Case summary February 2025 | Settled
This case summary describes a student’s complaint about how their provider responded to their report of sexual misconduct by another student. It contains a brief description of the sexual misconduct.
Case summary February 2025 | Settled
This case summary describes a student’s complaint about how their provider responded to their academic appeal and it contains a brief description of sexual misconduct. The student explained within their appeal that their academic performance had been affected by sexual misconduct committed by a work colleague.
Case summary February 2025 | Not Justified
This case summary describes a reported student’s complaint about their provider’s decision to suspend them as a precautionary measure while it considered whether the student had committed sexual misconduct under its disciplinary procedures. It contains a brief description of the sexual misconduct reported by other students at the provider.
Case summary February 2025 | Not Justified
This case summary describes a reported student’s complaint about the outcome of their provider’s disciplinary process, the provider decided the student had committed sexual misconduct. It contains a brief description of the sexual misconduct reported by another student at the provider.
Case summary February 2025 | Justified
This case summary describes a reported student’s complaint about the outcome of their provider’s disciplinary process, the provider decided the student had committed sexual misconduct. It contains a brief description of the sexual misconduct reported by other students at the provider.
Case summary February 2025 | Partly Justified
This case summary describes a reported student’s complaint about the outcome of their provider’s disciplinary process, the provider decided the student had committed sexual misconduct. It contains a brief description of the sexual misconduct reported by members of staff at the provider.
Case summary December 2024 | Justified
An undergraduate student completed their first year at provider A. The provider informed students that some second-year modules would be unavailable to the student’s cohort due to over recruitment in a different department. The student submitted a complaint to provider A and said that because some available modules had prerequisites, this left them with limited module choices for their second year and would also impact their module choices during their third year.
Case summary December 2024 | Settled
An international student was studying on a two-year Masters programme. During the summer between the student’s first and second years the provider learned that the course hadn’t been accredited by the relevant professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) as expected. Students were informed of this several weeks later, 10 days before the start of the second year. Because the course wouldn’t be accredited, students would need to pass an additional exam after completing their studies to be able to register with the PSRB.
Case summary December 2024 | Not Justified
A student applied for recognition of prior learning (RPL) to make use of credits they had achieved at another provider. The student later complained to their new provider that its prospectus was misleading because the course hadn’t delivered the practical experience described. The provider rejected this complaint.
Case summary December 2024 | Not Justified
A former postgraduate student complained to their provider that their degree certificate didn’t include a classification. The provider didn’t uphold their complaint. The student had successfully applied for Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) and had therefore only completed their 60-credit dissertation at the provider.
We publish summaries of some of the complaints that we review. We always leave out of the summary any information that might identify the student who made the complaint. In some cases we decide that it is in the public interest to publish a summary of a complaint that includes the name of the provider.
