was now permanently and ordinarily settled in the UK. S asked that he be charged home fees.

The University rejected the appeal and maintained that as S had not been ordinarily resident in the UK in the last three years, it was right to charge him international student fees.

S complained to the OIA that the University was incorrect to charge him international student fees and he was entitled to be charged home fees in line with the University’s regulations.

The OIA found the complaint to be Not Justified as the OIA found that, in order for S to be charged home fees, he needed to demonstrate that his time abroad had been temporary due to his parents’ employment abroad.  If he proved this he would be considered to be an ‘excepted student’ and would only have to pay home fees.

The OIA found that the DfES guidance provided a check list for absence due to employment to assist assessors in reaching a decision on cases where British students had not been in resident in the UK for three years. The OIA noted that this guidance advises universities that consideration should be given to whether the employment contract of the parent was the first overseas posting of its type or whether it was a continuation of similar contracts. It stated that a succession of similar temporary contracts could be construed as permanent employment

The OIA was satisfied that the University was able to consider S’s mother’s succession of temporary contracts as an indictor that she was permanently employed abroad and found that the decision to charge S international student fees was reasonable in all the circumstances.

S was a part-time student studying for an award of PhD.

S’s first supervisor, Professor A, left the University two years into S’s research and her second supervisor, Professor B, became the lead supervisor.  S was not allocated a new second supervisor.  Four years later, the University carried out an audit of all research students and S was asked to attend a progress meeting with the Research Degree Committee (“RDC”) to discuss her apparent lack of progress.  At the meeting, S was advised that she was to be withdrawn from the course because she had not submitted any progress or annual reports during her time on the course as required under the University’s regulations. 

S appealed to the Vice Chancellor against the decision of the RDC on the basis of various mitigating circumstances including failure by the University to provide appropriate resources and ill health and family problems, all of which impeded her progress.  S also stated that she had submitted her annual reports when the University provided them to her to complete and that she had not had any supervision for four years.

The Vice Chancellor rejected S’s appeal.

S complained to the OIA that:

• Her annual reports had been submitted except that for the current year.
• S had not been warned of the time limits or given a deadline in which to submit the 10 month progress report prior to being withdrawn.
• The University had not provided S with a new second supervisor and Professor B had been unavailable for supervision.
• S was not provided with the necessary resources to undertake her studies, even though she made the University aware of her problems.
• The University failed to take into account of her mitigating circumstances.
• S had not been warned prior to the progress meeting that she was to be withdrawn and she considered that the outcome of the meeting had been predetermined.
• The minutes of the progress meeting were not an accurate reflection of the meeting.
• There was also a delay in sending a copy of the minutes to her.

The OIA found the complaint to be Partly Justified.

The OIA was highly critical of the University’s failure to ensure adequate supervisory arrangements were in place for S when Professor A left.  Whilst the OIA accepted that the supervisory relationship was of a two way nature and it was satisfied that S should have contacted Professor B after Professor A had left the University, in the OIA’s view the primary responsibility for perceiving and acting on a problem lay with Professor B.  When Professor A left the University that role, as the University accepted, should have been assumed by Professor B.

The OIA noted that the University failed to provide any clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the student / supervisor relationship.  The OIA also noted that there appeared to have been no supervisory framework as recommended in the QAA Code of Practice. 

The OIA concluded that S appeared not to have received any supervision from Professor B nor was she reminded by him of the milestones that she was expected to meet in order to progress on the course.  The OIA noted that the University admitted in its internal document that Professor B had never supervised the student.  The OIA was critical that the University had failed to monitor, or addressed, S’s lack of academic progress for four years. 

The OIA noted that S had not been proactive in addressing her supervision and her lack of academic progress and it appeared that S was content to continue to re-enrol on the course and pay fees each year in spite of receiving no supervision and making no apparent academic progress.  However, the OIA did not think it reasonable for the University to continue to allow S to re-enrol on the course each year in such circumstances as the University’s regulations made it clear that at least once a year, the RDC needed to establish whether a candidate was actively engaged on the research programme and was maintaining regular and frequent contact with supervisors.   The RDC was also required to consider reports from the supervisors on the candidate’s progress and take appropriate action.  This had not happened in S’s case.

The OIA was not satisfied that the letter sent to S prior to the progress meeting notified her that she might be withdrawn.  The OIA considered that given the seriousness of the potential outcome, S should have been made explicitly aware of the possible outcome of the meeting. 

The OIA was also critical of the apparent lack of any written procedure governing the process by which the University may withdraw a postgraduate student due to lack of academic progress.

The OIA upheld S’s complaint that the University did not provide the minutes of the progress meeting in a timely manner which made it difficult for S to formulate her appeal.

The OIA noted that the University did not have a mitigating circumstance procedure for postgraduate research students.  However, the OIA found that the University was entitled to find that the circumstances which S raised in her appeal did not adequately explain her lack of progress on the course.

• The University put in place mechanisms to ensure that where a change in the supervisory team is required, the student is notified in writing of the fact and of the steps taken by the University to facilitate the change.
• The University review its procedures for monitoring the progress of research degree students on at least an annual basis.
• The University review its mechanisms for providing feedback on a student’s lack of academic progress and to ensure that all staff receive training to ensure that they are aware of their roles in that process.  As part of the review, the University should consider providing clear written guidance in the Handbook and Regulations as to the process to be followed in the event that it becomes necessary to withdraw a student through the lack of academic progress.
• The University to offer to pay S the sum of £800 for compensation for the failings highlighted.  In deciding this amount, the OIA took into account the fact that S was not sufficiently proactive in raising and resolving these issues.

The OIA noted that comments made by academic staff at the progress meeting were insensitive and, whilst the OIA did not consider the comments were material to the University’s decision to withdraw S, the University may wish to consider that staff should be aware of the need to handle discussions with students, particularly those facing withdrawal, with an appropriate level of sensitivity.

S was an international student registered on a postgraduate research course.

Before being accepted onto the Course, the University interviewed and obtained references on S.  It ascertained that her International English Language Testing System (“IELTS”) score was poor and that her results from her previous master’s course were low passes.  As a condition of being accepted on to the University’s programme, S was required to attend English classes.  S attended some English classes, but gave them up, informing her supervisor of this.

Although there were difficulties in arranging mutually convenient tutorials, eight sessions were held and the Annual Review indicated that good progress had been made and that there was a satisfactory student-supervisor relationship.  However, S’s application to transfer to PhD study was not approved because of poor research design compounded by the use of poor English.

S complained to the head of the PhD programme about the decision of the Transfer Panel and her supervision.  A meeting was held with the head of the PhD programme and her supervisor to determine the way forward.  After several further supervision sessions, a revised transfer application was submitted.  The supervisor initially responded that he could not provide any feedback because of the poor English.  After several resubmissions, he provided detailed written feedback.  The second Transfer Panel approved the revised application and S progressed to PhD study.

S submitted an outline of her research which related to a different topic to that agreed by the Transfer Panel.  The supervisor requested further information on the new proposal.  S was in her home country at that stage and, after being chased by the supervisor, appeared confused as to what was required of her. 

S refused to sign the subsequent annual review form and met with the Head of PhD Studies and requested a different supervisor.  The University agreed to this.

Several months later, it became apparent there were difficulties between the new supervisor and S.  S requested a more “sympathetic” supervisor.  S attended meetings with the Head of the PhD Studies and the new supervisor to discuss the supervision arrangements and the work required of her.  In the second of the meetings, S appeared distressed and was referred to the Student Health Centre.  S complained about the meeting.

S attended a further meeting with the head of the PhD Studies, the new supervisor and the Dean of Faculty to discuss her lack of progress and the continuation of her registration.  S was informed that she appeared to have unrealistic expectations of the role of her supervisor and was offered the option of changing to study for an MPhil which she appeared to accept.  S submitted a draft MPhil thesis to the head of PhD study.

S subsequently made a formal complaint about inadequate supervision and the decision to transfer her to an MPhil programme.  The complaint was not upheld.  S submitted a further complaint but this was also rejected.

S requested that the OIA reviewed:

• The supervision she received.
• The University’s investigation of her complaint.
• The decision to transfer her to an MPhil programme.

The OIA found the complaint to be Partly Justified.

The OIA found that the University admitted S onto the PhD programme knowing of her low marks in her master’s course and that she had a poor IELTS test score. Whilst the OIA could not comment on the University’s decision to accept her on the course, the OIA found that the University should have been on notice that S required more support than other students in the circumstances.

The OIA considered that much of S’s complaint arose from her not fully understanding the nature of independent study at PhD level and having an incorrect view of what was required of her and her supervisors.  The OIA considered that this was not addressed at the outset of her research as required by the Regulations. 

The OIA found that the decision to transfer S to an MPhil programme was one of academic judgment and it fell outside the scope of the OIA’s review. 
The OIA noted that the University had already waived £8,000 of S’s fees.

S was registered on part time taught MA course. Students were required to pass a core research skills module and two option modules in stage 1 and a dissertation in stage 2 to complete the MA.

S selected two option modules taught by Dr A. Four months into S’s studies Dr A left the University's employment but continued to be responsible for supporting students on these modules, offering remote support by email.

Owing to illness S requested an extension, which was granted, to complete her assessed work for these modules.  S also drew attention to Dr A's absence. S submitted her assessments by the new deadline.

The Exam Board noted that S had failed stage 1 of the course and it thought that she had withdrawn.  The Exam Board therefore did not arrange for her to take any reassessments.

S submitted an Appeal against the decision of the Exam Board. She stated that she had received no lectures in writing and research skills at Masters level which she felt was needed to  adjust to postgraduate writing and she complained about Dr A’s absence and a lack of support.

The University rejected S's Appeal on the grounds that the Exam Board had been aware of all the matters raised by S at the time it made its decision.  It said that after Dr A had left, S had been able to contact Dr A and that Professor B had been available for additional support.  The University stated that Professor B said that S had only had minimal contact with him.  The University noted that the Chair of the Exam Board said that a student studying at this level should already have a good standard of essay writing and that further guidance was available in the handbook.  The University took her ill health into consideration when making its decision.  It also said that S’s complaint was a result of a mismatch of her expectations of the programme and the Department’s expectations of the students.  The University suggested that Masters level study was characterized by independent study and research rather than direct teaching.  It went on to say that, as S had a good degree, it was not unreasonable for her to have made the transition to master’s level smoothly.

S complained to the OIA about her appeal. The OIA suspended consideration of S's application because the University was investigating her complaint and there were considerable areas of overlap with her appeal. The University rejected S's application to initiate the final stage of the complaints procedure because it was out of time.

S subsequently complained to the OIA that:

• The University did not offer appropriate levels of academic support which caused her to fail. S contended that the University did not provide the level of teaching outlined in the programme handbook and emails from Dr A were not equivalent to face-to-face teaching.
• The stress S suffered as a result of this lack of support caused her to be unwell which had financial consequences.

The OIA found the complaint Justified.

The University did not consider whether S's concerns were based on a legitimate expectation that she would receive face-to-face teaching in order to develop the skills and knowledge required by the course. The University consideration of the complaint was insufficiently investigated as the Department did not present any evidence that S had been supported in the manner promised by the prospectus. The OIA found that the course prospectus and handbook, and other published material stressed the importance of personal tutorial contact and the acquisition and development of skills at master's level through regular meetings and tutor-led learning.

The OIA was critical of the University's management of the tutor’s departure as there was no discussion with individual students as to the impact of Dr A’s departure. No alternative support was put in place until students expressed dissatisfaction.

The Exam Board’s decision in regard to S’s progression was based on a flawed assumption that she had withdrawn. A lack of transparency in the appeals procedure meant S was not given a copy of the papers so was unaware the Board had made this assumption and was unable to challenge it.

The University was unhelpful in the manner in which it communicated information about the final stage of its complaints procedure as its letter did not say it was possible to appeal against the formal decision letter or provide any time limits for doing so. Its decision to reject C’s complaint as out of time was unreasonable.

As S had obtained a lesser award of PG Diploma, the OIA did not consider it appropriate to recommend her fees be refunded in full. It recommended that the University:

• Should offer to pay £900 in compensation for its failure to provide academic support as described in the course prospectus and handbook.
• Should consider the effect of this failure properly within its appeal and complaints procedures.

The OIA was critical of the fact that the University did not provide S with copies of reports prepared by the Department in response to her appeal prior to the appeal panel hearing.  The OIA considers that universities have a duty to act fairly and is required to ensure that all parties to a dispute should have the opportunity to see and comment on material relied on by the decision maker.  The OIA strongly suggested that the University reviewed its procedures in relation to this.

Summary

S was registered on an MA by research course, which included the submission of a thesis. 

The supervisor said that only stylistic changes needed to be made to S’s thesis. The supervisor believed there were issues with S’s level of English but did not advise her to undertake further classes to address this issue.  When S asked whether the thesis was of a standard to submit, the supervisor hesitated and suggested they consult with another person.   The supervisor arranged for a retired colleague to review the thesis.  The colleague’s comments were more critical than the supervisor’s.  S made the amendments and the supervisor again gave positive feedback to S.

S was subsequently referred in her thesis.  S complained to the Director of Research Development that she had received inadequate supervision and of delays.  The Director responded that delays had occurred due to emails being sent to another staff member with the same name as her tutor and also reported that the examiners had indicated that the thesis should be referred for further work before an oral examination could take place.

S escalated her complaint about inadequate supervision to the Head of the Department.  S said that she had had positive comments from her supervisor on the thesis and was disappointed to learn that the thesis required profound reworking and restructuring.  S asked for compensation in the form of a transfer to another university for which the University would pay the transfer fee.

The Head of the Department rejected the complaint.  He believed that S received more supervision than other students and that her supervisor had raised issues similar to those raised by the examiners.

S escalated her complaint.  A reply was due within ten working days.  Four months later, the University replied rejecting the complaint.  It emphasised that the responsibility for the academic nature of the research and the final thesis submission lay with the student.

S complained to the OIA that she had been unfairly treated by the University.  S said that the supervision was so poor she did not wish to stay at the University after her thesis had been referred.

The OIA found the complaint to be Justified.

The OIA found that the University was unable to provide any record of supervision of S’s research or minutes of meetings which took place to discuss S’s dissatisfaction with the supervision.  The supervisor had not completed any successful supervisions of PhD at the time of S’s supervision.  S had not been given any Personal Development Portfolio as required by the Regulations.  S had not been interviewed before being accepted onto the course nor did the Department require her to attend the Induction Day as stipulated in the Regulations.  S was not required to undergo an annual review or offered targeted training as set out in the Regulations.

The OIA’s review showed that the supervisor had many other commitments, suffered serious health issues and was not always available to respond to S’s questions. 

In light of the general tone of the email correspondence, the lack of the primary documentation which should have recorded the key stages of the research degree process, the OIA found that the University failed to demonstrate that it complied with the normal professional levels of supervision and guidance routinely anticipated by students to ensure satisfactory progress in a research degree.

In referring to his retired colleague rather than following the supervision procedures, the OIA considered that the supervisor showed a lack of confidence in his own skills to monitor the work and to offer the kind of constructive criticism that was required.

The OIA was not satisfied that the University adequately addressed S’s concerns regarding her supervision.

The OIA found that there were delays in the University’s handling of S’s complaints and in responding to the OIA’s requests for information.

• The University should offer S the sum of £3,500 in compensation.

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.