Current Case Studies

S was a student at the University in 1999/2000 and complained that he was not informed by the university that he had to repeat his project within two years. Due to financial constraints he decided not to progress the matter until 2009 and discovered that he was no longer permitted to do so.

The OIA considered that under Rule 4.5 it 'would not normally consider a complaints where it considers that the substantive events complaint about occurred more than three years before the Scheme Application Form is received'. It was therefore found that this complaint was ineligible.

S appealed to the Deputy Adjudicator.

Reasons

The Deputy Adjudicator confirmed the previous decision. She concluded that it would not be possible to conduct a fair review of events in 1999/2000 and observed that it was likely that important documents will have been destroyed and recollections of the individuals concerned will have faded.

S submitted an appeal to the University. There were three stages to the University's appeal procedures. The student completed the first two stages but did not escalate his appeal to the final third stage. In the University's response to the second stage appeal, the student was signposted to the final stage of the appeals procedure and it also said that if the student did not submit a stage three appeal within the relevant timescale, it would assume that the student wished to withdraw the appeal and abide by the original decision of the Exam Board. When the student did not escalate the appeal, the University sent the student a Completion of Procedures letter. The OIA decided that the student's complaint was not eligible under rule Rule 4.1 of our Scheme Rules set out below:

'A complainant must have first exhausted the internal complaints procedures of the HEI complained about before bringing a complaint to the OIA. In exceptional circumstances a Reviewer may accept a complaint for review even if the internal complaints procedures of the HEI have not been exhausted if he or she considers it appropriate to do so.'

The OIA could find not any exceptional circumstances in the student's Scheme Application Form for not completing the University's internal procedures.

S appealed to the Deputy Adjudicator.

Reasons

The Deputy Adjudicator confirmed the original decision. She concluded that S's appeal fell within the permitted grounds for stage 3 of the University's procedures, and S had not provided evidence of exceptional circumstances for not progressing her appeal to stage 3. The Deputy Adjudicator noted that the University explained the implications of not proceeding to the next stage of the appeals procedure. She also noted that the University issued a Completion of Procedures Letter which confirmed that its internal procedures were concluded and which stated that the student 'may be able to complain' to the OIA, 'provided [his] complaint [was] eligible under its Rules.' The Deputy Adjudicator noted that the University had issued the Completion of Procedures Letter correctly because S had no further recourse within the University because he had not complied with the time limit for progressing his appeal.

S was issued with a Completion of Procedures Letter and an unsigned Form was received one day late. A further signed Scheme Application Form was received 8 days later.

There is discretion to accept complaints after the deadline under Rule 4.2 of the OIA Scheme Rules which says:

'The OIA will not normally consider a complaint unless it is received within three months from the date upon which the internal complaints procedures [of the University] were exhausted except where the Reviewer extends the time because he or she is satisfied that there is good reason to do so.'

S was therefore asked provide reasons and independent evidence if there were exceptional reasons as to why the form was not submitted within the three months.

S stated that the reason for the delay as a minor operation and said that evidence would be provided. S subsequently submitted medical evidence which described a back pain and did not mention the unrelated operation. It was dated before the Completion of Procedures Letter was issued.

S appealed to the Deputy Adjudicator.

Reasons

The Deputy Adjudicator confirmed the decision. She concluded that the certificate did not amount to a good reason to waive the normal time limit as it related to a period of one week before the Completion of Procedures Letter was issued, and did not cover the three month period during which the Scheme Application Form ought to have been submitted. As no evidence regarding S's operation was submitted the OIA were unable to assess whether it amounted to a good reason to waive time limits.

S wished to bring a complaint to the OIA about her former supervisor when she was enquiring about being readmitted to the University. However, the substantive events complained about took place more than three years ago. Under Rule 4.5 the 'OIA will not normally consider a complaint where it considers that the substantive events complained about occurred more than three years before the Scheme Application Form is received by the OIA'.

The OIA also considered that part of the complaint related to an admissions issue, something the OIA cannot consider under Rule 2 of the OIA Scheme Rules.

S appealed to the Deputy Adjudicator and argued that she was effectively suspended and not withdrawn from her studies.

Reasons

The Deputy Adjudicator confirmed the decision. She was satisfied that S was withdrawn from her studies and that S could have complained about this decision at the time. That decision, and the events involving her supervisor, were more than three years ago and there were no reasons to waive the OIA's normal rule. The Deputy Adjudicator agreed that University reasonably treated S's subsequent requests to recommence her studies as an admissions matter which is outside the OIA's remit.

S's Scheme Application Form was received six days after the three month deadline. The OIA advised S that her complaint was not eligible under Rule 4.2 of the Scheme because her Scheme Application Form was sent more than three months after the date of the University's Completion of Procedures letter. S had also been reminded of the relevant time frame in correspondence with the University. The OIA considered that there is discretion under Rule 4.2 to accept the complaint where there is 'good reason to do so'. However, S had only provided limited medical evidence to support her argument that she was unable to submit her Scheme Application Form before the deadline.

S appealed to the Deputy Adjudicator.

Reasons

The Deputy Adjudicator considered that a complaint about the original appeal was out of time. However, it was clear that S wanted to complain about the outcome of the reassessment not the decision on the original appeal. S did not have a Completion of Procedures Letter relating to the reassessment.

The OIA found that there was no further right of appeal within the University following a reassessment and therefore it appeared that the University's procedures were complete. The OIA therefore asked the University either to issue a further Completion of Procedures Letter or advise S on what further steps she need to take to obtain one.

S's Scheme Application Form was received six days after the three month deadline. The OIA advised S that her complaint was not eligible under Rule 4.2 of the Scheme because her Scheme Application Form was sent more than three months after the date of the University's Completion of Procedures letter. S had also been reminded of the relevant time frame in correspondence with the University. The OIA considered that there is discretion under Rule 4.2 to accept the complaint where there is 'good reason to do so'. However, S had only provided limited medical evidence to support her argument that she was unable to submit her Scheme Application Form before the deadline. S appealed to the Deputy Adjudicator.

Reasons

The Deputy Adjudicator allowed S's appeal. S explained that she was working full time and had dyslexia which meant that it had taken her longer than anticipated to complete the Scheme Application Form. The Deputy Adjudicator took into account the fact that S had dyslexia and had not received any help in compiling her complaint and completing the Scheme Application Form. The OIA decided to exercise its discretion under Rule 4.2 and was pleased to note that S was intending to obtain help from her Students' Union.

S wished to complain about the University rejecting her appeal because it considered S did not provide a valid reason for submitting her claim for mitigating circumstances before the Examining Board's Meeting.

S submitted her Scheme Application Form to the OIA 11 days past the three month deadline. S did not provide medical evidence for why she did not send the Scheme Application Form within the three month period. The OIA decided the complaint was not eligible under Rule 4.2.

S appealed to the Deputy Adjudicator.

Reasons

The Deputy Adjudicator allowed the appeal because S provided further medical evidence, namely a note from a doctor which confirmed that her symptoms included depression, poor mental functioning and forgetfulness in the period during which S had to make her complaint. The Deputy Adjudicator therefore decided that the OIA should exercise its discretion under Rule 4.2 and accept the complaint out of time.