CASE SUMMARIES

Procedural issues: Prima facie review - PI011509

Buckinghamshire New University

We found a complaint Partly Justified where a student’s appeal against failing his course was refused by a senior member of staff who indicated that she had undertaken a prima facie review of the application.

Procedural issues: Prima facie review - PI011510

Keele University

A student complained about the University’s refusal on prima facie grounds to consider her grievance about a refusal, also on prima facie grounds, to allow her to appeal against academic decisions. We found that the academic appeal decision had drawn on written representations from the relevant school that had not been shared with the student, counter to the normal definition of prima facie.

Procedural issues: Prima facie review - PI011511

King’s College London

A student at King’s College London brought a complex complaint after being investigated for suspected manipulation of research data. We found that the panel that had first investigated the allegations had gone beyond its remit.

Procedural issues: Prima facie review - PI011512

London Business School

A student at the London Business School was informed that he had failed his second attempt at an exam. He then submitted an appeal on the grounds that there had been administrative error or procedural irregularity and bias against him. A report by an assigned member of staff concluded there were no prima facie grounds for referral of his appeal to an Academic Appeal Committee and the reconsideration of the assessment was that it was still a fail. The student submitted a complaint to us

Procedural issues: Importance of following procedures - PI011513

Kellogg College, Oxford

We found a student’s complaint about the way her appeal and subsequent complaint were handled Partly Justified because the College had not followed the University’s academic appeal procedures.

Procedural issues: Importance of following procedures - PI011514

Swansea University

A student at Swansea University enrolled on an MPhil with the intention of progressing to a PhD. After the first year, the student appealed the University’s decision that she should remain on the MPhil degree, with the decision about whether she should progress to a PhD deferred. This appeal was resolved informally, with the University making an offer in full and final satisfaction of the student’s academic appeal and concerns. The student accepted this offer and subsequently attended a second viva examination in accordance with the offer. Following this viva, the Academic Panel informed her once again that she should remain on the MPhil degree, with the decision to be reviewed a few months later. It set out a total of nine reservations about her work.

Procedural issues: Importance of following procedures - PI011515

University of Wolverhampton

A student on a course validated by the University complained to us about the way the University had handled her complaint about a number of issues including the marking process and the communication of results to students.

Procedural issues: Access to complaints and appeals processes - PI011516

Durham University

A postgraduate student complained that the University had refused to accept a complaint that he had submitted outside the 28 day time limit, and after he had received his final results. The student stated that he had not wished to complain earlier in case this had an adverse effect on his degree results.

Disability and ill-health: Responsibility on students to seek diagnosis and provide appropriate evidence - PI091401

Loughborough University

We often review cases where students do not submit claims until after the end of their degree programme. In these circumstances the University’s procedures will normally set out very clearly the type of evidence that students need to provide on the issue that they believe affected performance and on why they were unable to provide evidence at the time.