34We may decide not to review a complaint if we believe it has no serious purpose, or is intended to cause disruption or annoyance, or if the student is seeking an unrealistic remedy. The following are examples of the type of complaint which we may decide not to review under this Rule:
34.1We have considered the same complaint previously, and we have decided not to reopen our review.
34.2The complaint is about something which a fair-minded person would consider to be trivial.
34.3The student is pursuing the complaint in a way that is having a negative effect on our staff or our work.
34.4The complaint is designed to cause disruption or annoyance.
34.5The student is asking for a remedy which lacks any serious purpose or value.
35We may decide not to review a complaint if we believe reviewing it might seriously damage our ability to run our processes effectively (or seriously impair the effective operation of the OIA Scheme). For example:
35.1The complaint relates to events which took place over a significant period of time (more than three years) and involves a very high volume of documentation.
35.2A different forum is better equipped to consider the matter: for example, complaints about data protection issues will normally be better considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
35.3There are other proceedings taking place within the higher education provider or elsewhere which are relevant to the complaint. For example, a student complains to us about an academic appeal and they want to be given a further resit opportunity. The student is also the subject of separate disciplinary proceedings which might result in their exclusion. If they are excluded then they would not be able to take advantage of a further resit opportunity. There would be no point in conducting a review of the academic appeal before the results of the disciplinary proceedings are known.
